For well over three weeks now, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been in London.

He flew to the British capital on May 22 for a medical check-up, and on May 27, his daughter Maryam Nawaz Sharif announced on Twitter that the premier will undergo open-heart surgery.

Since then, the prime minister has been running Pakistan from a Park Lane apartment owned by his sons. No wonder then that many critics have acidly commented that Mr Sharif is heading a government in self-exile.

He chaired the constitutionally-mandated meetings of the National Economic Council (NEC) and federal cabinet from the Pakistan High Commission in London through video link to give his formal approval to the federal budget for the year 2016-17.

Examine: Helped by aides, Sharif running govt from UK

Though he is now said to be recovering after the heart surgery – he was seen taking a gentle walk with his wife in London’s Hyde Park in an officially released photograph – his absence from the country is still the main topic of discussion back home.

Almost all opposition parties have voiced their concerns over his continued absence from the country and demanded an in-house change. For instance, Imran Khan has said that had such a situation arisen when his party was in government, he would have immediately brought in a fitter, healthier PM.

PPP Chairman Bilawal Zardari Bhutto has also argued that due to his health and the controversy surrounding the Panama Papers leaks, PM Sharif should step aside for the time being.

Smaller parties have also made similar statements.

Politics aside, the prime minister’s absence has led to questions about the length of time elected heads can stay away from their countries, and it is hard to find parallels to Pakistan’s current dilemma.

Political analysts and academics are also hard pressed for an answer; however, they had more to say when asked whether such an absence has highlighted the need for a constitutional solution.

Zafar Iqbal Cheema, president of the think tank Strategic Vision Institute (SVI), feels that a chief executive of the country who is also responsible for deciding when to press the nuclear button, should not be away for so long.

“There should be some alternate arrangement if the prime minister gets sick or becomes incapacitated,” he says, adding that while passing the 18th constitutional amendment, politicians took care to make the prime minister invincible; no senior minister or deputy prime minister was provided for who can act on behalf of the prime minister.

Dr Hassan Askari Rizvi, a well-known political commentator, agreed that there were genuine questions about who was in charge in the absence of the prime minister.

“I can’t think of any such precedent where an elected prime minister of a country has been out of country for such a long time,” he said. He also felt that political parties should come together to find a constitutional solution to this vacuum.

Justice (retired) Tariq Mehmood, a legal expert and former judge, was also of the view that no country could operate in a limbo.

“If our political leaders want democracy in the country then they have to act like democrats. PML-N has so many experienced parliamentarians and one of them could have replaced the prime minister while he was away. But unfortunately, our political party heads act like monarchs.”

However, this is not to say that everyone feels the need for a constitutional remedy.

But for Dr Rasool Baksh Rais, another academic, running a government from afar in this day and age is not a problem. For the professor, the prime minister’s absence did not matter as in the parliamentary form of government, governance is done through the cabinet, which is where collective responsibility resides.

“Agreed, that the prime minister’s absence is unprecedented but under the cabinet form of government, the prime minister is simply the first among equals [the cabinet members]; they all rise and fall together.”

In his opinion, it is wrong to equate a president with a prime minister, because the latter’s cabinet members were fully empowered to run their respective divisions. “The presence or absence of the prime minister doesn’t affect the day to day affairs of the government.”

However, Dr Rais’ arguments are not likely to win over the critics. Theoretically, he may be right about the collective responsibility of the cabinet but the reality is that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is far more than just the first among equals; his control of the party and the government is undisputed. The second tier of the party and the government doesn’t enjoy much power.

This is why his absence will continue to raise concerns.

Published in Dawn, June 17th, 2016