THE PDM coalition government seems to be preparing for the next general elections with some last-minute measures to ‘level the playing field’, so to speak. It has recently introduced legislation that will allow politicians handed a lifetime disqualification from holding public office to return to the political arena, and also to ‘restore’ to the ECP the sole power to announce and amend election schedules.

The latter seems to be a bid to preclude any legal challenges that may arise over any further tinkering with election timelines. The proposed amendment will allow the ECP to unilaterally decide when elections are to be held once they become due.

While this may have passed much scrutiny in simpler times the present context has complicated matters: the move seems aimed at providing legal cover to the ECP for its failure to hold elections to various assemblies within constitutionally stipulated timeframes.

The other proposal, to limit disqualifications under Article 62(1)(f) to five years instead of a lifetime, is likely to draw even more controversy because critics will invariably see it as ‘person-specific’. In particular, it will directly benefit PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif and the newly minted Istehkam-i-Pakistan Party’s patron, Jahangir Tareen.

But, as the government has generously pointed out, the rule change will also apply to PTI chairman Imran Khan, who is the latest to have the disqualification sword hanging over his head. While the timing of this legislation is indeed unpropitious, the historical context must be considered.

The Supreme Court had been roundly criticised for ruling, in 2018, that an Article 62(1)(f) disqualification is for life. The article sets a rather nebulous standard for lawmakers, and the apex court’s strict interpretation of it was widely seen as just a means to keep a thrice-elected prime minister out of the running from any future political contest on the basis of a rather weak conviction in the Panama Papers case.

That said, the manner in which the Supreme Court’s earlier decision is being undone is problematic. Laws that are passed without following the legislative process — ie, after robust debate and due consideration by both the government and opposition benches — remain vulnerable to future challenges and, therefore, lack durability. Parliament should be seen to be representative of the people, not just a party or group of parties, nor any individual.

Had these two proposals been discussed and debated with opposition parties, had the government helped their critics understand how its proposed legislation would benefit the political process, and had the government been transparent about the drafting of the laws, perhaps the objections raised would not have arisen. Parliament cannot be used only as a rubber stamp — it must be meaningfully invested in all legislation that passes through its two Houses.

Published in Dawn, June 18th, 2023