A New Constitution for Pakistan

No genius of the logical approach and rational approach, I don`t have any solutions, except praying that God save Pakistan from the self proclaimed economists and bankers who claim a monopoly of rational thought ...

Having JI district nazim doesn`t mean that MMA has more votes. Besides Naimatullah Khan has other factors supporting him and not just MMA.... Please be a little more logical.. (an analogous argument would be that since George W is the President Republican party has more popular vote than Democrat party)...

I still think MQM had a greater vote bank than MMA in Sindh, and I recall this from the figures given by the election commission a few months back. If you have other information please bring to light and I will willingly withdraw my assertion.

re: Razzz

There seems to be some confusion. I never cojoined the issues of constitutionalism with feudalism. It was you, who suggested that I did likewise. I was responding to your comment about feudals representing rural Pakistan. I think you misread my interact and if you would kindly go back and re-read it, you will see the error.

Secondly, the end of honor killings cannot be undertaken by the law, when the feudals in the national assembly support it! As to the issue of marrying women to the Quran, the fact that even if it is limited to Sindh, it does not condone the practice. Constitutional rights are for all and those rights should not exclude Sindh. Are you saying that a Sindhi women has less rights than women in the rest of Pakistan? I hope you are not suggesting such an idea.

Thirdly, as to your views on the 1973 constitution, I agree. However, that document has too many contradictions, which need to be cleared. Amendments are one solution and if that does not work, then we must be prepared to replace it. It is better than persisting with a flawed document. The powers are not clearly divided and there is a general ambiguity over its clauses, which is causing all sorts of interpretative conflicts. If you look at the nature of the document, it has clear presidential pretensions. If that is the case, then we should admit to it and stop wasting our time trying to circle a square!

Ciao

RE:fuzair :

Whats so ridicolous about it...i am just giving you the facts about how reserve seats have been exploited in the last elections and how dynasties exist in almost every party in pakistan.

cheers
raza

Re manto:

Oh my ....your highness approves. Must be my Lucky day. :) Well i beg to differ from your impression. I think you would be able to look up the results on some pakistani government website concerning the Pakistani Election commission or the offical election results published by the election commission. Otherwise the fact that even MQM`s power base i.e. Karachi is being run by a MMA nazim should be enough to illusrate my point of view.
anyway have fun
cheers
raza

(P.S Anyway leavng behind all the fuss we OR according to You I as a NAYSAYER created lets discuss this issue at hand. So any opinion about my little solution of bringing a change within the system (NSC etc) instead of looking for miracle solutions ? )

Razzz

Good finally a civil response.

I am under the impression that MQM won more popular vote than MMA in Sindh. Please inform me of any websites or Books or reports which indicate the actual figures.

Thankyou

-Manto

Re: Dost-Mittar #104

Apologies for the delay in replying but have been quite busy and didn`t have the time to compose a long response. You are quite right about Nehru. For all of his faults and vainess, he did set India solidly on the path of parliamentary democracy, a path his daughter was unable to wreck. Nehru was certainly vain but not a megalomaniac or even with megalomaniacal tendencies and he certainly did not equate opposition with treason. Its very unfashionable these days to take the ``Great Man`` view of history (the fault of all of those Marxists and neo-Marxist running dogs) but there is no doubt in my mind that if, say, Subash Chander Bose had become the first PM of India, Indian history would have turned out very differently.

You have only to look at Africa for a pretty good case-study of the importance of the Great Man view of history. Ghana, the crown jewel of British African colonies, should have prospered after independence but was run into the ground by Kwame Nkrumah (OK, he started the mess, the military dictatorships that followed finished the job but a final (?) military dictatorship ``saved`` it from imploding). As Rhodesia, the country was doing quite well economically (keeping in mind that it was fighting a full-scale insurgency, its economic performance was quite creditable) while, as Zimbabwe, the same country is a few years removed from being the next Zaire-Congo. And the less said about Zaire-Congo, the better.

