The Senate of Pakistan voted on the no-trust motion against Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani. The motion was rejected with 50 votes in favour, falling only 3 votes short of the required 53 to pass the motion. This result came as a shock to most as 64 Senators had previously stood in favour of tabling the resolution.

It is unfortunate that instead of providing constructive criticism to help improve the state of affairs, members of the Upper House are acting upon petty commentary. We were willing to let things stay the way they were when, for the last decade, consistently corrupt governments were in power. However, now that we finally have a government that, despite its many flaws, has stated that it is working on undoing all the harm that has been done to the country, we are quick to criticize it. We never miss an opportunity to point out flaws we think their policies might have and looking for someone to blame.

During an interview after the vote, Senator Hasil Bizenjo, the selection to replace Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani, was asked how the vote fell through against his hopes. He replied by saying that this was the doing of the “establishment”. He said that the Director General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is behind the surprising change of heart of 14 Senate members.

Is this who we want leading the Upper House? Someone who would blame another institution of the government for their loss without any evidence to back up the claim? Someone who made that uncalled for claim publically as a distinguished member of the Upper House? Logic demands that before pointing fingers at others, they take a look at their own house and how united it stands. Even if there was an outside influence behind the change of heart of the 14 members, doesn’t it make more sense to look into why it was so easy for said influence to persuade them?

Lastly, while we make commentary on the Vote of No-Confidence turning into a Vote of Confidence for Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani, we also need to discuss the reasons why the resolution was tabled in the first place. What were the reasons why they were no longer confident in his abilities despite having elected him Chairman? What was the end goal in mind?

For example, the PPP were among Chairman Sanjrani’s biggest supporters when he was elected. What caused this change of heart? Was it national interest or personal interest? Knowing their leadership, the latter is much more likely. And therein lies the problem. So many of those criticizing are more often than not doing so with their own vested interests in mind. These are questions that we can only ever hope to get answers to.

Not that criticism of the government or any policymakers is always unwarranted or incorrect. Criticizing the government is a right of every citizen of the State in case of underperformance. Constructive criticism helps the government improve as long as it aims to serve the public that has elected it. However, when criticizing, it is important that we refrain from resorting to extremes. With our right to criticize the government, also comes our responsibility to wait for it to act upon said criticism. We survived through two corrupt governments in the last decade. We can give the present one a chance too when it has proven to have lesser vested interests, if any.

Share.

About Author

Avatar

Leave A Reply