ISLAMABAD, September 20 (DNA): The PILDAT Monitor on Quality of Democracy, covering the period between January-August 2016, analysed negative and positive developments that have affected the quality of democracy in Pakistan.

Positive Developments Affecting the Quality of Democracy in Pakistan between January-August 2016 include Pakistan Senate pursued legislative agenda related to ‘Speedy and Inexpensive Justice’, Supreme Court’s landmark judgment regarding powers of the cabinet, YouTube was unblocked in Pakistan, Chairman Senate barred the Federal Minister for Defence, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, MNA, from attending session of the Senate for absenting himself during a crucial sitting, Pakistan Senate issued its own Performance Report, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz held meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Party after two years and Positive Movement on FATA Reforms.

The pro-activeness exhibited by Pakistan Senate, which has constantly seen an expansion of its powers since March 2015, was depicted again in one of the major legislative initiatives at reforming the country’s civil and criminal justice system. The Senate’s Committee of the Whole finalized a Report titled Provision of Inexpensive and Speedy Justice in the Country,1 on December 31, 2015.2

In pursuit of the legislative agenda based on the Report, the Pakistan Senate unanimously passed 8 Private Members’ bills to reform the country’s criminal and civil justice system on January 18, 2016. These included:

Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Bill, 2016, Law Reforms (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Supreme Court (Number of Judges) (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2016 and Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2016.

Not having achieved Government consent or ownership on these bills, only one out of 8 bills has been passed by the National Assembly (i.e. the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2016) so far.

The Government and the National Assembly are well within their rights to wholly or partially agree or not agree at all to the Senate’s proposed bills, 3 however, the initiative by the Senate must be lauded. Given the serious gaps in the justice system in the country, no Government should need reminders to overhaul the system. However, with the ticking of the time clock on the 2-year sunset clause expiry of the 21st Constitutional Amendment,4 the Government did not really have the luxury of unlimited time in this regard.

In what can be termed as a landmark for Pakistan’s democracy, the Supreme Court’s judgment of August 18, 2016 on Civil Appeals No. 1428 of 2016, pertaining to tax exemptions for importers of cellular phones and textile goods, struck down Rule 16 (2) of the Rules of Business of the Federal Government, 1973, which gave the Prime Minister the discretionary power to bypass the Federal Cabinet.

The Supreme Court judgment categorically laid down the constitutional dictate that the Federal Government is the Federal Cabinet, which consists of the Prime Minister and the Ministers. The Prime Minister is the first amongst equals in this regard, where his office can neither supplant nor substitute the Federal Cabinet.

PILDAT considers the judgment to be a critical indictment of the personalized form of governance centred around the office of the Prime Minister, which has been the hallmark of various governments of different political parties in Pakistan since the passage of the 1973 constitution. The centrality and discretionary powers which have come to be associated with the office of the Prime Minister erroneously perpetuated a Prime Ministerial form of Government instead of a Parliamentary one, as originally envisaged by our Constitution.

An unfortunate consequence of this has been the dormancy of various official fora for consultation and decision-making. For example, the Federal Cabinet has been detrimentally side-lined in the decision-making structure under the current Government. It was only able to meet a dismal 20 times; a mere 12% of the total of 167 times it should have met till now.1 This lack of collective consultation and decision-making is not only reflected in the dormancy of the Cabinet, but also amongst the Council of Common Interest (CCI) and the National Security Committee (NSC). No meaningful consultation seems to be taking place at the level of the political parties general councils or executive committees.

After three years of being off-limits to Pakistanis, the video-sharing website was finally unblocked on January 19, 2016. YouTube had been blocked across Pakistan on September 17, 2012 following orders by then Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf. The Prime Minister had imposed a ban after YouTube refused to heed to the advice of the Government to remove what it felt was a blasphemous film titled The Innocence of the Muslims. The Government of Pakistan initially tried to restrict access to the clip inside Pakistan, but ended up having to block the entire website because Google refused to restrict access to the video on the website itself.

Since assuming power in 2013, the PML-N-led Government appeared reluctant in tackling the issue proactively, opting instead to issue intermittent vague promises of an end to the ban, while near simultaneously insisting the ban would remain in place. This strategy may have worked indefinitely if it were not for a petition filed in the Lahore High Court that resulted in a court ordered meeting in May 2015 between petitioners, Bytes For All, members of the Federal Ministry of Information Technology, including the Federal Minister, Ms. Anusha Rehman, MNA, and the heads of multiple Government and corporate organizations, including the Chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, which necessitated the Government’s tackling the issue head-on.

