A New Constitution for Pakistan

Re manto :
So by trying to remove the feudals from the scene you are effectively denying 60 % of the pakistani population i.e. (rural areas)......represenatation in the legislature. Good going !!!!.........WAY TO GO man......which messed up university are you doing LAW from anyway ? what do they teach u over there apart from hallucinating.
Take the rights way from people.....marginalize them as much as possible.

As for your premise about the so called democratic nature of the political parties....how would you respond to the following scenario....which is A REAL ONE....in order to PROVE the viability of your #7.
Suppose the # 7 was followed in the Sindh province......we would end up with PPP and MMA as the two major political parties in that province. So that inherently means that the sindh legislature will have basically NO representative from the MQM. Now i guess that would imply some problems wont it, with such a major community of the sindhi province not being represented. Democracy is supposed to give representation to each and everyone..not take it away from them and here you in your such VALIANT effort at providing a solution are doing just that.Imagine a sindh assembly without representation from MQM. The whole muhajir community would feel isolated and would naturally react to the scenario in perhaps a violent way. So YOUR ESTEEMED copied constitution would end up weakening the federation rather then making it strong. Similar scenarios would follow suite in other provinces.
So what is more important.strength of the federation or removal of the percieved threat from feudalism ?

You know it takes GRACE to admit the fact that one of the points of your solution is a bit impractical. But i guess you dont have any.

As for what you appreciate or dont appreciate..? i care two hoots about that. Anyone could have opened a few sites on the net and come up with a constitution like yours by copy pasting stuff. You have proposed only one thing which is a bit new and radical...i.e. # 7 and i hate to say it but its quite impractical as proven by the above scenario. So what would you do..........come up with a solution to improve your copied constitution or try to ignore the question ?


cheers
raza

Janaab Bharatvasi sahib,

Please also inform me who in family has grabbed power and how are they trying to hold on to it...Your arguments don`t make sense.

Stuka,

Thanks man...

-Manto

Razzz,

First of all I don`t appreciate your constant reference to my proposal as `copied` constitution. I told you that it has the same features that the US constitution has because both are Presidential in form.

Now coming to the democratic nature of the parties... they favor the feudals for a reason. The parties right now, whatever their manifesto, have to seek the rural vote. The rural vote is controlled by the feudals who are single member constituency candidates. If you abolish the single member constituency, it renders the feudal worthless. Hence the parties no longer need to depend on the feudal they were previously backing. Hence you see that feudalism will no longer be a consideration for the major parties, once #7 is implemented. This is my view. Like I said you have the right to disagree, and present your own point of view.


Bharatvasi,

The fact of the matter is that you didn`t even stop at 138 which is the same post as 168... this shows us your real intent.


Feroz,

Yup.. its a virtue.. and you are very virtuous :)

That is why I always learn a lot from you.

-Manto

ferozk 200 I am not changing the tenor of my arguments. I asked for some questions. Mantolives gave it in 168 - Iin fact I have said that if this had either been alluded to in the article or given at the outset in the interacts a lot of band width would have been saved.

The reason for this is that if any such an endeavour (like what you and mantolives have undertaken) you need to establish paremeters around which you can develop the case. In this case I felt that there was not enough to go on.

So having given post 168, I have moved on from it - to the the form discussed in the article.

All I am now saying is that discussing the form is immaterial since any settlement will always come to naught if constitutionalty is not acccepted. It doesnot matter if there is a presidential form, a parliamentary one, or a mixed one or any other form. It will degenerate into a farce.

I have no axe to grind - against the elite or any one.

What I am saying is that

(a) there is a constitution in pakistan (which seems acceptable in its original form)
(b) if this is the case why go through all the meaderings of trying to set up another
(c) alright given that you want to now start again then start by giving the details and set the context for it
(c)(i) these pertained to rights duties responsibilities of the citizen and state
(c)(ii) I said that these were and have to be universal irrespective of the form of govt
(d) mantolives having done it in 168 (after a lot of trouble) I said fine and moved on
(e) Now all I am saying is the appears to be a law applicable to pakistan
- He who respects constitutionality is a weakling
as long as this is the case my argument goes it does not matter what you come up with
you will always hit the buffers.
The proble with this lack of respect is that IT IS THE COMMON PEOPLE who suffer
the people with power (the elite as I call them) will never suffer - they have their assets
intact and can move continents.
(f) Constitutionality forms a part of the VISION of what you want tthe society to be. It is the basis of all government. if the people with power donot have this implies that there is definitely a lack of vision of what you want the country to be.