In contrast to this, look at Botswana. It is an unqualified economic and social/democratic success (in spite of its rate of AIDS infection--although this might well end its economic run) with the highest per capita GDP in Africa: $3,100. The secret to its success is Sir Seretse Khama, 14th Paramount Chief of the bamaNgwato, the most important of the Tswana clans (who formed ~80% of the population). He was the Lee Kwan Yew of Africa and served as Botswana`s first leader, from 1965 to 1980, and ensured that it started its post-colonial life practicing democracy, not just paying some kind of lip-service to it. He went so far as to abolish chieftaincy (i.e., the King abolished the Monarchy) since he was afraid that it might interfere with true democracy!

While the same party has held power in Botswana since independence, Botswana is not a one-party state. His son is now the current VP but it remains to be seen if he will become president.

I agree that the luck of the draw matters tremendously. Who would have thought that Botswana would prosper and Ghana would fail?

---

Razz:
Every country has its political dynasties (Kennedys in the US who get elected because of their name; and Bush; and Gore; and Sununu; etc) but that list you gave for Pakistan is quite ridiculous!

Re: Manto/ ferozek

(1)
Re: Manto :
Why dont you check up on the vote bank of MQM vs the MMA in the recent elections instead of guessing without any facts..........for your kinds information it is the MMA which displaced MQM from almost 9 consitutiencies which were its traditional seats in Karachi alone. The Nazim of Karachi happens to belong to MMA .......and Karachi IS the power house of MQM. Similarly Hyderabdad the only other power base of MQM also showed a shift to MMA instead of MQM.....so please get your facts straight first. So even though MQM has two more seats then MMA in the legislature its share of total votes being cast in its favour is less. This is because MQM draws its strength only from Karachi and Hyderabad. need more facts ?
As for your mentioning the lack of solutions from my end. Well i think i gave the answer to that in my very first post over here on chowk. Which was that Change always comes from within the system unless a revolution takes place which sadly in this case is not a possibility. Nothing can be imposed on the people after being brought in from abroad as has been proved by the devolution plan (which our esteemed NRB chairman Naqvi not very surprisingly lifted out of the western democratic model and imposed on us without first realizing the practicalities of the matter) and now which has failed miserably with DCO`s being given back the power they used to have. In my opinion the current system can work as long as you have the proper political and moral will as well as honest human resources to run it. To be honest i dont find many problems with the 1973 consitution ( the orginal one). Its a perfectly balanced constitution which if properly imposed and carried out can lead to a better pakistan and has been agreed to by almost all major parties of pakistan. Even you would agree with that.
As i have earlier said ..its not a perfect world out there....so dont expect miracle solutions. Thats why we need to focus more on pragmatism rather then idealism. I am sure the constitution which you suggested would work very fine in a developed country but in pakistan it would face a lot of problems because of ill-developed institutions and a very low literacy rate. We need to talk about providing education to the people so that we can have a substantial middle class in the future (like INDIA) that would help us get rid of feudalism. Meanwhile we can incorporate amendments like the ones proposing National Security Council (suggested by Karamat in 96) in the contitution in order to give a permanent but a marginalized role to the Army so that they can be kept away from the mainstream. That would also create a check n balance for the politicians. We can have people from the Judiciary and DMG in this NSC to balance the power of the military. This institution would serve us well for the short term atleast till our other institutions and democracy have become strong enough to work on their own without the constant meddling of the Army.




