President Leghari Resigns, SC in conflict

I certainly differ from Mr Pasha`s definition of a constitution. A constitution is not a statute of laws, which evolve on a frequent basis - a reflection of contemporary society it protects. On the contrary, a consitution is the document that enshrines the fundamental principles on which the laws of a nation are based. It is the basic contract between a state and its citizens - a charter that broadly defines the responsibility of a state and its limitations, and is a guardian of the rights of all its citizens. Moreover a constitution
also protects us from the ``tyranny of the majority`` depending on the mass hysteria of the period.

As a result, in most countries of the world, the law statutes undergo
frequent change wheras the constitution is rarely affected. Flag burning, abortion, capital punishment are some contemporary
issues faced by US society and depending on the norms and practices of the period they are instituted or repealed by the legislature and not by augmenting the Constituition. Augmenting or changing a constitution
requires much deliberation and in the US it requires ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures by 2/3`s majority in addition to passage by 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress.

Mr. Sharif had many options at his diposal.
He could have changed his party rules and laws to punish horse trading.
He could also have legislated and augmented the already convoluted laws dealing with election issues or he could have used judicial recourse to seek civil penalties from members who reneged on party promises.
Instead, he used the mindset of an orangutan to ammend the constituition.
Socities as a rule do not change their charter overnight, they change their
laws to accomodate evolutionary changes.

Aside from stifling free speech,the ammendment accomplishes almost nothing.
Rather than treating the symptoms, let us look at the the disease itself. The problem in Pakistan, is that the parties have no real standing, they are merely extensions of the individual leaders personality. Perhaps party stalwarts can refocuss their attention into building their party organization, by tolerating dissent and by practising the much touted democratic mandate within their party organizations. But instead they
use the power of the state to reinforce their feudal control over their respective parties. Parties fracture, primarily because
the individual leaders are stronger than the party establishment. Bring democratic structure to the party and we shall the both the emergence of pragmatic and less authoritative leadership, as well as the stability of the party as an institution. It will also impact the quality of party leaders
and members, thereby making the horse trading issue moribund. Unfortunately the present generation of party leaders lack both the vision and the integrity to strengthen their respective parties, as a consequence,
they resort to the state apparatus to do their bidding.


Perhaps a leson in parliamentary democracy is in order( or to recap Mr Dilawar Syed`s words) , constituents elect
a representative to serve their interests in parliament. These representatives in turn use a party platform to promulgate laws that
conform to their common ( note common) objectives. Certainly in many circumstances the constitutienicy objectives might diverge from the party`s objectives. The representative in the aforementioned circumstance should have the voice of dissent if it is to the detriment of his
constitutuents, because his primary responsibility is to his constituents and not his party.

You sir, contend that parliament is not the forum for such dissent. I disagree, parliament is exactly the forum for such dissent, because dissent and public debate are the primary functions of any legislative
body ( in addition to passing laws), and
furnishes the member with the power of the vote to provide credence to that
dissent.

Your argument that people elect parliamentarians exclusively on the basis
of the party platform is also slightly off base. Certainly, the party does
furnish the necessary financies and the organizational structure to the candidates` election and common set of issues ( organized as the party platform), but there are other local issues and needs
that the candidate must also address to win an election. Consquently many candidates win as independents, because the local population views local issues more importatnt than national party platforms.

Lastly you analogy between a civil contract and adherence to the party platform is also slightly flawed. The former is static wheras the
later is circumstantial ( otherwise it would be a legal contract) . Events often happen at the national scene that make many issues in the party platforms irrelevant. ( remember the Republican party pledges). Also issues on the party platform change with political happenstance and prevailing public mood. Getting a fresh mandate everytime a campaign promise is reneged , would make
government very expensive and inefficient - quite possibly unworkable.
Of course the public can take their elected members to task for reneging their earlier campaign promises at the next election.

In my post, I tried to make the point that the amendment did not curtail the right of dissent. It did force representatives to restrict their dissension to extra parliamentary forums.

I would contend that ``treasury`` issues are exactly where ``conscience`` has less relevance than adherence to the economic policy espoused by a party, but that is neither here nor there in analysing the broader impact of the bill.

If I were to sign a contract with you to deliver a particular set of goods and then sent you something completely different, at the very least your lawsuit would accuse me of false representation. Why should the individuals who draft our laws be subject to a lesser standard of conduct?

I repeat, in the interests of clarity.. if an individual feels strongly enough about an issue and the majority of the party does not share his views, he can always seek a fresh mandate from his electorate to vote his conscience.

I don’t have a problem with the idea of a bicameral process for changing the constitution, but in the instance where one of the houses is elected with a 2/3 majority, I don’t see why the situation should be different in the other. A constitution reflects the society it protects. As the society evolves so should the constitution. At the end of the day, if we have problems with constitutional change, it is up to us, as concerned citizens to inform the electorate and lobby the legislators directly.

I agree with Tauheed, there needs to be a more formal process for addressing party issues. This is only likely to develop once politicians cannot change their allegiances without penalty.