This isthe genesis of what I am saying. We spent a lot of time on items (c)(i) and (c)(ii) and if mantolives had done the honour early rather than get onto his horse (after a lot of jibes re: elite etc he did deliver but that is besides the point). As far as I am concerned it is (f) which is the key. if Power does not respect it why talk of LAW and ORDER, RESPECT FOR STATE who cares where the state and country is heading.

I hope this explains ,.....I have nothing against the elite - I have a lot of friends amongst them (which I have made over the years).

I guess I must thank your perceiverence in this matter - the good humour (as compared to the honourable author) shown on your part. Mind you I have never included you in the elite in power category though I might just start doing it now ;-)

Well I guess we must move on.

P.S Mantolives - You have now touched that magic 200 interacts on your article (double century by jove you have done it again! - congrats)

re: bharatvassi

Please do not change the tenor of your arguments.

First you wanted details and now you are talking about the people in power abusing the constitution and taking it non seriously. These are seperate issues. What you said about Musharraf and the rest before him are valid comments, but they are not what we were debating! LOL

The fact that no one in Pakistan follows the constitution does not mean that it does not have the details, which you requested. The fact that that constitution in Pakistan is ignored by all has nothing to do with your arguments of vision and direction and rights, which you said were the sine qua non of a constitutional design.

This is a personal observation and I hope you will indulge me in making it. I think that you have a personal axe to grind against the elite of Pakistan. That is your right and you are entitled to that opinion. However, it is coloring your objectivity and you are only keen on being told, confirmed and justified in your hatred for the elite of Pakistan through this discussion. Bharatvassi, I am really interested in this topic and I would be delighted to argue it with you, but I will not persist if only to add fuel to your anger against the elite of Pakistan. I do not support the elite of Pakistan and neither do I belong to them; I am an immigrant`s son, who had to struggle to establish his identity in Pakistan. You are more than welcome to hate the elite of Pakistan, but please do not exploit my arguments as a reason to justify your hatred for them. If you disagree with my arguments, then we can agree to disagree and end this dicussion.

I honestly think that your rancour and bitterness towards the elite of Pakistan is making you adopt a very narrow argument, which blames everything on them and for someone really interested in details, you have not given considered the detail of identifying them! LOL

Ciao

``While he has a point of about clearly defining the state`s nature and not leaving it to interpretation, that is beyond the scope of this article. ``

I guess that is the way of the elite who grabbed power and are trying to hang to it through their progeny. For them their rights - their sole right infact of ruling the masses - are important. those ofthe masses are not.

A clear inunciation of the rights and duties and responsibilities of the both the citizen and the state is not beyond the scope of your article. Unless it is there no one knows what it is your are trying to achieve or what it is you want to achieve. In other words you need a raison detre for the setup you are describing in your article.

At the very least one would have expected you would devote some space for it. That you chose to ignore this extremely important and vital aspect, and declare it NON-ESSENTIAL in the most off-hand manner indicates your preference for handling of POWER rather than the RIGHTS and FREEDOMS of the CITIZEN!. You have 45 lines from 59 lines on page one devoted to the past and all the stuff about POWER SHARING amongst the elite. Then the remainder of the article some 50 odd lines on HOW YOU FEEL THE POWER SHOULD NOW BE SHARED. And in all this not one word about RIGHTS, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES of the PEOPLE IN POWER shows the PRIORITIES OF THIS POWER HANKERING ELITE. In all some 7500 words in the article and not one word on the RIGHTS, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES of the PEOPLE IN POWER (aka the elite and their progeny). All the excitement is about Divving up of the POWER amongst those who have the Power NOT ONE WORD about those WHO DO NOT HAVE POWER (the non-elite)

Oh yes I forgot that is beyond the scope of the understanding of the elite and their henchmen. What can I say Mantolives! You have taken on Manto`s name I wonder if you can live up his ideals? CAn you take on his mantle?