(2)
Re Ferozek:
I am totally in agreement with your point of view about the disadvantages of feudalism. Even in my earlier post about feudalism i said it was a curse which needs to be removed but my friend there is always a sensible and practical approach to go about something, so i dont know why you are bringing that issue all over again. As i said earlier frankly speaking consitution is not the way to get rid of feudalism. Constitution is not meant for social reform........its meant to protect the rights of the citizen and give everyone equal and fair representation. There are other policy tools which can be used to decrease the power of the feudals. Providing Education, industrialization, development of a Bourgeoisie and a middle class, land reforms and enforcement of family laws can help us a long way in order to curb the effects of feudalism. Believe me no where in the world has a constitution been used to curb feudalism. Furthermore not all of the rural vote goes to the feudals now. Feudal families have ceased to exist as they used to before. With time their hold is gradually decreasing. If we were to check the land holding of most of the major fuedals who used to sit in the legislature we would realize that most of them have lost their land. Leghari, Khar and even the Virks and Khichis as suggested by Manto over here now only have a very small share of land compared to what they used to have in the past. Plus by abolishing single member constitutiency we would ignore the accountability issues which arise from the same person returning to its constituency for campaigning in the future elections. As for the marrying to Quran problem is concerned....sure its a very grave issue but its limited to Sindh and it can be dealt by legal means..........you dont need to amend the constitution to deal with it. Infact if the #7 of Mr Manto`s constitution were to be used...then that would inevitably make PPP the ruling party in SINDh........( PPP is the power house of the feudals in sindh isnt it.) Its current head Ameen Fahim himself has unmarried sisters because of this very reason. So what do you say....should we use # 7 then ?
I hope you get my point now........that is ......we have to look at all aspects of a problem to come up with a viable solution......you cant deal with problems by imposing something while not realizing what other effects can that solution lead to............nothing can be imposed on the people after being brought in from abroad like the devolution plan.......which has failed.



cheers

raza

ferozk 212,


Thankyou for your kind words too :)

I think the title `a new constitution for Pakistan` must have misled many. I had chosen the title only to suggest that the final solution is to replace our existing constitution which has become mired with contradiction and can never be redeemed.

The constitution of 1973 in many peoples` opinion was indeed a `presidential` constitution given the enormous executive powers vested in one Prime Minister, the all powerful Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It is no secret that he had hoped for a Presidential constitution and had only opted for a parliamentary form after he was left with no choice. Pakistan has a general structure of a constitution which is the Government of India Act 1935. It is that constitution which ultimately manifests itself in some form or the other in Pakistan. The elements of GOI Act 1935 were present in the 1956 constitution, parts of it were there in the 1962 constitution and it definitely forms part of the 1973`s constitution.

The other mistake of the 1973`s constitution is the definition of `state religion`... I suspect the idea of a liberal muslim state was more vocally expressed in 1956 and 1962. In 1973 however it was very much the `Islamic Republic` that was being sought after, eventhough the liberal secularists of the PPP had no idea what that really meant.

-Manto

re: razz

Your argument is flawed in a sense. Feudals may represent 60 percent of the rural population in Pakistan, but they only represent their family interests politically. Therefore, 60 percent of the rural population is not represented in fact. Feudals are not the only demographic, which can represent rural Pakistan; rural Pakistan has other candidates, but they are not allowed to run for political offices.

One has to travel and live in the interior of Pakistan to fully understand and appreciate the power of the feudals and what you see there, is nothing less than slavery. The power of the feudal over his/her tentants is awesome and it is the power of life and death. Feudals are also responsible for another problem and that is, of marring their daughters to the Qu`ran. According to the feudal tradtion, land is divided at marriage and feudals in Pakistan do not like to see their land divided and hence, their power lessened. Thus, if they have a daughter, they refuse to allow her to marry and keep her as slave within their households so they may not lose their lands. Therefore, the feudals do not only represent a political problem, but also a social and a cultural one. They deny women their rights; legal and social. Honor killings are more common among the feudals of Sindh than any where in Pakistan.

Everyone in Pakistan agrees that feudalism is a curse and you have to see feudalism in Pakistan to believe this. If you have not seen feudalism in Pakistan, you will doubt what I have said.

re: bharatvassi

I am short of time, but will post a reply to you soon!

re: Mantolives

Thanks for the words!

