Pakistan is currently undergoing an extraordinary phase in its political history, with none of its five directly elected legislatures in place. Instead, the federation and its four provinces are being governed by unelected caretaker governments, and what’s particularly striking is that these caretaker governments have exceeded the maximum 90-day period mandated by the Constitution.
In the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), caretaker governments were established in January and have now entered their ninth month of rule. Assuming elections are held in February of the following year, which is widely expected given the ongoing delimitation exercise, these two provincial caretaker governments would have held office for a staggering 14 months before the elected governments take charge.
As for the caretaker federal government and the remaining provinces of Sindh and Balochistan, they would complete six months in power by the time the elected governments are installed.
This extended duration of unelected caretaker governments represents a significant departure from Pakistan’s democratic ideals and the principles outlined in the Constitution, which emphasizes governance through the “chosen representatives of the people”.
The forthcoming parliament must grapple with the issue of validating the election delay and the prolonged caretaker rule when the new National Assembly convenes. The Supreme Court has already clarified that the 90-day requirement for elections is non-negotiable.
While the extended rule of caretaker governments and election delays may be one of the most serious constitutional deviations in recent times, it is not the only instance where constitutional and legal principles have been disregarded. Notably, the caretaker cabinet in KP, which took office on January 26, 2023, has faced criticism for the overt political affiliations of many of its members.
Despite media scrutiny and political parties openly acknowledging these affiliations, the only grievance expressed was that these parties did not have a sufficient share in the cabinet.
It raises questions about how such a partisan caretaker government was allowed to be sworn in initially. When one minister addressed a political party’s gathering, the Election Commission of Pakistan intervened and advised the caretaker chief minister to remove the minister. Subsequently, after the minister’s resignation on July 24, the ECP recommended the dismissal of most of the cabinet members involved in politics.
While the ECP’s efforts to ensure the impartiality of the caretaker government are commendable, the fact that partisan ministers were allowed to serve for a full seven months highlights a concerning lack of adherence to the Constitution and the Elections Act of 2017, which mandates that caretaker governments remain impartial toward all parties and candidates. It’s difficult to reconcile political affiliations with impartiality.
Another instance of casual disregard for constitutional and legal requirements is the appointment of a sitting senator, a founding member of the Balochistan Awami Party, as the caretaker prime minister. While Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar commendably resigned from the Senate and his party membership before taking the oath, one of his cabinet members, Sarfaraz Bugti, the interior minister, continues to be a senator and is affiliated with the same party. This inconsistency in political affiliation rules for federal and provincial caretaker ministers raises concerns.
Despite the dissolution of the National Assembly a month ago, the election schedule has not been released, and there appears to be a dispute over who has the authority to decide the polling date, with both the president of Pakistan and the ECP claiming jurisdiction. The Supreme Court should step in promptly to provide a definitive interpretation of the Constitution if there is any ambiguity.
Furthermore, two crucial pieces of legislation, the Army (Amendment) Act, 2023, and the Official Secrets (Amendment) Act, 2023, were passed by parliament before the National Assembly dissolved. However, when these acts were officially notified by the law and justice ministry, the president used social media to deny having signed them, creating confusion and uncertainty.
This lackadaisical approach to the Constitution and the rule of law so close to elections raises concerns about the commitment of state institutions and high officeholders to upholding the Constitution in both letter and spirit.