FerozK - thanks for 193. Now you say that there is a constitution which has every thing (I agree with you on this having made read it ). So having the 1973 constitution why rewrite it? Wait you have answered it in your post so I wil lnot go into it.

The point I would like to add (and have said so on earlier occasion) is that : It does not matter what the FORM OF GOVT - parliamentary presidential whatever? They will all run into similar buffers. The reason and the only reason for this is that `the people in power DO NOT BELIEVE IN CONSTITUIONALTY. Anyone with power usurps it. Today Mush-e-ruff has done it, yesterday it was Nawaz, before that BB, before these two Zia, before that Bhutto and thelist goes on.

I will give you an example (and I sure Stuka or dost-mittar or any other knowledgable indian can confirm it) is the time there was a diference of opnion between Prasad (president) and the Prime Minister. The president thought he had certain prerogatives and sort ot use them independently he was reminedd that these can only be used with the recommendation of the cabinet or something like. There was as stand off. In the evnt the PM and the cabinet won the day since Prasad accepted the argument.

In Pakistan that would not have happened (witness the Leghari and BB stand off). In fact I would say that in such events two things are likely to happen
(a) he who has more muscle (Army ofcourse ) wins the day
or
(b) The army takes over

There is no respect for constituionalty.
You can argue about the LFO, you argue parliamentary system, you argue presidential system, whatever it does not make a difference.

Once you respect constitutionality you respect law and order and you respect rights and freedoms. The key is this. It is this respect that has allowed democracy and rule of law to run in India. It is this respect that has allowed the US to florish.

FerozK: you say:`` In another sense, where you see the glass half empty, I see the glass half full.``

I say that there is a constitution which is good. When I say trust : there are two kinds. The pwoer to people trust and the power to power trust. These two kinds have broken down.The second kind is the one which worrisome - this is directly related to the respect for constituionalism. And I say as long as this is missing you can argue till the cows come home, till turn blue in the face etc (put in all the well worn cliches) you will always be back to square one.

Re Manto:

According to the provisions provided in the LFO, democratic elections were held in the political parties before the last elections. But as we can see nothing changed because of them. The same old guard with just the sons and daughters representing the family and its interests instead of the fathers. So obviously that alone wont solve the problem would it. So lets move on and discuss what might happen if your provision # 7 was to be implemented. Suppose the same principle was followed in the Sindh province......we would end up with PPP and MMA as the two major political parties in that province. So that inherently means that the singa legislature will have basically NO representative from the MQM. Now i guess that would imply some problems wont it, with such a major community of the sindhi province not being represented. Democracy is supposed to give representation to each and everyone..not take it away from them and here you in your such VALIANT effort at providing a solution are doing just that.Imagine a sindh assembly without representation from MQM. The whole muhajir community would feel isolated and would naturally react to the scenario in perhaps a violent way. So YOUR ESTEEMED copied constitution would end up weakening the federation rather then making it strong. Similar scenarios would follow suite in other provinces.
I appreciate your sentiments against feudalism. I too want it to be abolished but consitution is not the means to do that. Remember constitution is there to provide the basic rights to each n every person along with a means of laying down the principle postulates for forming a viable government ............not indulge in social reforms. For that we need other kind of tools. Education and building a middle class are few of the best means for that. And they will come with ecnomic prosperity. (anyway thats a separate issue....we can talk about that in detail some other time) coming back to the point....... One member constituency are best for Countries like us. IF our political parties were mature enough to be sooooo democratic as you are proposing they will be.....then we would nt be in such a mess in the first place.


cheers
raza

re:bharatvassi

My mistake, there was a typo!

The sentence:

``If you want the details, then my recommendation is read the legal code of Pakistan and I promise you, you will never again ask for more rights``

should be read as:

``If you want the details, then my recommendation is read the legal code of Pakistan and I promise you, you will never again ask for more details``

Ciao

re:bharatvassi

I think, and please correct me if I am wrong.

I think that you are subsituting the rationale for a consitution with that of a legal code. The consitution will give you the vision (preamble) and the direction (nature of goverance). The details will be provided by the legal codes and how the law evolves within the limits of the contitutional penumberas.