Earlier, the National Assembly also passed a unanimous resolution on May 05, 2014, to lift the blanket ban on YouTube.5 On April 21, 2014, the Pakistan Senate’s Standing Committee on Human Rights had also asked the Government to lift the blanket ban on the video-sharing website.6

The ban on the website was eventually lifted due to Google launching the localized version of Pakistan, which would not only see offensive content particular to the country being censored, but will also give the Government of Pakistan powers to censor content on the website.

Chairman Senate bars the Federal Minister for Defence, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, MNA, from attending Session of the Senate for absenting himself during a crucial sitting

The Pakistan Senate, under the leadership of Senator Raza Rabbani, seems to be fairly serious vis-à-vis its role of oversight of the Executive. A trend, which started with the Senate amending its Rules of Business on April 15, 2015 requiring the Ministers to appear before the House and making reports on ‘all matters referred by the House and 10 recommendations made by [the Senate’s] Committee’,7 perhaps saw its culmination with the Chairman Senate banning the Federal Minister for Defence, Khawaja Asif, MNA, from attending the 243rd Session of the Senate.

In a development hailed by a local newspaper as a ‘landmark move…unprecedented in the parliamentary history of the country’, the Senate Chairman banned the Federal Minister of Defence from attending the remainder of the session, because of his absence in the Question Hour scheduled on January 21, 2016 regarding his statement on the Chief of Army Staff’s visit to Afghanistan on December 27, 2015. The Chairman Senate had previously, on at least four occasions, passed rulings with regards to the absence of members of the Government when required in the Question Hour or during proceedings of the House.8

PILDAT believes that it is the essence 0f any functioning parliamentary democracy that the business of the Parliament takes precedence over any other business of the Government. However, apparently during the current tenure of the PML-N-led Government, the Parliament seems to have been side-lined with the Government according only secondary importance upon its collective responsibility to the Parliament. Hopefully the Chairman Senate’s ruling in this regard, and the efforts of the current Pakistan Senate to uphold its prestige as an institution will contribute towards curbing this trend.

In yet another welcome development emanating from the Pakistan Senate, the House issued its performance report for the period of March 12, 2015-March 12, 2016, which is appropriately titled Report to the People of Pakistan. Apart from the performance report, the Pakistan Senate has also started uploading a Synopsis/Journal for every session, starting with the 242nd Session, which comprehensively covers all information regarding the business undertaken.9 This is also accompanied by the Pakistan Senate also uploading the minutes of the various Committee meetings on its website.

Such initiatives will go a long way in developing a robust bridge between the populace of the country and its legislatures while helping the work of various research organizations and the media. There is a need to institutionalize these practices by making them a part of the Rules of Procedure so that these may not be a one-off development.

It is also hoped that the National Assembly also replicates these commendable initiatives. Indeed, the primary responsibility in this regard lies with the National Assembly, since it comprises directly elected representatives of the people. The National Assembly did take a commendable initiative of releasing its performance report for the First Parliamentary Year, but seems to have missed out on this subsequently.

Given that wide-ranging party intra-party consultations are hardly synonymous with the PML-N, a meeting of its Joint Parliamentary Party on August 05, 2016, after two years, was a welcome development. The Joint Parliamentary Party’s meeting was last held in February 2014. Since then, the forum’s meeting has never been called to consult with the party lawmakers despite some huge political crises including the marathon sit-in of the PTI and PAT in Islamabad in 2014.

Apparently, over 250 of PML-N’s parliamentarians attended the meeting. Although no presser was issued for it, media reports generally presented a picture of discontent amongst the legislators with regards to the top party leadership and the members of the Government not consulting the parliamentarians on important matter.10

The meeting was held in the aftermath of rumours of the formation of a forward bloc within the ruling party, while the Prime Minister was away in London for his medical treatment. The matter seemed to be resolved eventually due to the intervention of the Federal Minister for Finance, Senator Muhammad Ishaq Dar.

FATA has long been the marginalized periphery of the country, not becoming part of the mainstream since 1947. The latest reform actually implemented in FATA, was as late as 2011 and involved extension of the Political Parties Order of 2002 to FATA.

