The PPP and some other critics of the lawyers’ movement are saying that the long march is against the supremacy of parliament. This logic needs to be addressed and perhaps a reminder of some basic political science concepts is in order.

Traditionally, it used to be said that there are three branches of the system: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Now, some people also include the media as a fourth pillar. We could even extent this further and include the civil society as a 5th one.

In a constitutional set up, all these different branches work within the limits prescribed by the constitution. They exert checks and balances on each other and no single pillar is allowed to have absolute power. This includes the parliament, which too must confine its activities within certain rules.

The idea of unconditional supremacy of any branch is therefore flawed; those who talk of parliamentary supremacy without acknowledging the role of checks and balances and the people’s right to protest against its misdeeds are either mistaken or deliberately misleading the nation.

Let us explore this further by briefly looking at the role of the 5 branches mentioned above.

The executive:

It runs the government.

The legislature:

Its role is to pass laws, make constitutional amendments when needed, debate important national policies and scrutinize the executive.

However, even the parliament can not amend the constitution arbitrarily. It can only do so with a two-thirds majority and not otherwise. This is to ensure that constitutional amendments represent a wider national sentiment because the constitution deals with the very basic rules of how the system’s functioning.

Even with a two-thirds majority, the parliament can not pass amendments against the basic spirit of the constitution. For example, it can not arbitrarily take away the fundamental human rights of the citizens, or abolish democracy itself.

The judiciary:

In addition to holding trials, the courts also interpret the constitution. If the parliament passes a constitutional amendment that violates the basic spirit of the constitution, the courts can repeal it. In this regard, the courts are the final arbiters, and not the parliament.

The media:

Its role is obvious. Since the constitution guarantees freedom of media, it means that the working of the parliament is also fully subject to public criticism.

The civil society:

It comprises concerned citizens organizing on various issues of concern to them and expressing themselves through the various means available to them within the democratic framework. These means include the right to criticize the government or even take out protest rallies if they feel strongly enough on a given issue. These are fundamental human rights and are an integral part of democracy. The parliament is not a holy cow that people should not hold demonstrations against it if they are unhappy about its working.

The argument that the long march is undermining parliamentary supremacy is therefore based on a flawed notion of democracy. There is no such thing as unconditional supremacy of parliament; the parliament must work in accordance with the constitution.

The Nov 3 action was a crime against a judiciary that was starting to give relief to the common man against the excesses of a corrupt government. The deposed judges are still the legal judges, and the government’s moral and constitutional duty is to provide executive support to them by letting them go to their chambers and resume their jobs.

If the government (which derives its strength from the parliament), does not fulfill its constitutional duty, then the people have every right to take to the streets and even pressurize the parliament by all means available to them.

The talk of parliamentary supremacy when the parliament is violating the constitution by not forcing the government to let the (illegally) deposed judges resume their duty is therefore nothing but self serving nonsense being produced by vested interests who only want to rule the country without any checks and balances on their power. Their goal is to create a dictatorship in the guise of democracy and all discerning people (especially TV anchors and other commentators) need to expose and prevent this frawd.

Aqil Sajjad

Boston