The demand by parliamentarians for more lucrative pay packages turned quite a few eyebrows as many jumped at the opportunity to portray the country’s legislators as a clique of greedy individuals bent on profiting themselves at the expense of taxpayer money. It does not help matters that the image of feudal lords and wealthy capitalists occupying the seats of parliament continues to dominate the collective memory of the public. While there is an element of truth to this popular perception, it should not be used as pretence to introduce reforms that would provide the opportunity to increase the access of parliament for individuals who do not belong to a privileged socioeconomic background. At present, the basic salary of a lawmaker is Rs 36,420, which is a pittance considering that they occupy such an important position in the government. It is about time that legislators have sufficient remuneration to hold their prestigious office without having to rely on subsidiary sources of income.
The demand for paid member parliaments finds its roots in the chartist movement, which was a movement of the British working class following widespread disappointment over the Great Reform Act of 1832. Hoping for substantial broadening of the franchise in the reform act and angry over being deprived of their rights, the working class drew up the six-point charter and got thousands of signatures in support for it. One of the points in the charter was that member parliaments (MPs) should be paid, and the supposed wisdom behind this demand was that paid member parliaments would allow the working class to have representation in parliament as their representatives could then quit their work and represent their interests. While the chartist movement failed to implement even a single point, the movement holds an important place in British history as most of its points now constitute an elementary position in British parliamentary democracy.
It is true that Pakistan’s parliamentary history is starkly different from Britain’s. It does not have hundreds of years of gradual reform and the rich culture of parliamentary practice. Moreover, there are effective barriers to entry in Pakistan’s political landscape. Pakistan’s patronage networks necessitate the possession of substantial wealth to join politics and, not surprisingly, only the landed elite and the bourgeoisie fit this criterion. It is true that nothing short of reforms aimed at the grassroots level, in which political parties provide an alternative to the existing mode of patronage politics, can the political system be made more accessible to the public. This would be able to provide the opportunity for anyone to join politics as long as he or she has the vision, passion and ideals to work for people and the country. However, this does not mean that in absence of these reforms, attempts at increasing the remuneration of parliamentarians must be shunned. Often evolution of institutions occurs in subtle ways, and such piecemeal measures combine to gradually effect meaningful change. The British Parliament did not come to be the beacon of democracy overnight. The 1832 reform act was succeeded by the 1864 reform act, and many after that, and that is how they combined to shape the parliamentary practice of Britain as it is known today. Hence, Pakistan should take lesson from this, and the public should support all measures that aim to steer the country in the right direction.*