On May 13 a joint session of parliament passed a unanimous resolution condemning the killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad by a group of American commandos without the prior knowledge, much less approval, of the Pakistani authorities. It called upon the government to appoint an independent commission to investigate this event, ask the American government to stop its drone attacks on Pakistani territory, and required Mr Gilani’s government to interrupt the movement of American supplies to the NATO forces fighting in Afghanistan in case the attacks did not stop. It also required the government to review this country’s ties with the US. The government has implemented no part of this resolution except the setting up of a commission of inquiry. But it has been clumsy in taking even this action in as much as it did not consult the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly regarding the commission’s composition and terms of reference, which the parliamentary resolution had required. Nor did it consult the nominees before announcing their appointment. These reasons led Justice (retd) Fakhruddin G Ebrahim to decline to serve on this commission. Justice Javed Iqbal, the senior judge of the Supreme Court, objected that the government had appointed him to it without consulting the Chief Justice. As a result the commission became controversial even before it could start doing its work. Critics interpreted the government’s moves as an insult to parliament and the people it represented. They asked what good was parliament as an institution if the government could ignore its resolutions. This reasoning merits scrutiny. A parliament, or for that matter any assembly of persons, does not as such take any action; its members do. In a parliamentary system the leader of the House brings to it the business that is to be transacted. In the case under reference, Prime Minister Gilani moved the resolution in question and spoke in its favour. It is probable that he had prior consultations with the notables in his own party as well as other groups and secured their assurances of support. They too supported this resolution and, when put to vote, it was passed unanimously. It required the government to take certain measures which, except for the appointment of a commission, it has not taken. Nor is it saying anything on the subject. Mr Gilani had evidently changed his mind. Another interpretation may be that in neglecting to implement parliament’s resolution he has been following his well established custom. He does not speak his mind, and he does not believe it is necessary to do what he has promised to do. There is nothing we can do or say to him about it, for that is the kind of man he is. That does not however change the fact that his operational style is amazingly dysfunctional. If he is so disinclined to take the needed action, how does he expect his government to get anything done? Governance involves maintaining public order, securing the citizen’s right to his life, liberty, and possessions, and providing a variety of other services and amenities to him. It may well be that Mr Gilani has no interest in governing this country if that is what governance means. He may be content with being the country’s chief executive, enjoying the pay and numerous perquisites that come with it. The office also gives its holder a great deal of authority and power to grant or deny a whole array of benefits to those who come knocking on his door. Mr Gilani is President Asif Ali Zardari’s appointee and agent. Both the patron and his client appeared to be secure in their respective offices. An adversity appeared on the horizon a few weeks ago. One of the PPP’s allies, the JUI-F, crossed the aisle to the ranks of the opposition, and the MQM appeared to be ambivalent. It became apparent that the PPP was going to fall short of majority support in the National Assembly, in which case its government would fall. Mr Zardari thereupon enticed Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, head of the PML-Q, to come out of the political wilderness and hold hands with him in the sunshine of power. In return for numerous ministerial and other offices and privileges, Chaudhry sahib and his party joined the government and gave it a hefty majority in the Assembly. Like the PPP and its leaders, he and his party are content with the offices they have procured and they are equally unconcerned with the services that the government they have joined delivers to the people. The prime minister’s opponents are out to show that they can be just as superficial and frivolous as he. There was a time when Mr Nawaz Sharif wanted to lead a “cooperative opposition” and advocated civility in political contests. He changed his mind recently and declared that he was now ready to take on Mr Gilani and company in combat, howsoever fierce it may be. He condemned the present government’s tardiness in implementing the parliamentary resolution of May 13. The government’s apparent inaction, he said, was an insult to parliament. He also reaffirmed its supremacy among the organs of state. But then on June 3 members of his party enacted a hugely tumultuous scene in the National Assembly. As the finance minister rose to present the budget for the fiscal year 2011-12 and deliver his speech, they left their seats, surrounded the dais and began shouting anti-government slogans. Dr Fehmida Mirza, the Speaker, looking harassed and helpless, came to her wit’s end and eventually adjourned the House. The conduct of the PML-N members amounted to nothing less than a gross insult to parliament, the like of which had not been seen in recent memory. The foregoing will show that Mr Sharif’s followers are no more mindful of parliament’s dignity than are Mr Gilani and company. Nor is it likely that they would implement its resolutions if it does not suit them. Deference to parliament would have persuaded them to listen to the finance minister’s speech and then resort to one of the numerous available procedures for voicing their objections and opinions. Accustomed to the politics of personalism, they have yet to understand the value of institutions, and learn the art of working with them. The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at anwarsyed@cox.net