Y, the key to rationality in agruments is that both sides must be flexible in their agruments.
In order to convince the other, you have to be convinced by them and what is required is a intellectual compromise - you work from the opposite ends to the middle and you reach an agreement. If you assume a dogmatic stance in your agruments and try to convince the other person on the correctness of your agrument and on the orthodoxy of your views, you will have an argument of the deaf, because s/he will respond in a similar manner.

I think you have made your points well. The problem is that Bharatvassi misunderstood the intent of your article, which was a reply to mine. Both the articles were about the nature of power and its divisons in Pakistan. I raised the question and you offered a hypothesis; and not a solution to the problem. I wish Bharatvassi would read my article, because then raison d` etre of your article will become more clear. The articles were not about defining consitutional rights in Pakistan, because those right have been already stated. The articles were about deciding upon a constitutional mechanism, which implements those rights in a equitable manner.

I supported the parliamentary form of government in Pakistan till I started to read the real politically undoctored history of Pakistan. Pakistan, given the circumtances of its historic birth and early formative phase of its political development, was more of an administrative state than anything else. Pakistan needed and needs good, solid administration, which means we have to review our historic experience with a degree of brutal objectivity and not through rose colored views. In my personal opinion, a presidental system, which presupposes a strong federal government and less political autonomy for provinces fits the bill. A presidental system like the one, which is in vouge in France is more suited to the Pakistani politics than a pure parliamentary system. Parliamentary democracy presupposes a plurality of views, but we in Pakistan do not have a plurality of views as much as we have a monopoly of views based on a quadarchy of power: military, bureaucracy, politicans and the feudals.

Based on my personal observations, I wrote the article listing the historic reasons why Pakistan would be better served under a presidential system. Whereas, I wrote my article as more of a suggesstion, you offered a tangible hypotheis to my idea. Nothing more and nothing less. Personally, I think that this debate was misconstrued from the very start under the impression that, we were suggesting a new constitution of Pakistan. Far from it, because what we are suggesting is really to streamline the 1973 constitution and clear away the contradictions, which are inheirent in it. Contradictions, which resulted as the 1973 constitution was made to politically see-saw from serving military presidental governments and civilian parliamentary governments. What we are suggesting is to simply clearify the raison d` etre of 1973 constitution so that it can be implmented in its true spirit, which is to help the people of Pakistan realize their vision of a liberal, progressive Muslim, not necessarily an Islamic, republic.

Ciao

Razzz,

The point remains that while people like you know how to criticize (though frankly your criticism can hardly be termed logical, but is rather a barrage of continuous abuse) you can`t bring up anything of your own. First it was the `elitist arm chair idealist`, now it is the bookworm approach. It would help you to check the vote bank of MQM vis a vis MMA in Sindh in the recent elections. Maybe facts are also a `Bookworm` approach.


bharatvasi,

So you answered my post #203 in your post #201. No wonder you know that I am an elitist who wants to grab power ... after all you are psychic... you can predict before something happens.

Waisay in what world is the son of a hardworking Car-salesman`s son part of the power grabbing elite? ... because I am dying to know... cuz it ain`t this world, and I sure as heck would wanna move to that world.

-Manto


PS: Neither of you fine gentlemen gifted with supernatural powers of sight beyond sight , given us any concrete improvements or amendments to my `flawed` and `impractical` vision.

Mantolives 208 - I did, if you read 201! Read it carefully.

Perhaps I should recommend that you return to Rutgers and do a reading comprehension 101 course! They do run wonderful courses at Rutgers which would help you.

