www.punjabics.com

Home

Truancy in politics

By Anwar Syed 

It is not a case of absenteeism but truancy on the part of MNAs. Most of them do come and sign in to be eligible for pay and allowances, but then depart to the lobbies. — APP
WE have all heard of truant schoolchildren. They are the ones who sneak out of the classroom and do things that will please them better than listening to the teacher. The term ‘truant’ can also apply to all kinds of public officials. We are concerned here with truancy on the part of legislators.
Many members of the British House of Commons do not show up everyday. They are absentees, not truants. Then there are those who do put in an appearance but spend a lot more time in the lobbies and the cafeteria chatting with colleagues and friends than they do on the floor of the house. They are playing truant. It is the same way in most other legislatures, including the United States Congress.
Truancy is pervasive in Pakistan. Public officials come to work late, leave early, and even during office hours they take time out to do personal errands. Truancy is also common among school teachers. Thousands of schools in the country have teachers who come in for an hour or two and then leave to take care of business they have going on the side.
It is my impression that truancy is more common among members of the National Assembly than it is among legislators in most other democracies. It must be rare, if it has ever been the case in recent times that the speaker of the House of Commons has adjourned a sitting for lack of quorum. The speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan, by contrast, adjourns a meeting almost every other day for lack of quorum.
It is not a case of absenteeism but truancy on the part of members. Most of them do come and sign in to be eligible for pay and allowances. They step into the house for a quick appearance, and then depart to the lobbies or the cafeteria or go out to do errands in town. They also visit higher officials in the secretariat to straighten things out for their constituents. They have little interest in the issues that some of their colleagues may be debating on the floor of the house. On those rare occasions when they do speak they are often unprepared and irrelevant. There are members who have not risen to speak even once during their entire five-year term.
Many political observers believe that politics in Pakistan are often in disarray because the country’s institutions are wanting in stability and efficacy. This interpretation will bear qualifications. The army and the bureaucracy are among the country’s major institutions. They are both stable even though their efficacy may be open to scrutiny. The army has had its share of skirmishes but it has not fought a full-scale war since 1971 or, more strictly speaking, since 1965, which was a long time ago. It is, therefore, hard to rate its capability as a fighting force. The Pakistani bureaucracy is notorious for corruption and incompetence. It has greater expertise in finding reasons why something cannot be done than in doing it.
The National Assembly is both unstable and inefficacious. Unstable in that it has repeatedly been abolished, dismissed, suspended and reinstated by military dictators and authoritarian presidents. It is in place at this time but one keeps hearing that it may be prematurely dissolved.
It is inefficacious in the sense that it does not do its job well. Neither its own members nor other organs of the state, notably the executive, take it seriously. It forms part of a parliamentary system of government. Parliament is sovereign and the executive is its agent for implementing its will (administering the laws it makes). It is the executive that tells parliament what the country’s needs are and what laws and policies have to be made to meet them. It is thus the executive that initiates much of the legislation and brings work to parliament.
I am not sure what the present government’s practice is, but traditionally the executive in Pakistan has wanted to get along without having much to do with parliament. It preferred to rule by presidential ordinances instead of laws made by parliament. In other words, it did not bring work for parliament to do.
The parliament is working within these limits. It could remove them, make its supremacy operational, and play a larger role, but it has been content with the way things are. It should, however, be noted that some of its committees, notably the budget and public accounts committees, have been doing excellent work. The parliament’s function of overseeing the executive’s performance deserves to be noted. Members in each of its houses address written or oral questions to ministers concerning the work of their respective departments. Supplementary questions arising from the concerned minister’s initial response may also be asked. ‘Question hour’ is usually the first order of business every day that the parliament is in session. Governments in most parliamentary democracies take it seriously. A minister’s performance in handling questions from the floor can make or mar his reputation and career.
That has not been the case in Pakistan. Ministers to whom questions are addressed are not always present in the house to answer them. I have the impression that the present government is more attentive to its obligation in this regard than its predecessors were. It is heartening to see that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is usually present on the floor of the house, at least for a time, everyday that the National Assembly is in session. He answers questions and participates in the debate that may be underway. But one must regretfully note also that many of his colleagues are not following his example.
This takes us back to the issue of truancy. A report in this newspaper a couple of weeks ago said that the PPP elders were considering the option of withdrawing the privileges of those of the party’s legislators who were neglecting to attend the National Assembly sessions and participate in its proceedings on a regular basis. That the PPP leaders were concerned with their legislators’ truancy and wished to discourage it is surely good news, especially because we hear of the PPP doing anything good and decent so very rarely.
The writer, formerly a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics, is professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts.