Absentee Lawmakers: A Double Standard
If a salaried employee took this many days off from work, they would likely be dismissed within months. Yet lawmakers, elected and paid to represent the people, appear to operate by a far more forgiving standard. The latest Fafen report on National Assembly attendance makes for grim reading, showing that absenteeism is not an exception but a pattern. Only 66 of 333 members attended all nine sittings of the House’s 27th session. More troublingly, 33 MNAs did not attend even once. In ordinary employment, such absence would be considered abandonment of duty. In parliament, it is treated as a statistic.
The Core Duty of a Legislator
This is not a minor procedural concern. Attending sessions is the primary job for which lawmakers are elected. They are not sent to parliament merely to flaunt power, appear at political rallies, cultivate influence or act as powerbrokers in their constituencies. They are sent there to participate in lawmaking, debate national issues, question ministers, sit on committees and represent the views of the people who elected them. When 80 per cent of members miss at least one sitting, and when many do so without even submitting formal leave applications, the problem is clearly institutional. The absence of key officeholders makes the matter worse. If ministers are unavailable to answer questions or respond to calling attention notices, parliament’s oversight role is weakened. If elected representatives are missing from the House altogether, their constituents are effectively voiceless.
Need for Accountability
The most indefensible category is those who did not attend a single sitting. What is their utility as legislators? Why should voters, taxpayers and the state continue to tolerate representatives who do not perform the most basic function of representation? Pakistan’s constitutional, parliamentary and electoral rules need a serious rethink. Persistent absenteeism must carry penalties. These should include loss of privileges, public disclosure, financial deductions and, in extreme cases, disqualification from contesting the next electoral cycle. Democracy cannot function when its elected custodians treat parliament as optional.