Well let us keep this up we will go beyond the 300 interacts

Re: Manto:

What you believe is quite wrong mr manto. MQM wont have the second largetrs vote bank in the province and hence they wont have any representation in the assembly. and its not just about MQM in sindh......its about all the provinces. Many parties and communities will be marginalized by your proposed mechanism which is quite unfair to say the least. As for the khichis and virks of these areas......dont you think that the leaders of mainstream parties like PML-N and PPP would still incorporate these feudals in order to gain access to their vote bank as was proven in the last election where relatives of leaders like gohar ayub and leghari were given reserve seats just because of their vote bank. So you can forget about the lawyers,technocrats and ex judges etc getting these seats. Do you think the likes of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir who are so self centred and autocratic would let their parties be dominated by these people.........no they would not........they would definitely want all kinds of syocphants to accompany them to the legislature. But i guess you dont have the vision to see that happening with your narrow (book worm approach to everything).
As for the being copied part........i think my last post made it clear that the only thing which you seemed to have come up with yourself was # 7 which happened to be quite impractical. So have fun with the rest of your copied constitution.


cheers
raza

Yes Bharatvasi, you are right. Thats why oh great one I asked you to add your own vision...

You didn`t answer #203

Let me ask you again... Where has my `elitist` family consisting of a hardworking self made businessman (a car salesman), and a government employed medical doctor ever tried to grab power in Pakistan?

It seems like you and your twin brother just thrive on name-calling.

-Manto

Manotlives, 202 You are still do not have the vision thing so far on this...that is missing mantolives !

Have a nice day - bharatvaasi.
p.s I guess your next target is 300 interacts. Are chowk now paying you for the number of interacts;-)

First line should read `incapable of HAVING a`

Razzz,

I have come to the conclusion that you are basically incapable of have a tameezdar Dialogue. You believe in just churning out insults and nothing else. Despite my requests you persist with your incendiary vocabulary and you fail to realize that this is my point of view and I have the right to my point of view. You can criticize it but you have no right to indulge in invective. Anyway, I have tried to answer you politely. Last time I am going to say it ...If you don`t answer back politely, don`t expect any more answers from me... Ok .. it takes GRACE to be tolerant, but then you`ve shown us how how tolerant you are.

You say my point #7 is copied. Please tell me where it is copied from. Last time I checked it was a principle which many states follow, but US is not one of them. So there goes your perverse logic on that one. I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that MQM will have no representation in the Sindh Assembly if this was to happen. I believe MQM would have the second largest vote and hence the would form the opposition in the Sindh Assembly. Also you have to appreciate that this formula will also force parties to become more populist to seek more popular support which transcends ethnic, social and indeed religious lines.


As for the rural population`s representation, how are the Khichis of Vehari, the Virks of Sheikhupura etc representing the rural population. All of them have houses in Lahore or Islamabad where they live, and where their families get educated. They go back only to claim their seats which they win because they terrorize their people. Parties can have a national agenda and they can bring technocrats, lawyers, ex-judges, engineers, and economists who would plan nationwide. The RESPONSIBILITY atleast under my constitution
of the legislature is to make the laws. The executive authority can be divided up into many tiers, and hence the rural population would have their say in governing them through Nazims, district Nazims and Local assemblies. We are not talking of ideals. It would be ideal if there were single member constituency and the best person got elected from each constituency, but Pakistan`s society and the curse of feudalism has shown us that it is inherently incapable of undoing the present social ills. Germany, Turkey etc have adopted this system (albeit in different ways) and they have done very well.

There are many people who might not agree with #7. I suspect Sameerjb might not. Even Ferozk may not, though I am not sure. Yes disagreement is there, but have you seen them attack me in that fashion? I mean it is a point of view. Why must everyone accept your point of view... What is this urge you have to impose your views on everyone else. If you don`t like my point #7 or my `Esteemed copied constitution` you are welcome to express your disagreement, but to call me words like `elitist armchair idealist`, `imbecile`, `messed up`, `without grace`, .... ( you and Bharatvasi should start a course- Incendiary 101)


And why should I come up with `radical new solutions`... Why don`t nay-sayers like you come up with a solution also ? I have repeatedly asked you that instead of wasting your energy cursing at me and proving yourself to be quite immature and intolerant, why don`t you come up with your own counter-solution to the problem? And then maybe if you convince me, I will have the `grace` to give up what I feel is a perfectly legitimate solution to a ghambir problem.

-Manto