Daily Times

Pakistan was recently without a Prime Minister for an astonishing 100 hours. The cabinet, too, was sent packing.

This is a matter of great concern.

In a parliamentary democracy like Pakistan, the Prime Minister is the lynchpin that holds government together in terms of both structure and the running of the state. Under our Constitution, the federation conducts its affairs ‘in the name of President’ by means of the central government. The latter naturally comprises the Prime Minister and his cabinet, which is appointed by the President upon the ‘advice’ of the Premier. Both cease to hold their respective positions in the eventuality of resignations tendered, electoral ousting or any other circumstance that would see the Prime Minister no longer hold office. As per government Rules of Business 1973 — no cabinet minister can amend this policy without the PM’s approval.

Article 48 of the Constitution provides that the President carries out his functions on the advice of the PM. Similarly, command of the Armed forces rests with the federal government, which, of course, is non-existent in the absence of the PM. It is also the latter who has control of the country’s nuclear arsenal given that he is also head of the National Command Authority.

Now that we have set the scene by reminding ourselves that no Prime Minister at the helm means fatally cutting off the government’s air supply — let us go forward and consider those 100 hours.

What if a sudden decision between war and peace needs to be made? What are we to do if in the very middle of one crisis or another the PM passes away, resigns or is somehow de-seated, or else becomes incapacitated in one way or another? Article 94 of the Constitution doesn’t cover any of the above. It merely directs the President to request the Prime Minister to remain in office until such a time as his successor is able to take over the reins of government. During those treacherous 100 hours, President Mamnoon Hussain could have prompted debate on expanding the scope of Article 94. But, sadly, that would have been expecting too much.

The Constitution covers procedure upon the voting in of a Prime Minister following a general election. Yet both it and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in National Assembly are silent on the summoning of the lower House for the election of the Prime Minister if the office falls vacant. Despite the Supreme Court’s directives to take immediate measures to elect a new Premier — President Hussain waited three whole days before doing the needful.

Thus it is imperative to amend the both the qualification of the Prime Minister as well as procedures to fill this seat in cases where the National Assembly is still sitting. Pakistan’s constitution is lamentably rigid on both these counts. What we need is the utmost flexibility to adapt to newly emerging circumstances.

Britain, our former colonial master, has an unwritten constitution thereby making it one of the world’s most flexible. It can easily adapt to new challenges. Interestingly, there a person doesn’t need to be a member of the House of Commons to accede to the premiership. It is quite another matter that this hasn’t, in fact, been the case for more than a century. Yet in real terms this means that an individual seeking the top job doesn’t have to put himself to either House for election. Instead, the Queen simply calls upon any member, who in her view, commands confidence of the majority in the lower House to form a government. The said individual is then tasked with proving his parliamentary majority.

It is an almost identical situation across the border in India, except that it is the President who does the needful. Article 75(4) of the Indian Constitution corresponds to article 91(9) of our own and provides that a Minister can remain in office for six months without being member of either House. The same holds true when applied to the PM. In addition, a member of the upper House only can also serve as PM. The case of Manmohan Singh is a recent case in point.

What if a sudden decision between war and peace needs to be made? What are we to do if in the very middle of one crisis or another the PM passes away, resigns or becomes incapacitated? Article 94 of the Constitution doesn’t cover any of the above. We should perhaps look across to the border or to our former colonial masters to find constitutional pragmatism

It is time for Pakistan to make the necessary constitutional amendments so as to avoid the risk of future political vacuums. A good place to start might be the introduction of a rule allowing a Minister to carry our Prime Ministerial functions in the event of incapacitation. In addition, we should initiate the ‘norm’ whereby any individual enjoying confidence of the majority in the National Assembly is given oath as PM for six months — after which he may be elected to Parliament as provided by article 91(9). Thus we should let the actual party leader become the Prime Minister without resorting to this ‘halala’ substitute. Thirdly, we don’t need four full days for members to travel to Islamabad. Emergency sessions may be called with less than 24-hours notice. We don’t to risk a repeat performance of President Hussain’s procrastination extraordinaire. And finally, we need to simplify the process to elect the Prime Minister to the National Assembly. There is no need to submit, scrutinise and then withdraw nomination papers. Members of the House can put forward names and then let the House decide the majority leader.

There is not time to lose. Who knows when the next emergency will be upon us?

The writer is a freelance columnist

Published in Daily Times, August 11^th 2017.