The lack of public trust in parliament does not stem from a rejection of democracy itself; rather, it arises from a lack of deliberative action by the government. Public confidence can be restored through transparency, institutional credibility, and substantive debate.
According to a 2025 Gallup and Gilani Pakistan report, only 36 per cent of the population expresses trust in the National Assembly, with roughly a third expressing no trust at all. Taking a broader view, however, reveals that this crisis of confidence is not unique to Pakistan. Research from the University of Southampton indicates that public trust in legislative institutions is deteriorating across 36 democracies worldwide — posing a systemic threat to democratic governance globally.
Non-Attendance and the Subversion of Debate
One of the primary drivers of public mistrust is the simple fact that parliamentarians frequently fail to show up. Reports from the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT) — an independent think tank monitoring parliamentary performance since 2002 — reveal that sittings frequently collapse due to a lack of quorum, with sittings adjourned on multiple occasions because members failed to attend.
Furthermore, even when Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) do attend sittings, there is a distinct absence of substantive debate on policy. During the 15th National Assembly, PILDAT recorded that approximately 51 per cent of MNAs did not participate in a single debate or discussion, with average daily sitting times capping at roughly three hours.
This performance gap creates a striking paradox: diminishing deliberative engagement alongside an acceleration in legislative output. The rushed passage of the 26th and 27th Constitutional Amendments demonstrates this dynamic, with major constitutional alterations pushed through in a matter of days without rigorous committee scrutiny.
Opposition leaders routinely condemn this “rubber stamp” mechanism when out of power, yet adopt the exact same expedited practices upon entering government. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, for instance, criticized executive overreach while in opposition, yet maintained similar legislative shortcuts once in power. This cycle persists partly due to structural constraints: Article 63-A of the Constitution binds members to vote strictly along party lines on key legislative matters, under threat of de-seating. Consequently, backbenchers who wish to raise critical questions or debate policy are structurally silenced.
Media Representation and Narrative Warfare
Another major factor compounding public mistrust is the role of the media in framing parliamentary affairs. In a healthy democracy, parliament serves as the primary forum for political discourse. In Pakistan, however, mainstream and digital media have largely eclipsed the legislature as the main arena for political narrative-building.
Rather than transmitting transparent legislative proceedings, media channels amplify partisan conflicts, with competing political factions using broadcast and social platforms to brand rivals as corrupt or unpatriotic. This continuous narrative warfare further alienates the public from the parliamentary process.
Restoring Institutional Credibility
Can parliament regain the public’s trust? Electoral participation alone is insufficient; true institutional credibility requires transparency, accountability, and meaningful performance.
- Radical Transparency: Rebuilding trust requires making parliamentary proceedings, voting records, debate transcripts, and member attendance records fully accessible to the public. Trust grows when citizens can see their representatives at work.
- Deliberative Responsiveness: Citizens must feel that their everyday concerns are being debated and addressed by the institution as a whole, rather than reduced to point-scoring by individual political parties.
- Equal Accountability: Institutional credibility depends on applying the law equally to all actors, ensuring that political power does not shield individuals from legislative or judicial scrutiny.
When parliament asserts its independence, enforces structured deliberation, and operates with complete transparency, it can begin to rebuild public confidence in democratic governance.