Notwithstanding who is ``right`` or who is ``wrong``, the crux of the problem is quite apparent: the ease with which a sacred document like the constitution can be amended depending upon who has the so-called mandate
in the national assembly.

What is needed is a democratic process which makes it very difficult, extremely difficult, for the constitution to be amended. A mere two-third majority to amend the constitution lends itself to the whims of whichever party has two-thirds majority in the parliament.

An amendment to the constitution should not be a joking matter and must not only require at least a 75% majority vote in each of the national houses of the parliament, but it should also be approved by at least 3 out of 4 state assemblies, with each assembly passing the proposed amendment by at least 75% majority vote.

BTW, the french word ``parliament`` (parlez - to talk) derives its` nomenclature usage from the animal kingdom: parliament of owls or colony of owls :)-

Whinge, Whinge, Whinge,….Most of the comments I have read so far have a single common thread. A vast desire for inertia and a knee jerk liberal reaction to the events which have unfolded. Let us all step back and examine the issue rationally for a moment.

The root cause of the conflict was the legislation prohibiting floor-crossing by members of a party.
The consequences of this legislation are that horse trading becomes harder, votes lose the value of hard currency, and parties and principles become more important than personalities and individuals.

This is consistent with the democratic process for several reasons. The principles which a constituency choose are raised above the individual. A representative elected on a party platform cannot change the beliefs investing his decisions without securing a fresh mandate. In a worst case scenario, a representative can resign in good conscience and seek approval for his new opinion from his voters. In a lesser situation, and if a bill is not acceptable to a simple majority of the representatives from a party, they can vote to have it removed from the list of proposals given to the whip. Bills which are not ``points of issue`` can have special dispensation for ``conscience`` votes.

This voting is carried out in extra-parliamentary quorums by the various parties and has the pleasant side effect of therefore increasing the efficiency of that otherwise slightly somnolent body.

Rather than give absolute power to an individual, this forces the Prime Minister to adopt the will of the majority of his parties elected representative and to adhere to the charter of his party, since they can literally force him to resign simply by proposing and obtaining a simple majority to that effect.

The ultimate freedom is that of selecting ones representative to the legislature. This freedom is not curtailed in any fashion. Carried to its logical conclusion, constituencies should have the right of recall. A representative can be called from parliament and a new one nominated without otherwise disrupting the business of that institution. I would have liked to have seen this last measure included in the bill.

Consistency, Continuity, Stability and the rule of Law are what the economy needs, and therefore by inference, what the nation needs. In the resolution to our ``constitutional crisis`` we helped clarify an important structural postulate:

``The Legislature makes laws, the Executive enforces them and the Judiciary interprets and implements them.``

That this has been preserved is a good rather than a bad thing. Consistency in the rule of law requires it.

Since few people would argue the prevalence of law and order in Pakistan, I find it astonishing that the Supreme Court should suppose itself immune to public criticism. No human institution is that sacrosanct. I cannot say what motivated Sajjad Ali Shah in his little rebellion but feel it was a giant step forwards for our nation that it failed. Notwithstanding that the immediate beneficiaries are the PML, a party whose social values I find myself diametrically opposed to, the longer term benefits will be enjoyed by us all.

The proposal was well conceived if poorly drafted and would have been a step forward in implementing an effective republican democracy in Pakistan. It is a shame that it was scuttled by a group of individuals exceeding their franchise. A high price to pay for a reiteration of the ideals enshrined in a democratic system.

In one particular, however, I find myself agreeing with some of the earlier posts. Gen. Jehangir Keramat is a good man and the nation owes him its respect and gratitude. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

The present situation in Pakistan is the ongoing saga of the truimph of might over right. Much like the earlier slogans, of ``people power`` or ``religon`` provided the rationale for the assault on insitutions, this time around it is in the name of ``democracy``.

The PM might have won, but Pakistanis have surely lost, the balance of power has tilted, ironically reminiscent of an earlier PM with absolute power. Surely the lessons of that era have not been learnt, and it will truly be tragic if the outcome is similar this time around. What is clear is that Pakistanis have yet to stand together as a nation, based on a collective set of principles, instead we have become entreprenuers and opportuntists parlaying every principle, to our individual advantage.
Truly, we are are product of Darwinian evolution, in time, we just might become
``homo sapiens``.

IF YOU ARE WRONG, MES AMIES, I DON`T WANNA BE RIGHT ....

Fight for the right with all your might?
What is right is what you think is right!
Is that right?
The only right is the right of the might.
Prez was right & PM is right.
COAS is right & CJ was right.
Daughter was right & Father was right.
Right of the beast!

Quetta is right & Peshawer is right!
Both benches are honorable
Yet they later shall fight.
But what is the right?

Who knows what is the right?
Just fight for what you think is right.

Illusion of right?
Look for the right!

Might it be on the other side?
Alas!
Human mind is too narrow to see
The whole and absolute right.

Strive for right
beyond the shadows of illusion,
Stunned by phenomenal narrowness of mind.
Every right is wrong, every wrong is right. Depends how one sees the right.

What an awful shame!
Right is raped by Might.