KARACHI: Muzaffar Hussain Shah has been around the political block. Associated with the Pakistan Muslim League-Functional, the politician, who is a lawyer and self-professed progressive farmer, divides his time between Umerkot and Karachi, and has worn a variety of political hats.

Though he did not return to the assembly in the February 18, 2008 elections, the seasoned politician, known for his command over the rules of procedure, has held the offices of provincial minister, chief minister, acting governor as well as speaker of the Sindh Assembly on two occasions. His last tenure ended in April 2008 when Nisar Khuhro took over in the speaker’s chair. Mr Shah spoke to Dawn about his second stint as speaker. Here are excerpts:

Q: Looking back over the past five years, how would you describe your tenure as speaker?

A: I’ve had two tenures: from 1985 to 1987, for three years, and then a little over five-and-a-half years this time, from 2002 onwards. During this tenure the functioning of the assembly was okay. But there were a lot of newcomers. Out of 168, I think there were about 100-plus newcomers. Then there was this acrimony between the opposition and the government. They did agree upon some issues, which was very positive, like the NFC Award.

In terms of legislation, with regard to the education sector, there was a substantial amount of legislation done, which is primarily devoted to setting up new universities and colleges. Question hour was very informative. There were a number of debates on law and order, which were quite exhaustive. Budget sessions were very interesting.

I personally feel unless you give parliamentarians back-up support, such as facts, figures and data, for the performance of their responsibilities, it becomes increasingly difficult, especially if you’re in the opposition.

The difference between here and the Lok Sabha in India or the House of Commons in the UK or even the House of Representatives in the US, is that each American senator has five or six aides or interns who are there to back them up. Here, unfortunately, there is no such phenomenon. What I did do in the last two years is that we had a programme funded by USAid, through which we inducted a couple of interns.

Parliamentarians, belonging to any party, could make a request to the speaker requesting a certain amount of information, for example on agriculture. That assignment would be given to an intern, who would do the necessary amount of research and give the data to the MPA concerned. This has been a very positive factor in assisting the MPAs in doing their duties.

The other factor is that when political parties send nominees to parliament or the provincial assemblies, they must ask them to specialize in various categories. If only four or five people from the government or the opposition always speak, the rest don’t get a sense of participation.

We did pass some laws which pertain to the broad spectrum of the health department and the education department. I had formed a committee which was headed by one of the members of the opposition for having a look at the state of agriculture. We need to be in a position to activate the committee system.

The house is too large to really focus in detail in relation to a matter that would require concrete recommendations. The committee would be the appropriate forum where you would refer these matters. The committee can then interview people, call people from all sections of society, which can also benefit from the feedback of experts, common people and stakeholders.

For that to happen, party leaders have to play a pivotal role. The unfortunate part is that many people who had been elected on the standing committees did not attend meetings. It boils down to a sense of commitment, a passion for doing work. In my personal view you need the house to sit for at least five to six hours a day.

If you want parliamentarians to play a decisive role, then political parties must basically send people who have a little bit of background and capability. Mind you, these are law-making institutions. Law-making is also a speciality. Those who come into the houses should have an interest in law-making.

Q: What legislation would you have wanted to see passed?

A: There is a lot of legislation which you can be in a position to embark upon. You look at the state of transport, agriculture, education …. These are all areas which need to be scrutinised. Also are human rights and laws pertaining to women, which fall within the domain of the provincial government. First of all, you need to have an assessment of existing laws.

Those laws which are in the field today that apply to the province of Sindh which come within the provincial subjects’ list of the Constitution, need to be analyzed. Then you need to take each law and see if it is in consonance and conformity with the needs of our times. There are laws which were made 100 years back. They’ve never been changed or amended, altered or annulled. Law-making is a continuous, dynamic process.

Q: The former chief minister and provincial ministers were often criticised for not attending the sessions. Was this criticism justified?

A: Personally, if you ask me, if you want parliament to be supreme, I think chief ministers should basically answer question hour themselves personally in relation to the department which is being held by them. The chief minister and prime minister in a parliamentary democracy are the first among equals. The cabinet is all equal. You must set an example. If the chief minister comes on time to the assembly, everybody else will come.

Instead of making a policy statement outside the assembly, policy statements should be made inside the house. That is the way you give importance to parliament. If the chief minister is willing to submit himself to accountability, everyone else will do it. It’s a question of setting down traditions, the quality of leadership.

Q: Sessions were often stormy. Will it be smoother sailing for the present assembly?

A: It all depends on the set-up in the house. In the last five years we had a very strong opposition. There was a tremendous amount of confrontation between the treasury and the opposition. Parliament is an institution which belongs to everybody. All political parties represented in the assembly have a right to speak. The speaker’s job is to provide a reasonably opportunity to all members of the house to be in a position to speak on various issues so that their opinion can come on the record.

But when there’s confrontation, it becomes very difficult to conduct the assembly according to the rules of procedure. The main thing which needs to be inculcated is a degree of tolerance. You can’t work democracy without tolerance. That culture has to develop in Pakistan. Parliament is a platform where all sections of political opinion are allowed to ventilate. Democracy and tolerance go together.

Political parties (must) brief their members on maintaining decorum. It’s an institution everybody watches. When you have acrimony and slogans and remarks made against each other, it is not in very good taste. It doesn’t go down very well with the common man, who says: ‘these are the people we have sent to the assemblies. If they can’t tolerate each other, how can they tolerate the common man?’

Q: There was also a no-trust motion moved against you, as certain members of the opposition at that time accused you of being partial.

A: The sword of Damocles always hangs over your head: ‘If you don’t do this, we will bring a vote of no confidence against you.’ The vote of no confidence has been brought against a number of speakers. In that vote, I also made a speech for over an hour. When the voting took place, there was only one vote against me.

The speaker’s job is very difficult, because when you have 168 people and all of them want to speak and ask for more time, it’s very difficult to resolve.