PML-N's rumpus against the convicted Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani prevented the just-concluded National Assembly session from conducting any serious business.

But the coalition Mr Gilani leads did manage to pass a resolution, which the PML-N felt obliged to adopt in the province it rules.

Many in the country considered the agreement of rival sides on creating new provinces significant and a welcome sign that even political bickering can produce refreshing results in a parliamentary system.

Perhaps the question hour, which provides the legislators to probe and expose the government's shortcomings for the public, emerged the major casualty of the sharp confrontation between the PML-N and PPP which brought to the National Assembly to an early close.

Speaker Fehmida Mirza, or her deputy, was seen persuading the charged PML-N members at the start of daily session to let the question hour go ahead but they wouldn't as the party holds that Mr Gilani's conviction for contempt by the Supreme Court on April 26 made him and his cabinet ‘unlawful'.

Since that day, PML-N legislators have refused to listen to the ministers, citing the principle of collective responsibility.

Not a single question could be taken up during the entire session of the National Assembly from April 24 to May 4.

In contrast, the Senate witnessed a strange sight a few days later when Senator Raza Rabbani of PPP led a walkout by coalition and opposition senators to protest a frivolous answer from a cabinet minister to a question on the devolution issue.

On the other hand, the National Assembly secretariat religiously kept on printing written answers to the questions on daily basis with no member using them inside the hall - except, of course, a few PML-N members who found they made good paper planes to target the government benches.

It was not so much an issue of wasting government resources as the legislators of a cash-strapped country preferring politicking and holding the parliament hostage over resolving the real issues of the masses they represent.

The PML-N has taken the extreme position that until Mr Gilani and his cabinet resign, it will not let them enter the parliament for any official business. Its 90 plus MNAs in the National Assembly give it enough strength to thwart treasury benches from doing normal business. In the 104-member Senate, however, the party has just 14 senators who can do nothing more than staging walkouts, taunting the Senate chairman and government benches for allowing convicted prime minister and his cabinet members taking the floor.

That raises the question: will the National Assembly turn a lame duck if the two sides stick to their stated positions for the remaining one year of its five-year life?

The PML-N demands the resignation of Mr Gilani while the PPP and its allied parties say ‘nothing doing, come what may'.

Together the latter command two third majority in the house and seem in no mood to change the leader of the house. That would mean that if - a big ‘if’ - the matter remains in the hands of the National Assembly, Mr Gilani is staying.

Political observers feel that whatever the outcome of the not so unusual ‘until death’ confrontation between two big parties, the country and its people stand to lose in their brinkmanship.

Any setback will be sad for the democracy which had just started taking roots in the country.

There is hope however. Despite their serious differences, the two parties did manage to pass during the past four years a raft of fundamental amendments in the much mutilated 1973 constitution - the 18th, 19th and latest 20th amendment. Even the most skeptical have started believing that democracy has finally arrived in the country.

In these four years, the leaders of the rival parties did not shut the door on talks. Removal of Gen Pervez Musharraf, passage of the NFC award and purging the constitution of the ills military dictators wrote into it were all achieved by resolving their differences on the negotiation table and reaching rational decisions. The 20th amendment gives the leader of the opposition a definite say in the selection of Chief Election Commissioner and caretaker setup before general elections.

What has transpired between them in and outside the parliament during the last couple of weeks is disheartening for democracy but not heart-breaking, at least not yet. They have to realise that continuing mudslinging would only alienate them from the people.

Instead of whipping up people's emotions, they are better advised to sit together and find a solution, as they did so successfully in the past, this time for smooth transition of power to the next elected government.

khawar.ghumman@gmail.com