Is Parliament Effective?

Parliament is the central institution of a democratic system because it represents the people, makes laws, debates national issues, and holds the government accountable. An effective parliament ensures transparency, accountability, and checks on executive power. In this article, Maleeha Lodhi evaluates the performance of Pakistan's parliament and argues that it has failed to fulfill its constitutional and democratic responsibilities. She highlights poor attendance, weak legislative scrutiny, rushed constitutional amendments, and excessive executive influence as major reasons behind parliamentary ineffectiveness.

1. The author argues that Pakistan's parliament has underperformed and has increasingly acted as a rubber-stamp institution rather than an independent democratic body. This reflects a broader trend of democratic erosion in the country.
2. Reports by Fafen and Pildat reveal poor attendance in parliamentary sessions. Only 20% of MNAs attended all sittings of the 27th session, while many members, including the Prime Minister, remained absent from important proceedings. Frequent quorum shortages also disrupted parliamentary work.
3. The article criticises the process through which the 26th Constitutional Amendment was passed. According to the author, lawmakers were not provided with the final text beforehand, debate was minimal, and the process lacked transparency despite having significant implications for judicial independence.
4. The 27th Constitutional Amendment was also passed rapidly with limited debate. The amendment proposed major structural changes to the judiciary and state institutions, leading to criticism from opposition parties, legal experts, media organisations, and civil society groups.
5. The Elections (Amendment) Bill 2026 restricted public access to MPs’ asset declarations. The author argues that this undermined accountability and demonstrated parliament's willingness to approve measures that strengthened executive authority rather than democratic oversight.
6. The article suggests that the ruling party views parliament mainly as a tool for maintaining power rather than as a forum for governance, legislation, and policy debate. As a result, meaningful parliamentary discussion is often discouraged.
7. Although the opposition attempted to challenge government actions, its repeated walkouts and boycotts reduced its influence within parliament and often left the government free to pass legislation without strong resistance.
8. The author concludes that parliament's failure to assert its authority has weakened democratic governance. Parliamentary supremacy remains a slogan rather than a practical reality, and an inactive parliament ultimately damages democracy itself.

The article argues that Pakistan's parliament has become increasingly ineffective and passive. Evidence from Fafen and Pildat reports shows poor attendance, repeated quorum failures, and weak member participation. The author criticises the government for rushing constitutional amendments through parliament without adequate transparency or debate. She also argues that parliament has failed to perform its legislative and oversight functions and has become subordinate to executive authority. Although the opposition has attempted to challenge government actions, its frequent walkouts have reduced its influence. The article concludes that unless parliament reasserts its authority and encourages meaningful debate and accountability, democratic governance in Pakistan will continue to weaken.

1. According to the Fafen report cited in the article, only 20 per cent of MNAs attended all sittings of the National Assembly's 27th session. A total of 33 members did not attend any sitting, while 267 out of 333 members missed at least one sitting. The Prime Minister remained absent from all nine sittings of the session.
2. The Pildat report highlighted persistent attendance issues by noting that the lack of quorum was raised 19 times during the parliamentary year. As a consequence, eight parliamentary sittings were adjourned due to insufficient member attendance.
3. The article also notes that the 26th Constitutional Amendment (2024) and the 27th Constitutional Amendment (2025) were passed with limited parliamentary debate, raising concerns regarding transparency, legislative scrutiny, and democratic accountability.