On Monday, the tussle between the parliamentarians and the Interior Minister came to an end when he was sacked by a ‘vote of no-confidence’ by the house. This move of no-confidence against the minister got 136 votes in favor while 60 votes were given favoring the minister and four votes were found to be invalid. As a response to this, President’s spokesman turned it to be ‘inappropriate and unreasonable’ and the decision will be challenged in the prime court of the country. It was said that the house cannot remove any minister without any solid reason and this act of the house is detrimental for the functioning of democracy.

No doubt, democracy is the best form of government in which the government is run by its different organs and power and authority have equally been balanced between its different organs. The constitution of the country guarantees that no organ should try to cross its limits and the equilibrium between them should not be disturbed. When the organs keep functioning for a longer period of time, the functioning and effectiveness of these organs increase and the basis of country is strengthened.

Similarly, democracy is considered as a very fragile and sensitive system of government in which every step needs to be taken very carefully. It is the reason why, in countries with strong democratic history and practices, a word of a parliamentarian or minister carries great weight and value and act of a minister or a government representative decides the whole tone of government. Whenever a minister is impeached, it is taken after great consideration because the following consequences will not be rolled back easily and it would affect the government and overall solidarity of the state.

In the case of interior minister Mujtaba Patang, such a sensitive attitude was found missing from all the different organs of the democratic government. Whatever may be the inside and hidden reasons, motives or objectives, the said minister was summoned to the house in a way that cannot be termed to be constitutional because when such a step is taken, it comes as a final step that cannot be rolled back easily and this step ought to have been taken after great consideration. Similarly, the act of ‘no-confidence’ should have been taken as a final step in this regard. It is not easy that every second day, a minister should be sacked and a new minister should be put in place as it would eat away the time needed for other legislative works.

In past, we also witnessed the same immature attitude of the house and such acts would really be detrimental for the overall functioning of democracy and well-being of the country.