This article was published in Dawn News on February 20, 2026, at the following link
https://www.dawn.com/news/1974528/parliamentarians-attendance
REPORTS on the attendance of parliamentarians during sessions almost invariably evoke much interest among citizens. Although the average attendance in the National Assembly has been hovering around 60 per cent for the last many years and the citizenry seems to have made its peace with that, there are statistics which sometimes shock the people. For example, a Fafen report on parliamentarians’ attendance during the 23rd National Assembly session held from Jan 12 to Jan 22 this year indicates that 47 or 14pc members remained absent throughout the session and didn’t attend even a single sitting; 276 or 83pc of the total 332 members skipped at least one session. Similar statistics about the 22nd session indicate that about 70pc of the absent members didn’t seek prior leave from the House.
The system of taking attendance is such that a person marked present might not have been there throughout the sitting and his/her presence for even a fraction of the sitting may be marked as present. Given the fact that the average duration of a sitting ranges from two to three hours (it was two hours during the first year of the present National Assembly), a member attending the sitting may have been present only for a few minutes.
The absence of members from a sitting significantly impacts parliamentary proceedings. Our parliamentary system requires the presence of at least 25pc of the total members which constitutes the quorum. The Assembly proceedings are stopped after a member points out a lack of quorum and the subsequent head count confirms that the minimum required members are not present. A Pildat report indicates that during the past (15th) National Assembly, lack of quorum was pointed out in 105 (23pc) of sittings, and subsequently, 72 or 16pc of the sittings had to be adjourned on this basis. The abrupt termination of a day’s proceedings impacts the productivity of the Assembly as the day’s agenda (order of the day) is left incomplete. During the five years of the 15th National Assembly, on average, less than 50pc (49.47pc to be exact) of the agenda items could be taken up by the Assembly.
Ministers’ absence also impacts the quality of proceedings and some of the agenda items have to be deferred because the relevant minister is not present. During the 23rd session of the current Assembly, for example, 29 federal ministers were supposed to answer members’ questions but a majority (19) of them did not show up on the day allocated for answering questions relating to their ministries. In most cases, the absence of the minister concerned deprives members of the opportunity to ask supplementary questions. Similarly, adjournment motions, privilege motions and call-attention notices also require the presence of the minister concerned. The Speaker has repeatedly expressed displeasure at the frequent absence of ministers. Sometimes, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries do not show up either to fill in for the minister concerned.
Ministers generally take their cue from the prime minister and they are more likely to show up in the House if the PM is particular about his presence. During the life of the 15th Assembly, the attendance of the PM was a mere 13pc (11pc for Imran Khan and 17pc for Shehbaz Sharif).
The attendance becomes more known through the media in the case of plenary sittings but the status of attendance is no different in the case of parliamentary committees. Many meetings are adjourned by the chair because the minister concerned and senior officials of the ministry do not show up at the meeting, leading to a wastage of financial resources spent on convening the meetings.
However, one may add that Pakistan’s parliament is not the only one which faces issues of low attendance. Many parliaments face a similar situation and a number of parliaments have waived the condition of the presence of a minimum percentage of members for the validity of the proceedings. For example, the UK parliament and US Congress do not have a quorum requirement. The proceedings of the legislatures continue in these countries even if a single member is present in the House. In the case of the UK parliament, many parliamentary committees hold their meetings concurrently with the plenary. The proceedings of the plenary are watched by the members on CCTV while sitting in their offices or in meeting rooms. Members’ presence is required when a motion or a bill has to be voted on. Bells are rung at that time and members available within parliamentary precincts rush to the chamber to vote. The absence of a member from the precincts during the time of the plenary is, however, rare and frowned upon.
A major reason for our legislators to be casual about their presence during the Assembly sittings has a lot to do with the preferences of a majority of their voters. Most voters are not so keen about their legislators’ performance in the Assembly. A member who works very hard on his parliamentary speeches and, for example, scrutiny of the annual budget, is seldom appreciated by the constituents. People want their elected representatives to attend to their personal issues, which need an influential legislator’s support for resolution due to poor governance. Finding jobs for constituents and their family members is one of the top expectations from legislators. Interceding with the local administration and police on behalf of the constituents to sort out their day-to-day problems is also among the informal responsibilities of legislators. Attending the weddings and funerals of voters’ extended families, too, is a strong preference of constituents. These informal chores are likely to be of greater help to a legislator in his re-election than making a speech in the House. The weak attendance of legislators is, therefore, not because of their lethargy. Instead, it is a reflection of the ground realities of our own governance and culture.
