![\"\"](\"http:\/\/umang.pk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/Ordinances-vs-democracy-Pakistan.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
If there is a less democratic characteristic of our democratic Constitution, it is the power granted to the executive to legislate in case the parliament is not in session and the president is convinced that the circumstances exist to justify the promulgation of an ordinance. <\/p>\n
Since the very essence of democracy lies in the formulation of laws by the legislatures chosen by the people, any part of the responsibility of legislating removed from the legislature under any pretext dilutes the democratic character of the Constitution. That's why an overwhelming <\/p>\n
Most democratic countries have no legislative provisions by decree or executive. Only a few countries, totaling no more than 10, retain this provision in their Constitution, and in most cases, it is the legacy of the time when the colonial powers were experimenting with the delivery of powers to the premises but retaining the power. legislate for themselves. Even the British parliamentary system that we inherit has no legislative provision of the executive. <\/p>\n
Legislation in a democratic system goes through several stages. The initial drafts of the new laws are generated by the political parties or their members. The political parties internally debate the draft informally or formally and refine it. The ruling party may decide to adopt it as a government bill, or an individual member of the treasury or the opposition may present it as a bill by a private member. <\/p>\n
\nOur constitutional scheme intentionally wants the treasure and the opposition to relate to each other.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Government bills are examined by the ministry in question, the ministry of law and approved by the cabinet. The bill is then presented in one of the two chambers of parliament, where it is normally referred to the permanent committee in question. The committees, where members of almost all parliamentary parties are present, conduct a detailed scrutiny of the bill. Occasionally, experts, officials and civil society representatives are also invited to committee meetings for consultation and comments. <\/p>\n
Once the standing committee has approved the bill with or without amendments, the report is presented to the entire house. In general, the chamber does not debate the bill in depth if the committee has already examined it in detail. However, the whole house has the power to further modify the bill. After the house approves the bill, it is referred to the other house where the permanent committee in question reviews it again and returns to the full house for approval. When a bill has been approved by both houses, it is sent to the president for approval. Getting that, it becomes a law. <\/p>\n
Presidential consent is generally considered a formality, although the president has the power to return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration. However, if a joint session of parliament approves the bill, it is considered final. In some rare cases, the two chambers do not agree on a bill, and at that time, a joint session of parliament consisting of both the Senate and the National Assembly finally decides on the final version of the bill. <\/p>\n
The normal legislative procedure is narrated here to illustrate that the Constitution attaches a high degree of importance to the system of checks and balances involved in the legislation. In the event that the legislative process is interrupted, as in the case of ordinances, a large number of necessary contributions, review and incorporation of various points of view of elected representatives of various geographical regions, parties, gender and ideologies is lost. In a diverse country like Pakistan, the short circuit of the legislative process can be dangerous.<\/p>\n
Article 89 of the Constitution allows the president to promulgate an ordinance in extraordinary circumstances, but if we return to the ordinance path since 1973, it would be difficult to identify an ordinance that cannot wait for the convening of the next session of any of the chambers of parliament . Most of the time, governments have resorted to ordinances for two main reasons.<\/p>\n
First, our election scheme is such that when a new political party manages to obtain a majority in the National Assembly and form the government, the composition of the Senate continues to reflect the position of the party at the time of the last Senate elections. This results in a period of approximately two years or so when the Senate elections are held and the ruling party can obtain a majority in the Senate. Until that time, the Senate generally has a majority of the opposition and, unless the ruling party is ready to seriously commit to it, the opposition by its absolute numbers can block Senate legislation. Our constitutional scheme intentionally wants the treasury and the opposition to work in an inclusive manner so that a broad agreement on legislation can be developed. <\/p>\n
Unfortunately, governments often want their laws passed unilaterally and that is where ordinances are useful. There are times when ordinances are enacted a few hours before a parliament chamber meets. On other occasions, the assembly sessions were extended so that an ordinance could be enacted. <\/p>\n
The second reason to favor the ordinances is that it saves the government team the hard work they have to put in the standing committees and the two chambers of parliament to defend the legislation and answer questions, including those asked by their treasure colleagues . <\/p>\n
Unfortunately, our democratic system is becoming increasingly exclusive and the commitment to the opposition has received a bad name. Our parliament has not been able to appoint members of the Electoral Commission because of this approach and now our assemblies cannot pass laws. <\/p>\n
The ordinances are not a solution, since the majority of the opposition can pass a resolution in the Senate and reject an ordinance. If we do not want our democratic system to become totally dysfunctional, we must make peace with the idea of \u200b\u200bcompromise between the opposition and the treasury. We must not forget that the 18th Amendment, regardless of its merits or demerits, was approved not long ago by a government that lacked a two-thirds majority but committed to the opposition parties to produce an almost unanimous package of constitutional amendments covering more than a quarter of the Constitution. <\/p>\n
The writer is president of the Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency of Pakistan.<\/em> <\/p>\n
president@pildat.org<\/strong><\/p>\n
Twitter:<\/strong> @ABMPildat<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n
Posted on Dawn, October 27, 2019<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n