However, things seem to be changing with the Committee on FATA Reforms constituted by the Prime Minister submitting its report not only to the Premier, but also subsequently to the Parliament for consideration, after a period of 9 months of work.

The major proposal seems to be the merger of FATA with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, with the final decision to be taken in consultation with the Parliament and jirgas of the local tribes.

PILDAT commends the Committee on submitting its Report, along with suggesting the possible holding of a referendum in FATA to ascertain the wishes of its people with regards to their future. However, that can only be done once the Temporarily Displaced People have returned to their homes following years of war.

On the other hand, negative developments affecting the quality of democracy in Pakistan between January-August 2016 include weakening accountability system as a major issue in Pakistan’s politics, delayed appointment of the members of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), slow movement on making local governments functional, no positive movement on reforming Pakistan’s justice system, PTI postponed intra-party elections-yet again, political parties at daggers drawn in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, population census delayed, new Chief Minister for Sindh appointed-apparently without party consultation, MQM and Altaf Hussain: A regrettable study in self-implosion and parliamentary budget process remained without effective parliamentary input.

Although the emergence of accountability in and of itself as an issue for Pakistan’s democracy is not a negative development, there seemed to be a regress with regards to the accountability structures and their political ownership within Pakistan for the period under consideration.

Consider the open threats made by the Prime Minister to the National Accountability Bureau on February 16, 2016, when he warned the accountability watchdog to stay ‘within its limits’ and not harass the Government employees, otherwise action would be taken against it.11

This open threat came at the heels of the growing trend of targeting accountability institutions by the executive. Earlier the PPP-led Sindh Government had criticized the NAB in the harshest terms and the PPP had introduced a bill in the Senate to clip the NAB Powers. The PTI-led Government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through an amendment also clipped the powers of the provincial Ehtesaab Commission for the period under consideration.

The accountability debate has been at the centre stage of Pakistan’s democracy for the period under consideration, given the emergence of the ‘Panama Leaks’, along with the Military leadership finally taking decisive action on the NLC Scam involving retired senior military officers and the COAS publically dismissing from service 6 army officers involved in corruption in Balochsitan.

More than anything, the emergence of the ‘Panama Leaks’ and the subsequent deadlock between the political parties over the formation of an Inquiry Commission to investigate the matter underline the lacklustre performance of Pakistan’s accountability institutions, especially the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). Given the wide-ranging powers that NAB enjoys and the resources at its disposal, it has been disappointing to witness NAB’s inactivity over the Panama Leaks issue.

PILDAT believes that in the face of such crises, the stakeholders involved start to seek out the formation of new institutions, rather than reforming the ones already in place. Therefore, although the seeking of political consensus within the Parliament to investigate into the Panama Leaks is appreciable, the real issue that needs to be debated is the reluctance and inability of the existing structures to investigate the matter. The serious question is why such institutions as NAB, FBR and FIA do not automatically spring up into action whenever a suspected case of mega corruption or wrong-doing comes to light. In the case of FBR and FIA, one may easily pin-point the lack of independence hampering their initiative but it is completely un-understandable in the case of NAB which is a fairly independent institution with its head appointed through a bi-partisan process involving Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly.

Pakistan has experimented with a number of models to address the menace of white-collar corruption. One major weakness in the laws controlling these institutions was the unbridled power of the ruling party to appoint and remove the heads of these institutions. A major improvement in the law governing NAB was introduced through the National Accountability (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 when the appointment of the NAB Chairman was required to be made through a bipartisan process involving the consultation with the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly. Consultation with the Leader of the Opposition by the Prime Minister required under this amendment was made meaningful and effective after the Supreme Court specified the extent and requisites of the consultation. Following these two developments, NAB has attained, to a great extent, the position of a truly independent entity largely protected from partisan influences.

However, the National Accountability Bureau has come under increasing scrutiny by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, especially for its reluctance to pursue mega-corruption cases, instead choosing to devote its efforts to cases that should actually be pursued by the Provincial Anti-Corruption Bureaus.

Parliament and especially the Standing Committees of the Senate and National Assembly on Law and Justice have a special responsibility in this context. Parliamentary Committees should hold special meetings to ask NAB the reasons for its dormancy in the context of the recent Panama leak. Although the National Assembly unanimously voted on August 17, 2016 for a motion to set up a joint 20-member Parliamentary Committee to make recommendations for changes in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), the issue is not with the law as it is considered one of the best accountability laws in the world. The issue is with the implementation of the law and the conduct of the persons at the helm of affairs.

