Democracy is not meant to be silent, polite or perfectly staged. It is, by its very nature, loud, contested and sometimes messy. Protests in parliament, even those that seem rowdy or theatrical, are part of a broader democratic culture where dissent must be heard — if not always welcomed. Yet, the recent events in the Punjab Assembly show an alarming drift away from democratic norms: one where criticism of the ruling party’s leadership is treated as a crime rather than a legitimate expression of parliamentary opposition.
During the Punjab Assembly’s budget session, opposition MPAs interrupted Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, who has been publicly described by her party as its ‘red line.’ The Speaker’s initial response — suspending 26 members for disorderly conduct and fining 10 for damaging property — was harsh but still within the established bounds of parliamentary procedure. Such measures, though regrettable, are historically common in Pakistan’s legislatures and elsewhere in the world.
However, the Speaker’s subsequent move — to seek disqualification of these legislators by approaching the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) — is deeply troubling. By framing their conduct as a violation of their constitutional oath, the Speaker has sought to transform procedural disruption into a constitutional crime. This is a dangerous precedent.
Legal experts have rightly pointed out that the Punjab Assembly’s rules of procedure allow only for temporary suspension of members to maintain order, not for their disqualification. Disqualification is an extraordinary measure intended for far graver breaches, such as proven corruption, defection under Article 63A, or criminal conviction. To suggest that noisy protest alone meets this bar undermines the very spirit of parliamentary debate.
Moreover, the ruling party’s selective sensitivity is glaring. Would this drastic step have been taken had the protest targeted someone other than Ms Nawaz? The PPP has rightly reminded the PML-N of its own combative history — when its members, too, heckled and used provocative language against Benazir Bhutto and other opponents. Democracy requires thick skins and a willingness to tolerate, if not embrace, dissent. Treating criticism of party leadership as blasphemy against the Constitution dangerously conflates loyalty to individuals with loyalty to democratic principles.
The Speaker’s responsibility as custodian of the House is to ensure the assembly’s functioning, protect the rights of the minority, and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution — not any political leader, no matter how revered — must be the only true red line. If every protest is met with calls for disqualification, parliament risks turning into a ceremonial space where only applause is permitted.
Pakistan’s democracy has survived because it has been noisy, contested and resilient. It must remain so — and that means defending the right to dissent, even when it is loud, disruptive or uncomfortable.