Business Recorder Editorial Dec 6, 2018

PM’s interview

Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan held forth in a long interview with select TV anchors on December 3, 2018. While covering a whole range of subjects from the economy to the government having the support of the army, perhaps the most startling pronouncement was the declared intent to run the government’s legislative business through Ordinances. The argument in favour of this course that the PM mustered was that it would help overcome the numerical parliamentary challenge since the treasury does not enjoy a majority in the Senate. Rejecting the notion that the government needs to carry the opposition with it for legislative purposes, the PM reiterated his argument that any such attempt at a compromise with the opposition would mean that the accountability drive against corruption would have to be abandoned and he categorically refuted this possibility. Even if, by some chance, any such move were in the offing, the government, and Imran Khan in particular, would have to give up their rigidity regarding making Leader of the Opposition Shahbaz Sharif head of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), an issue that has led to a deadlock in the National Assembly on the formation of parliamentary committees as a whole. Despite the arguments of the government that an incarcerated person under investigation by the National Accountability Bureau cannot be expected to preside over the accountability of his party’s past government and that the emerging parliamentary convention of making the Leader of the Opposition the head of the PAC is only a decade old, the government perhaps needs to be made aware of a few facts. First and foremost, although only a decade old, this convention has served parliament and democracy well since 2008 and should be reinforced rather than thrown out. Besides, the head of the PAC cannot impose his will on the PAC. He can set its agenda based on the Auditor General’s independent reports, but he has no veto power in the PAC. By their very nature, parliamentary committees are composed through proportional representation of the parties in parliament. That means the governing coalition is assured of a majority in all parliamentary committees, including the PAC. Also, Ordinances have a shelf life of 120 days, after which they lapse. Only one re-enactment or extension of Ordinances is allowed by our Constitution, which means the maximum life of an Ordinance is 240 days or eight months. This can hardly serve the purpose of the government’s legislative agenda.

The pattern of functioning of PM Imran Khan’s government is by now discernible in its just completed 100 days. This comprises a number of hasty, ill thought through decisions that are reversed all too soon, creating a crisis of confidence in the governance capabilities of the government. One such example is the decision the PM took while presiding over the Punjab cabinet the other day to demolish the boundary wall of the Governor’s House Lahore and replace it with an iron fence that would provide the public a clear view of the iconic property’s beautiful gardens and greenery. The thought may have been well intentioned (undo the colonial legacy of the distance between the rulers and ruled) but a number of objections spring to mind immediately. First and foremost, the PM should not constitutionally (and especially after the 18^th Amendment) be presiding over a province’s cabinet meeting. Secondly, the Punjab cabinet’s imprimatur on the decision is conspicuous by its absence, which renders the decision infructuous. Third, as a petition in the Lahore High Court (LHC) has argued, the move is in violation of the Antiquities Act 1975 and the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance 1985 and could pose security risks to the occupant/s of the Governor’s House. The LHC has issued a stay order with the warning that if even one brick of the Governor’s House boundary wall is removed, the perpetrator will go to prison. In passing, it may also be worth commenting that the PM’s statement about the army supporting the PTI manifesto/his government casts both the government and the army (unnecessarily) in a poor light. A little bit of discretion and thinking things through before acting may serve the government better than its present manner of governing.