The penchant of the currently elected leadership with regards to delaying important constitutional decisions seemed to continue for the period under consideration as well. The latest example of this was the delayed appointment of the Members of the Election Commission, with a procedure possibly violating the constitutional dictates in this regard. The hastily orchestrated process, however, saw its beginning in the passage of the 22nd Constitutional Amendment, contributing to the trend of rushing importance pieces of legislation through the Parliament.

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution brought about much-needed and long-demanded reform in the qualification of the Chief and Members of the Election Commission of Pakistan. This change, however, only fulfills one requirement of the many crucial, but still pending, electoral reforms. The piecemeal approach to electoral reforms reflects the absence of required focus on the issue by the Parliament. The Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reforms, formed on July 24, 2014, had set a term of completion of its work in 3 months. Regrettably, however, after more than two years of its work, it has, so far, failed to table a comprehensive package of electoral reforms in the Parliament.

More often than not, it is witnessed that instead of bringing important legislation in time, the Government moves in at the eleventh hour to do the needful. Apparently the passage of the 22nd Amendment was prompted by the approaching completion of the term of the 4 ECP members who retired in June 2016.

The negative trend of rushing important legislation through the Parliament, without the requisite debate in the legislature, and any input from concerned stakeholders, including members of the civil society, media, etc. has been going on for a while. Earlier, the all-important 21st Constitutional Amendment, which paved the way for formation of Military Courts, was passed after only 174-minutes of debate in the National Assembly.

When it came to the appointment of the Members of the Election Commission of Pakistan, following the passage of the 22nd Constitutional Amendment, both the Federal Government and the National Assembly again seemed to have been remiss in timely initiation of the process. Despite the fact that it was very well known that the four members of the Election Commission would retire on June 12, 2016, neither the Prime Minister initiated the process of consultation with the Leader of the Opposition nor the Speaker National Assembly constituted the Parliamentary Committee for the appointment of members of the EC in time. The Speaker constituted the Parliamentary Committee on June 14, two days after the four ECP members had retired and the EC had become dysfunctional.

No meaningful progress was made in the appointment of members of the EC until July 14, 2016 when the Supreme Court directed to complete the EC by July 27, 2016. It is the second time that the Supreme Court had to intervene to resolve the dysfunction of an important constitutional body such as the ECP.

The procedure, once instituted after inordinate delay, also saw apparent flaws. Article 213 (2A) once read with Article 218 of the Constitution describes the procedure for the appointment of the members of the Election Commission of Pakistan and clearly mentions that the Parliamentary Committee will be responsible for hearing and confirmation of one name for each position. This constitutional provision stipulates hearing as a necessary prerequisite of confirmation. The Parliamentary Committee apparently did not fulfil its complete responsibility by confirming four names against four vacancies without any process of hearing.  In 2011 when the four members of the ECP were appointed, the objection to lack of hearing was raised and Syed Khursheed Shah, who was then the chair of the Parliamentary Committee, had acknowledged that it was a serious lapse on the part of the committee to not have held hearing.

Although it has been a little over 9 months since the latest Local Government elections in the country were held, two provinces of the country, i.e., Punjab and Sindh still remain devoid of functional Local Governments. This is primarily because the elections for the indirectly elected seats, and subsequently for the Mayors and Deputy Mayors were inordinately delayed, although the process has been completed for Sindh, with the newly elected Mayors and Deputy Mayors taking oath on August 30, 2016.

The period under consideration has made manifest, yet again, the reluctance on the part of the Provincial Governments to delay institutionalization of functional local governments on one pretext or the other. For example, the ECP quite literally had to coerce the Provincial Governments of Sindh and Punjab to issue the schedule for elections on indirect seats in February 2016. This was followed by the introduction of a last-minute ordinance by both the Provincial Governments to amend the voting procedure from secret ballot to the show of hands. This was eventually struck down by the country’s judiciary, showing that democratic checks and balances are in place, even though the democratic spirit may be missing.

