Article 63A has been restored to its original form. While it does not specify penalties, any member who votes against their party will have their vote counted. Additionally, the party head has the authority to decide whether to refer a case against such a member to the Speaker. Judges have issued varying rulings on this matter. Initially, they ruled that the party head decides where votes are cast, but later it was stated that the parliamentary leader would determine this.
There’s no denying that previous rulings on Article 63A were flawed, but the recent decision has corrected this. However, the timing of this decision isn’t ideal. The question remains as to why it took over two years for the Supreme Court to review the bar association’s appeal against the decision.
Article 63A was essentially rewritten under the guise of interpretation a job for Parliament, not the judiciary. Political leaders had called for a full bench review by the Supreme Court, but this was not done. Instead, three judges reviewed the case, leading to a shake-up in Punjab’s government as power was handed over to Pervaiz Elahi. This decision created chaos, with ongoing marches and protests, while Imran Khan faced repeated setbacks, such as rising inflation, smuggling issues at the Afghan border, and other economic challenges.
During this period, former military chief Qamar Javed Bajwa allegedly pressured the coalition government for an extension, showcasing the impact of the Article 63A interpretation. Had Hamza Shahbaz retained power in Punjab, the outcome might have been different. The no-confidence motion against Imran Khan stemmed from his perceived ineffective policies that harmed the economy. Despite his calls for revolution, he failed to mobilize people as effectively as before, possibly due to the country’s economic recovery.
Imran Khan’s political approach remains disruptive, focusing more on agitation than constructive governance. His politics resemble a T20 cricket match, requiring a solid platform that he has yet to establish. He lacks the alliances needed to lead a movement, unlike the alliances formed by his opponents.
Constitutional amendments are expected to be introduced in Parliament soon. If Maulana Fazlur Rahman supports them, they will pass; otherwise, issues of floor crossing will continue, potentially leading to a constitutional court. History shows that politicians like Benazir Bhutto did not let their hopes die, even when faced with overwhelming odds, as she did in 1997.
Imran Khan remains a significant figure, but his path is one of conflict and unrest. If he seeks power again, it will likely be through revolution rather than democratic means. The Pakistan Muslim League (N) appears focused on eliminating PTI’s influence in Punjab, using the narrative created by Ali Amin Gandapur. Meanwhile, constitutional amendments could reduce the chances of Khan receiving legal relief.
Pakistan’s democratic evolution has taken a new turn, with floor crossing still a controversial issue. Though it may be considered unprincipled, it remains a part of democratic history. While PTI once benefited from this practice, it now faces the same challenge. Ultimately, it’s the party head’s decision to refer cases to the Speaker, and the Election Commission decides on disqualification. The final say lies with the public, who determine whether to re-elect these individuals.