The framers of our Constitution must have been quite passionate about our political elites' commitment to parliamentary democracy. So even when they substantially incorporated British parliamentary conventions and practices they differed on the size of quorum. Against 40 as the quorum in the 650-member House of Commons they fixed quorum at 86, which is one-fourth of the total strength of the 342-member National Assembly. And driven by the passion to obtain even more democratic ambience in Pakistan they raised the quorum threshold further by introducing Article 55 (2) in the Constitution. The said provision mandates - in so many words - "if at any time during the sitting of the National Assembly the attention of the person presiding is drawn to the fact that less than one-fourth of the total membership of the Assembly is present, he shall either adjourn the Assembly or suspend the meeting until at least one-fourth of such membership is present." But that passion of the framers was misplaced - the make-do Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business are always handy to bypass the unambiguously stated mandate of Article 55(2). And this happened this past Wednesday. The National Assembly passed two important bills when the house was short of quorum. Not that quorum was not pointed out, it was, but the chairperson thought it expedient to let government bulldoze the legislation. The Senate too lacked quorum, which should have been at 70, given that it was to vote for the constitutional amendment to pass the bill for reinstatement of military courts. Strange, if not dubious, must be thinking that precipitated lack of quorum, causing deferment of the debate on the bill for about a week. Are the grounds out of the parliament more sacred that instead of the floor of the Senate that they would choose to pour out their heart? In a functioning democracy the elected majority must rule. But this has got to be a continuing process and not that it should come into play only when it is to elect the prime minister and the chief ministers and then go into low gear. Isn't it a fact that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif came to the National Assembly and Senate this past Wednesday after staying put at home or abroad for months? Same is the case with ministers and advisors. And if they don't think it important to attend the assemblies, why should members do that? And when present in the house they hate to participate in any debate or discussion. According to a recent report, one-third of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly hasn't yet uttered a word from the floor of the house ever since their election. However, they get paid regularly, at par with elected members of one of the world's most productive legislatures. But then there are consequences to such a state of affairs - the elected houses forfeit the mandate of the people, and their substitutes are warmly welcomed and garlanded.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2017