Regardless of functional local governments in the Islamabad Capital Territory, Cantonment Boards, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, local government elections have still not been held in FATA, although the Committee on FATA Reforms in its Report has recommended to do so. Additionally, the consequences of clipped powers of the local governments also seem to raise a number of questions which will intensify with time, as evinced by the Muttahida Quami Movement’s recurrent demands to also devolve the police, revenue and agricultural departments to the local governments as well.

The clock is certainly ticking on 21st Constitutional Amendment, which is set to expire on January 05, 2017, with the Federal Government unable to present any concrete reforms on Pakistan’s apparently dilapidated justice system till now. Although reforms in Pakistan’s judicial system seemed to be a cornerstone of the National Action Plan, it seems that the Government may be seeking an extension in 21st Constitutional Amendment. Indeed, this seems to be the case with the Protection of Pakistan Act whose sunset clause for detention powers of the paramilitary forces expired in July 2016.

One keeps on hearing of different reports being presented to the Prime Minister for judicial reforms. However, given that no comprehensive constitutional package seems to be in the offing right now, it seems that the Government may revert to introducing amendments at the last moment, a penchant that has come to be associated with its style of governance.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has delayed its intra-party elections yet again. On April 11, 2016, PTI Chairman Imran Khan had announced that the party’s intra-party elections had been postponed in view of the circumstances created by the leaks of the Panama Papers. The intra-party elections were originally supposed to take place on April 25, 2016.

The saga of PTI intra-party elections had started soon after the party had held its first elections in March 2013 followed by the verdict of the election tribunal in October 2014, dissolution of all elected bodies in March 2015, formation of an interim-party structure with the same office-bearers in the same month and constitution of an independent election commission for intra-party election, formulation of new election rules in September 2015 under the leadership of Mr. Tasneem Noorani, membership drives, training of election coordinators, formulation of an election procedure and the election schedule and then resignation of Mr. Tasneem Noorani in March 2016.

The democratic credentials of the party has taken more than a few knocks. More than two years have passed in this process and the party has failed to hold fresh elections or even announced a time frame to hold these elections. With this, PTI has joined the ranks of most political parties in Pakistan who rely on nominations by the top party chief for various party positions rather than holding intra-party election. PTI had made impressive progress under Mr. Tasneem Noorani in preparations for the intra-party election. The most difficult and time-consuming job of preparing members’ database was completed; election procedure was finalized and a procedure for voting by cell phone was also devised. Instead of successful holding of intra-part election in PTI setting an example for other political parties as we had hoped earlier, it seems that PTI has instead joined the ranks of other parties with weak internal democracy.

Although it seems that some political maturity has come to surround the practices of the PML-N and the PPP in the rest of the country, Azad Jammu and Kashmir seems to be the backwater for political wrangling between the two parties.

Ahead of AJK parliamentary election scheduled for July 20, 2016, there were recurrent clashes between the workers of both the parties, which have resulted in at least 12 deaths during the period under consideration. The political narrative being perpetuated by the party leaderships also certainly seems to have degenerated with the former Prime Minister of AJK, Chaudhary Abdul Majeed, calling for members of the PPP to assault any members of the PML-N in an election rally. Conversely, Federal Minister for Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit Baltistan, Chaudhary Muhammad Barjees Tahir, MNA, apparently referred to Chaudhary Abdul Majeed as a ‘pahari bakra’ (roughly translated as a Goat of the Mountains) on at least two occasions.

The national population census was delayed indefinitely yet again, in a decision taken during the 28th meeting of the Council of Common Interests held on February 29, 2016.

Population Census is deemed to be one of the basic elements for judicious distribution of financial resources, representation in Parliament, electoral processes, tax collection and other civic issues, including growing urbanization and evaluation of resources for infrastructure development. For example, it appears that the Election Commission of Pakistan will be unable to carry out delimitation of the constituencies based upon the updated population figures as mandated under Article 51 (5) of the Constitution.

The pretext apparently is that the Pakistan Army will be unavailable for census duties, which may take away from the credibility of the whole exercise. PILDAT understands that although the necessary discipline, muscle and security for the exercise can come from the Pakistan Army, the elected Government need not unnecessarily burden the institution as it is engaged in an active war against terrorism across the whole nation. Alternative means must be sought so that the exercise is not delayed indefinitely and unnecessarily. Statements like the one that the inclusion of the Pakistan Army is a must for credibility of the census show that the elected Government is not able to create its own credibility, at the cost of abdication of its duties and responsibility

Another pretext was also that the census might be conducted in the summer of 2016, although that also seems to have passed, with the availability of the education sector government employees.

