Five agonising years

The National Assembly of Pakistan that completed its five-year tenure on Thursday, will be remembered for everything that is not expected of a nation's highest law-making body - its tragic legacy ranging from wasteful expenditure to non-productive business to rubber-stamping executive decisions.
If the rulers are boasting of it having the distinction of completing its full term, some of them are fallaciously claiming that it is the first assembly to do so when it certainly is not, as the assembly during the regime of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto as leader of the house had also completed its tenure. The nation is happy that it is finally gone leaving behind relief that comes with the end of a nightmare.
This assembly was the most expensive that Pakistan ever had, with record membership of 342 members who would not like to attend the meetings, precipitating the ubiquitous problem of quorum. The 70-plus ministerial brigade that adorned some seven rows of the treasury benches, was never present even in half its strength, severely impeding the house business. Very often the questions slated for the day could not be taken up for want of attendance by the relevant ministers, and it was quite possible that when present, the minister would not be prepared to make a satisfying supplementary question.
During its tenure it could pass only 50 bills which, as a Recorder Report suggests, is not a significant performance according to international standards. Even the bills that were passed did not result from in-depth debate and discussion. Most disappointing, however, was the role of women members who were there in a big number but often, with a few exceptions, would not take active part in legislative business.
In fact, they were packed into this house more for their family connections than their eligibility based on merit. Likewise, the 'Young Turks' that were brought in to infuse young blood into Pakistani politics too performed below par. The members were supposed to be graduates, a condition not mandated anywhere else in the world, but majority of them happened to be grossly inarticulate, some of them never being able to utter a word during the five long years of their term.
In fact, most of the words that were uttered during the life of this assembly came from the mouth of its Speaker, Chaudhry Amir Hussain, who surely must have tested the patience of parliamentary writers and reporters who say the speaker did not speak. But he had to speak because ministers would be ill prepared, needing his help for the bailout - earning in the process for him the rare distinction of facing two votes of no-confidence.
With hindsight one gets confirmed that the National Assembly played a scripted role that it was to act as the fig leaf for a 'democratic ambience' in the country run and ruled by a politico-military construct. To a surprised Pakistan people religious parties' representation almost doubled as against their single-digit strength in previous assemblies, so much so that they landed the coveted position of leader of opposition in the house. That helped the Establishment enact the 17th Amendment.
In the meantime, doors for horse-trading were kept open by freezing the anti-floor crossing law, which helped the Establishment cobble together a majority. The bait of ministerial posts did work as a number of members defected from their parties and joined the group that was to act as the ruling coalition. Machinations brought to bear on the system to fill the office of prime minister were simply mind-boggling.
While the first prime minister, Zafrullah Jamali, was elected by the majority of a single vote, the second was 'elected' for 45 days' to keep the seat warm for the third, who was catapulted unto the top parliamentary position from nowhere. The National Assembly thus brought into being never felt being a sovereign body, in that it would not mind violating the Constitution. It not only ditched the supreme law of the land by being indifferent to the President's refusal to address its joint sitting with the Senate but met in violation of its oath under the anti-Constitution Provisional Constitution Order only to endorse the Proclamation of Emergency.
But for rubber-stamping the acts of the executive, the assembly did nothing much as is evident by the fact that of the 130 mandated days of fifth year, its sittings fell short by 48 days. Frankly speaking, the National Assembly that went out of business this Thursday legitimised the five years of quasi-democratic rule. Of course, the opposition played its due role, difficult as it was with a partisan speaker in the chair and rules of business bent against its members.
The accusation that the opposition did not cooperate with the government is too frivolous to be given a serious consideration. In a working democracy, the opposition opposes everything and proposes nothing. If the National Assembly had failed to come up to the expectations of the people, it was because of the government. How would you expect the parliament to be effective when the Prime Minister would prefer to hear its proceedings sitting in his office and choose to address a press conference instead of speaking from the floor of parliament on important national issues?
Isn't it a mockery of parliamentary democracy that when the tribal belt was seething with serious trouble or army action was being taken against the Bugti tribe in Balochistan, the defence minister did not utter a word from his seat in the National Assembly? To those who take pride saying the assembly passed five budgets, one would just say whether there was a possibility it would not have. Now that those five agonising years are over, one should hope and pray that the next National Assembly would be different, both in terms of quality of its members and their commitment to democracy.