The Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP’s) decision to disqualify PTI leader Faisal Vawda was widely in line with expectations; even if the lifetime ban that came with it might have been a little harsh. Indeed, the original petition for his removal as a parliamentarian was based on providing a false affidavit regarding his dual nationality status when he ran for the national assembly back in 2018.
Yet the ruling party chose to provide him political cover by moving him up to the senate last year when it was clear that his status as an MNA was hanging in the balance. Was it really an absolute necessity to keep him onboard when there could have been other viable candidates?
Prime Minister Imran Khan often spoke about merit-based positions and sought unconditional accountability across the board. Unfortunately, this hasn’t really been the case and some of those who surround him are turning out to be a liability for his political survival. Vawda’s antics on the media and in public should have been a lesson for PTI on how not to make a mockery of itself. Moreover, the ECP’s decision to ask him to return all perks and privileges is the right course of action on ethical grounds.
While Vawda has every right to take the matter to the Supreme Court, it should also be taken into context whether his decisions as a federal minister were taken with due diligence. Now the question of whether banning him, or any politician or public office holder, for life is the right thing to do will crop up again.
Of course, everyone has the right to seek legal relief and debate should remain open for discussing constitutional amendments and loopholes with regards to Articles 62 & 63 amongst others.
Electing a parliamentarian is a democratic right for every Pakistani but steering the country towards a functional democracy with sustainable governance should be the ultimate goal on part of the movers and shakers.
