Is parliament effective?

A DEMOCRACY needs an effective parliament. Has Pakistan’s parliament lived up to this responsibility? The evidence suggests it hasn’t. Parliament has underperformed. It has acted as little more than a rubber-stamp for the present government. This reflects a broader trend of democratic erosion in the country in recent years.

Several reports offer telling insights into parliament’s functioning. The most recent was released last week by a civil society organisation. It records the low attendance of members of the National Assembly in its proceedings. According to Fafen (Free and Fair Election Network), only 20 per cent of MNAs attended all sittings of the Lower House in the 27th session in May. Thirty-three members did not show up for any sitting. The prime minister was absent from all nine sittings as were some ministers. The leader of the opposition, however, attended all of them. As many as 267 members out of 333 skipped at least one sitting of the session.

An earlier report by Pildat (Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency) evaluated the National Assembly’s performance in the parliamentary year March 2025 to February 2026. It also found low attendance by members. The report pointed out that the Assembly’s lack of quorum was raised 19 times, with eight sittings adjourned due to the absence of members. Despite this low and declining engagement by MNAs, the ruling party has made no effort to address the recurring problem of empty benches.

Attendance is not the only indicator of parliamentary conduct. What matters most is how it performs its legislative and deliberative functions. This is arguably the most unedifying aspect of its performance. It is due principally to the attitude of the government, which enjoys a simple majority in the Assembly, but with its ally, the PPP, it has a two-thirds majority. The way constitutional amendments have been bulldozed through parliament in the past two years are a striking illustration of its attitude to parliamentary institutions.

A parliament that doesn’t assert itself surrenders its authority to others.

In 2024, when parliament adopted the 26th Constitutional Amendment, it was done in the darkness of night. Even the final text was not made available to lawmakers before it was tabled. The entire legislative process lacked transparency. It was over in hours, without any debate on an amendment of far-reaching implications for judicial independence. The controversial amendment made the judiciary subservient to the executive and seriously undermined the rule of law. Official coercion to secure the required two-thirds vote robbed the entire process of legitimacy.

The adoption of the 27th Constitutional Amendment in November 2025 followed a similar path. It was passed in just a couple of days. There was hardly any debate other than some speeches from treasury benches during which the opposition walked out. The amendment struck at the heart of the Constitution. It involved structural changes in the country’s judicial system including the creation of a Federal Constitutional Court, restructuring of the military high command and grant of sweeping constitutional privileges and immunities to key officeholders. It sparked intense public controversy and evoked much criticism from the opposition, legal community, media and civil society. It was widely seen as another power grab by the executive. But again, the government rushed through the process. Treasury members and their allies made no effort to press for a full debate.

Another controversial bill, rushed through the NA in January 2026, was the Elections (Amendment) Bill. This limited public access to MPs’ asset statements by granting discretionary power to the Assembly Speaker or Senate chairman to withhold disclosures on unspecified ‘security grounds’. Opposition objections were cast aside to a law that undermined the principle of accountability of parliamentary members. These examples show how parliament has acted as a handmaiden of the executive. It has rubber-stamped actions that aggrandised the establishment’s powers.

As it is the majority party that sets the tone and substance for parliamentary activity, its stance is the principal reason for turning this Assembly into a passive and largely ineffective body. The PML-N leadership sees parliament as a means to maintain its party in power rather than as an instrument of governance or forum to articulate and debate policy. As in its previous stints in government, the party has not encouraged the Assembly to play an active role in both its legislative and deliberative functions.

With its majority, the ruling party should not be reluctant to encourage open parliamentary debate and allow members to freely deliberate on national issues. But it doesn’t see the value of parliamentary debate. It also doesn’t recognise the utility of parliament as a forum to ventilate opinion, change opinion and share opinion. Whether this reflects lack of confidence in its own backbenchers or understanding of how parliament should function, the outcome is marginalisation of the legislature’s role in the political system.

The PPP has also contributed to this outcome by not pushing for debate on key national and foreign policy issues or insisting that constitutional amendments should be deliberated upon and not rushed through the two chambers. As for the opposition, it has had to face incessant obstacles put in its path by an authoritarian set-up. Even so, it has tried to generate pressure for debate and subject government actions to critical scrutiny. But its frequent walkouts and boycotts, albeit in protest against efforts to muzzle its voice, have proven to be counterproductive. It has left the field open for treasury benches to do whatever they want.

Parliament is as good as its members. Many are adept in constituency politics and are products of a culture of patronage. For them, a seat means a ticket to an elite club and access to state resources to shore up their local power base. Attendance is secondary and policy debates of little interest. The result is weak parliamentary oversight of executive actions.

Elected representatives repeatedly declare their commitment to parliamentary supremacy. But they are unwilling to lend substance to these pronouncements by their actions. Supremacy becomes a talking point, not a rulebook. A parliament that doesn’t assert itself surrenders its authority to others. A hollowed House does no service to democracy.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.

Published in Dawn, June 8th, 2026

if you want to get more information about this news then click on below link

More Detail