WHY does the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) wish to garnish its credentials as a party that isn’t bound by the law and its procedures? Whether it’s Imran Khan’s resolve to oust Nawaz Sharif in a manner not contemplated by the letter or spirit of our Constitution or his call for civil disobedience (encouraging people to refuse paying taxes and utility bills), PTI seems unable to distinguish between the state and the government, demands of the law and those mandated to enforce it. Is PTI letting its suspicion of the PML-N government manifest itself as disdain for the law?

Whether it is PTI’s vigilantes blockading Nato containers in KP (an action declared illegal by the courts), PTI convening an illegal assembly at D-chowk in disregard of permission granted to protest in Aabpara, PTI demanding that the Supreme Court disregard Article 225 and declare election 2013 illegal and void, or PTI’s refusal to abide by laid-down procedure to resign from parliament, the party continues to portray a sense of entitlement to be treated preferentially in disregard of the law.

Last week saw needless politicking on the issue of resignations. The speaker might be a PML-N loyalist and there might be doubts regarding the veracity of his own election to parliament. But his position on verification of resignations is backed by the law. Article 64 of the Constitution entitles any member of the National Assembly to resign by writing to the speaker. Article 67 allows the Assembly to frame rules to regulate its business pursuant to which Rules of Procedure and Conduct of National Assembly, 2007, have been promulgated.

Rule 43(2) requires the speaker to accept the resignation, “if (a) a member hands over the letter of resignation to the speaker personally and informs him that the resignation is voluntary and genuine and the speaker has no information or knowledge to the contrary; or (b) the speaker receives the letter of resignation by any other means and he, after such inquiry as he thinks fit, either himself or through the National Assembly Secretariat or through any other agency, is satisfied that the resignation is voluntary and genuine… .”

The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf continues to portray a sense of entitlement to be treated preferentially.

The substantive requirement thus is that the resignation must be “voluntary and genuine”. The procedure is meant to enable the speaker to satisfy himself that the member has resigned of his own free will. Had PTI members handed over their resignations personally, the speaker could have confirmed at the time whether they were doing so of their own volition. As the resignations were handed over collectively to the assembly staff, the speaker was required under 43(2)(b) to conduct an inquiry to determine their genuineness and voluntary nature.

Why is PTI refusing to allow its MNAs to meet with the speaker individually to confirm their resignations? Shah Mehmood Qureshi has alleged that PML-N is indulging in ‘Changa Manga’ politics (alluding to the ugly horse-trading practices of the 1990s). The insinuation is that PML-N is trying to create dissension within PTI’s ranks and a collective meeting with the speaker and peer pressure is imperative to keep individual PTI MNAs honest to their commitment to resign. Is this not reason enough to consider that the resignations might be involuntary?

At least three PTI MNAs have publicly refused to resign. PTI has thrown these dissidents out of the party and has also asked the speaker to throw them out of the Assembly for breaching party discipline (notwithstanding that such dissent is no ground for disqualification.)

It has been widely reported that Khan’s decision to force members to resign (except in KP) is deeply contested within PTI. In this backdrop why should the speaker not discharge his legal obligation to ensure that each resigning member is doing so without coercion?

PTI seems to fear that its MNAs might be swayed not to resign in a five-minute private conversation with the speaker but still wants the speaker to rule that the resignations are voluntary. The related question then is who does a parliamentary seat belong to, the member or the party? And to what extent ought freedom of thought and action exist within a party? In a political culture where dissent is abhorred and autocratic party heads order members around like sheep, hadn’t PTI set itself out to be different?

Horse-trading of the 1990s was reprehensible. But what solution did party heads conceive for a malady they had themselves nurtured? They introduced Article 63A into the Constitution that entrenched the party head’s role as a dictator. The original 63A stated that anyone voting against the party line would be thrown out of parliament. Thankfully, that extent of repudiation of free will and conscience seemed excessive even to a real dictator, who got 63A amended and restricted herd voting to money bills and ouster of the prime minister etc.

Imran Khan had promised to develop PTI as a sustainable institution with internal democracy, elections and devolved decision-making (for award of tickets etc). We have seen PTI’s president expelled over his difference of opinion with Khan. We have seen MNAs being thrown out for refusing to tender resignations. We have heard Khan declare that the next time around he will distribute tickets himself. Have events of the last few months caused regression in his thinking and is PTI now to function as a cult?

Benazir Bhutto was a popular leader and PPP revolved around her. Did that entitle her to leave her party to her son as an heirloom? The N in PML-N stands for Nawaz. Does that entitle him to distribute state largesse and offices amongst family members and place public funds under his daughter’s control? All this continues to happen because power within political parties is concentrated at the top, sycophants and lackeys rise within party ranks, and independent minds and dissenters are condemned to oblivion.

If PTI is to be an entity larger than the person of Imran Khan and different from the one-man political parties he has been critical of, it must strike the right balance between individualism and collective action, create room for dissent and embrace a culture that doesn’t shun voices critical of its leader’s black-and-white worldview.

The writer is a lawyer.

sattar@post.harvard.edu

Twitter: @babar_sattar

Published in Dawn, November 3rd, 2014