PPP surprised the country by replacing a veteran loyalist of the party and the Chief Minister of Sindh, Syed Qaim Ali Shah, MPA, with the Provincial Finance Minister, Syed Murad Ali Shah, MPA, and now, the new Chief Minister of Sindh on July 25, 2016. This decision came as a result of a meeting convened by the party Co-chairman Mr. Asif Ali Zardari in Dubai that primarily took place for the purpose of expanding the scope of special policing powers of Rangers in the whole province.

The spokesperson for Mr. Zardari, Senator Farhatullah Babar, said that more changes would be made to the Sindh cabinet besides replacement of the Chief Minister. Syed Qaim Ali Shah, MPA, tendered his resignation to the Governor of Sindh, Dr. Ishrat-ul-Ibad and accepted by him on July 27, 2016. Maula Bux Chandio, Adviser to the Sindh Chief Minister on Information, told the media that party Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari had decided to bring ‘young leadership’ in the province for its betterment and growth.

Keeping in line with the tradition of the party, a major decision such as this came around again apparently without any institutional consultation within the party but by the top party leadership resident outside Pakistan.

Political parties in Karachi have been complaining against what they term a partisan hue of the Karachi Operation as the Pakistan Rangers (Sindh) has been trying to clean up the militant wings of both the MQM and the PPP. Regardless of the political-criminal nexus that seems to persist in Karachi, they were recurrent statements by the MQM that it was ‘pushed against the wall’ without any avenue being offered for addressing its grievances. However, nobody expected the MQM to self-implode in such a regrettable manner. The cause is none other than Mr. Altaf Hussain, who seems to be both the saviour and a bane for the party.

Under a gag order by the Lahore High Court, and upheld by the Supreme Court, any coverage of the speeches of Mr. Altaf Hussain by the national media are banned. This however did not stop him from spewing his vitriolic venom, a culmination of which was seen in his incitement to violence against media houses and anti-Pakistan remarks on August 22, 2016. Mr. Altaf Hussain, since the Rangers’ raid on the MQM headquarters Nine-Zero in March 2015, has made such disgraceful public speeches at least on 30 occasions before.

The consequence seems to be that the fourth largest party in the National Assembly, and the second largest in the Provincial Assembly of Sindh, seems to have lost its credibility, especially with regards to its patriotism and sentiments for the country.

Given that the MQM has dissociated itself not only from Mr. Altaf Hussain’s statements, but also any role in the party, it seems to be making amends for the unforgivable. However, it faces an uphill task not only with the electorate, but also the Federal Government, the Provincial Government of Sindh and the military leadership. In what can only be termed as an all-out purge, at least 67 offices of the party have been levelled in Karachi, with efforts to eradicate any symbols of support for Mr. Altaf Hussain in Karachi. The great paradox is that the MQM still firmly seems to be a part of the electoral landscape of Pakistan, with its Mayors and Deputy Mayors being elected for the Karachi and Hyderabad Metropolitan Corporation.

Given that significant reforms are still required across the National and 4 Provincial legislatures to strengthen the Budget process before its passage, the Budget Sessions for Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies for the fourth Parliamentary Year, i.e. June 2016-May 2017 seemed to be a repeat performance of the previous years’ budget sessions.

The highest number of Budget Session’s sittings, amongst the Provincial Legislatures were for Provincial Assembly of Sindh (11 sittings), followed by the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Provincial Assembly of Balochistan (7 sittings each). The Provincial Assembly of the Punjab had the least number of sittings during the Budget Session for the current Parliamentary Year, with a total of 6 sittings. The National Assembly wrapped up its Budget Session in 15 sittings.

With limited time available to scrutinize the Provincial Budgets and no adequate powers with Standing Committees to undertake in-depth reviews of the Provincial Budgets, year after year, Budget Sessions see mere rubber-stamping the Executive’s budget by the Provincial Legislatures.

PILDAT has been making recommendations to strengthen the Budget process in the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies of Pakistan, which include increasing the duration of the Budget process to at least 30 – 45 days and changes in the Rules of Procedure of the Provincial Assemblies to allow Standing Committees both power and time to review the Budget both before and after its introduction.