Hostile no-confidence motion

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-led federal government ended on 10 April 2022 with the passing of a no-confidence motion by a majority of 174 members of the National Assembly. This majority was achieved with the support of PTI’s allies won over by the opposition after that motion was tabled. Imran Khan insists that this no-confidence motion against him was brought at America’s behest as the US government was unhappy over his Moscow visit.

Moreover, US President Joe Biden’s rude stance towards Khan was due to an apparently reckless conduct of Pakistan’s officials during and in the aftermath of humiliating US withdrawal from Afghanistan and one of the causes for regime change, according to Khan.

Then a controversial diplomatic dispatch of Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the US came along that gave credence to these allegations of regime change. This hostile and foreign-sponsored no-confidence motion, according PTI and Imran Khan, was a violation of Article 5 of the Constitution which enjoined upon all citizens to be loyal to the state, constitution and laws of Pakistan. All opposition parties obviously denied these outrageous charges.

Imran Khan squandered a great opportunity to turn around the country. He misunderstood that people who voted for PTI were interested in a real change he promised rather than in the witch-hunt of the opposition. He over-indulged throughout his tenure in a futile accountability.

False claims to recover billions of dollars only embarrassed him in the public eye. Granted, three and half years’ period was insufficient to take Pakistan out of its chronic problems but surely he had enough time to set Pakistan on the right course. Unfortunately, he did everything which he stood against during his struggle from power.

He depended on the establishment to run the Government and thus capitulated on all fronts. Self-conceit, adamant attitude, vanity and a long series of blunders due to inexperience made him unpopular. He miserably failed to provide relief to the common man.

Now after his ouster from power he is again on roads attracting huge crowds in different cities by mainly selling out anti-American slogans and by playing on the religious and nationalistic sentiments to an emotional youth that lacks rational approach towards brewing political and social turmoil. He has only blunted his tongue. He is unwilling to undergo a self-correction process.

The newly-installed Prime Minister is trying to keep together his ousting squad by making compromises. He faces several challenges to his rule from within and from outside.

His party men and allies, knowing inherent conflict of interests, are unwilling to bet any further lest it may undermine their future political gains. A thin majority coalition government cannot sustain for too long unless the establishment is willing to extend its support to avoid the looming economic crisis created by Khan’s government and to mend fences with the US Government for many purposes.

The chain of events of the past few months indicated that the establishment made itself ‘neutral’ and Khan could not survive the onslaught of his well-entrenched political foes.

Then in a last moment desperate attempt to cling on to power, having been ill-advised Khan made the ultimate mistake by forcing his Deputy Speaker Suri to reject the no-confidence motion against him without conducting any debate on a belatedly raised point of order on a crucial issue of the alleged foreign conspiracy for regime change.

It was bound to create reaction and compelled the Supreme Court to take a late night suo motu notice on the pattern of 2 November 2007 as it seemingly found itself in a predicament of becoming a victim of extra constitutional measures.

However, the way SCBA (Supreme Court Bar Association) and several bodies and bar associations conducted themselves during these proceedings has given birth to certain questions about the status and role of these representative and regulatory bodies of advocates which were supposed to be apolitical. This increasing clout and influence of legal and regulatory bodies in political matters may seriously undermine rule of law and judicial independence.

The constitution of Pakistan envisages a no confidence motion against the Prime Minister under Article 95 which is a manifestation of the principle of responsible government whereunder a Government can only come to and remain in power if it enjoys the confidence of the majority of the National Assembly.

History shows that in 24 no-confidence motions in the UK there was always a large political issue that led to the vote of no confidence. So was the case of 27 no-confidence motions in India. The word “confidence” used in the said provision refers to a state of affairs when there is a difference of public opinion on a national issue. In the instant case, apparently there was none.

Moreover, no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister had some peculiar features that created serious doubts about it in the public mind. It all started with defections of several members of the National Assembly elected on PTI’s tickets who had been lured by the opposition.

Imran Khan’s once two closest persons, Jahangir Tareen and Aleem Khan, who were instrumental in installing PTI’s Federal government with their purses and plane and were now very active in this whole episode as their groups within PTI were openly supported opposition parties. Tragically, Khan became impatient for power and made compromises. He is also a poor in measuring people.

PDM led by N League forged an alliance with defectors and previous partner of PTI and captured power in the center and Punjab. MQM (P) and others were part of the Government and enjoyed power with key portfolios. They were partners in failures too. They were allured by the opposition with future promises.

All other allies also parted ways with Khan without assigning differences on policy issues. They had no moral and legal justification to break away with the Government they were the part in the wake of a no-confidence motion. Several other events indicated that while Khan was napping at the magical tunes of sycophants around him his political opponents were making moves to topple him.

PTI and its all allies remained in the Federal Government for three and half years. Under Article 95 (1) no-confidence motion can be brought against the Prime Minister. Federal Cabinet that comprised of all parties of the alliance came to power with the vote of the majority and no-confidence motion would have failed had PTI’s allies not voted against it. Had the defectors voted against PTI it would have exposed them to serious consequences.

While there is no constitutional bar on the allies to part ways with the Government and vote against the Government provided they had resigned much prior to the tabling of the said resolution. The way these allies left the government certainly looked politically and morally wrong as they all shared the responsibility to the National Assembly in respect of the policies of the Government that lost its confidence.

Democratic process in Pakistan has been seriously discredited by this sour saga of less than noble struggle for power. Pakistan has also been hugely embarrassed internationally in the face of allegations of foreign interference. Pakistan’s unending economic woes and dependence on foreign aids and loans will keep undermining its independence.

This mindless and cut-throat struggle for power amongst the political parties is undermining their democratic credentials. While a judicial commission is necessary to investigate the whole matter of the ‘letter-gate’ it is equally important to give legitimacy to a democratic rule in Pakistan that these parties get a fresh mandate from the people through an early free and fair elections while the establishment this time sticks to its declared neutrality and none is unlawfully denied a fair chance.

(The writer is Advocate Supreme Court and a former Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan)

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022