ECENT developments in the Senate have provided cause for concern on how parliamentary business is being conducted. On Monday, Deputy Chairman of the Senate Syedal Khan Nasar controversially decided to withhold the results of a vote on a motion after it unexpectedly received the support of several government-allied lawmakers as well. The motion in question had sought the immediate consideration of the State Bank of Pakistan (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to improve the private sector`s access to bank credit in smaller provinces. The government had strongly opposed the bill, arguing that it was a money bill, and therefore its own prerogative, but the opposition persisted, arguing that it had nothing to do with Article 74. Perhaps a bit frazzled by the debate, the acting Senate chair called for a vote, but the motion got more support than he anticipated. Ideally, he should have then announced the result and let the chips fall where they may.

Instead, his actions left the impression that the House was siding with the government even against its membership`s wishes.

On Tuesday, as the opposition protested for the return of Senate Chairman Yousuf Raza Gilani, who, it may be recalled, has refused to chair the ongoing session ever since his production orders for a PTI senator were not honoured, the acting chairman suspended three PTI senators for protesting his decision. He also ordered the sergeant-at-arms to expel them from the House.

This only added insult to injury. At one point during the ensuing pandemonium, the acting chair remarked that the House could not be run on anyone`s wishes and personal agenda. His actions belied those words. Parliament loses its purpose if it cannot adhere to set rules of the game. If the opposition is to be denied any victory at all costs, then it seems pertinent to ask whether it is a dictatorship that is being served by parliament, or some democratic system of governance.