This article was published in Dawn on August 19, 2017 and is available at the following link
https://www.dawn.com/news/1352429/parliament-accountability
AFTER the Supreme Court of Pakistan disqualified Nawaz Sharif as prime minister, a welcome debate has focused on the role of the various institutions in installing a robust system of accountability and making that system work. Parliament, the elected sovereign institution representing the aspirations of the people, is obviously seen to have the most important role in this, but the general perception in Pakistan is that expectations are not being met.
Parliament, in fact, is meant to play the most important role in strengthening the law and practice of accountability. At a fundamental level, parliament is supposed to frame an effective and robust legal framework of accountability. The most important accountability law in the country at the moment is the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. This ordinance was promulgated by Pervez Musharraf’s military government. Both the PML-N and the PPP had agreed in the Charter of Democracy to replace the National Accountability Bureau with a national accountability commission through the repeal of NAO.
The PPP government proposed a ‘holders of public offices (accountability) act’ in 2009. The proposed law remained on the agenda of parliament and the relevant parliamentary committee for almost five years but no consensus could be reached on it. The PML-N government was supposed to bring a new law following its victory in the 2013 parliamentary elections but at the end of four years in power, all it has managed is the formation of a parliamentary committee under the chairmanship of the law and justice minister.
The legislators are meant to play the most important role in strengthening accountability.
Parliament is not only required to legislate for the accountability of public office holders, it is also duty-bound to set the legal basis for the judiciary to discharge its responsibilities. For example, Article 188 provides for the review of Supreme Court judgements and orders ‘subject to an act of parliament’ but parliament has not been able to pass a law which could set the parameters of the Supreme Court review with the result that the Supreme Court has to devise the rules without an act of parliament.
Parliament is also supposed to undertake accountability on its own in several areas. Parliamentary oversight is one of its three basic functions, the other two being legislation and representation. Each parliamentary committee has the authority to receive public petitions, undertake probes, summon public officials and recommend suitable action. The Supreme Court used a similar provision under justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to address public grievances to an extent that hundreds of applications were received on plain paper on a daily basis and the human rights cell in the court had to be expanded to handle the workload. The Senate, under Raza Rabbani’s chairmanship, has only recently established and publicised a system of receiving public petitions. The National Assembly may follow the suit.
Parliamentary committees are considered to be the most effective instruments of accountability all over the world. Unfortunately, despite their powers, parliamentary committees both at the national and provincial level have not been very active or effective, barring a few exceptions. Instances of not making appointments to key positions or appointments in utter disregard of merit by the government have been taken up by the judiciary on a number of occasions but seldom have the concerned parliamentary committees taken notice or action on such matters.
Question time in legislatures especially the prime minister’s/ chief minister’s question hour offers a very effective opportunity for accountability of the executive at the highest level. Here, both the Senate and National Assembly have repeatedly noted and protested at the absence of the concerned ministers and officials during parliamentary question time.
The federal and provincial governments and the ministers need to take question time seriously as it affords them an opportunity to communicate with legislators and the public at large through the media. Unfortunately, Pakistani parliamentary rules of procedure do not provide for a prime minister’s or a chief minister’s question time. The new prime minister has shown a welcome interest in holding regular weekly meetings of the cabinet. Would it be too much to ask him to institute a weekly prime minister’s question time?
Parliaments around the world have also instituted robust mechanisms for self-accountability. The ethics committee is an established device which holds inquiries and recommends action when a complaint about an MP’s conduct is received. The Senate again has taken the lead but, in general, these committees need to be further activated both at the national and provincial legislatures. Complaints are also voiced about the appointments and promotion of staff in the parliamentary secretariats. There should be an effective system to deal with such complaints if the parliamentarians don’t want the judiciary to carry out accountability.
Potential instances of conflict of interest are also a serious matter that needs to be dealt with the focus it deserves. British parliament maintains a register of interests of its members and a registrar of interests is appointed to make sure that the personal interests of each member are documented and that there is no conflict of interest in the discharge of duties by the members. The Senate of Pakistan has done some work on measures against possible conflict of interest but this matter needs to be taken very seriously by all national and provincial legislatures.
Above all, both houses of parliament and the six provincial and legislative assemblies of Pakistan should institute a system of reviewing the institutional performance on an annual basis. If each house develops an annual performance report like the present National Assembly did during its first year, shares it with the public and devotes a few days of the proceedings to debate the report, it will go a long way towards strengthening public trust in these elected institutions.