For example, the United States` consitution does not expressively give the women the right to an abortion, but that right does fall within the intent of the consitutionally guranteed rights. Roe v. Wade (1973) resulted from a body of laws and decisions, which evolved over a period of time. Consitutional rights are defined legally and they are created through precedent and each precedent sheds more light on the issue and further defines the rights. No where does it in the American constitution that you have the right to burn the flag, but it is the legal interpretation of that right (First Amendment right of freedom of speech) that gives you that right. The Superme Court of America defined the issue as a symbolic right, which is permissable under the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment. This right was given in 1968! The argument of symbolic speech was never even imagined in 1789!

Like wise, the Second Amendment to the American consitution gives you the right to bear and keep arms. However, that right is being challenged and legally, that right has been curtailed and it may even be revoked if there is enough body of legal precedents to support the argument. That right was clearly stated in 1789 as a public right, but in 2003 that right is considered to be more harmful than helpful to the public good. Again, the vision of the American polity has changed and the consitutional debate over the Second Amendment reflects this point.

The Pakistani consitution of 1973 and rights and their legal interpretations are different matters all together. The fact that you disagree with a legal defination of a right does not mean that it is non-existant in a consitutional sense. Rights are legal ideals and their basis for existance and their orgins are located in the experience of the people who make the laws. A constitutional right is nothing more than an intent and what implements that intent is the legal body of laws, which take an consitutional aspiration and give it a tangible form.

If you want the details, then my recommendation is read the legal code of Pakistan and I promise you, you will never again ask for more rights! ROFL

Ciao

re: bharatvassi

First of all, I need to ask you point blank: have you read the 1956, 1962 and 1973 constitution? I will even settle for if you have read the 1973 constitution. Have you?

The details, which you are asking are provided; the 1973 consitution from a liberal perspective is more proactive towards the issues of political rights and plurality. The articles of the said constitution have a clear bias towards liberal polices and as far as constitutions are concerned, it is the most comprehensive document clearly spelling out the rights and obligations.

Having said that, another point needs to be stressed. The critical question, regarding the 1973 constitution, is not whether enough details upon the nature of goverance were provided, but the real issue is the lack of implementing its liberal intentions. Immediately after its adoption in 1973, Z. A. Bhutto for his own political reasons failed to implement the constitution`s liberal inclinations. Then through the Zia years and the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif decade of rule, new amendments were added and old amendments were deleted. In all of this, some admendments ended up conterdicting one another. A good example of this can be stated thus: the constitution gives religious freedom to all in Pakistan, but at the same time it denies this right to the Ahmedis.

Yasser and I, in posting our respective articles, were not in any sense of the word recommending a constitutional convention to replace the constitution of 1973. We were simply asking that the given the history of Pakistan, it makes more sense to adopt a presidental form of government. Our articles were nothing more than a detailed hypothesis supporting this proposition. If you are familar with the constitutional history of Pakistan, this would have seemed like a reasonable question to you and if you are not, then the question to you would be meaningless and hence, the nature of the articles self-defeating - your analogy of the details, vision and purpose arguments.

Now to directly answer you question, the issue of trust is important and there is no denying the fact that its is central to the issues of goverance and the concerns of sovernity. The issue in Pakistan is not so much of trust, between the government and the electoral, as it is about disappointment. Pakistanis are perpetually trusting their governments to improve their lot in life and they hope each new government will fulfill their aspirations. Pakistanis look at each government, military or civilian, and hope it is better than the old one. The problem is that the governments are more interested in defining their powers and in this process, they fail to implment or live up to the hopes of the average Pakistani. Hence, what seems like a question of trust to you, an average Pakistani defines it as political apathy. The disconnect in Pakistani polity and the problem is apathy and not trust, which causing people to move from participatory politics in Pakistan.

Also, what you call a ``nation of lawyers``, is nothing more than a reflection of your own perceptions. Granted that Pakistanis are bitterly divided over issues and are engaged in a robust debate over the issue of contitutionalism in Pakistan. In another sense, where you see the glass half empty, I see the glass half full. The fact that we are debating and disagreeing provides the answer you are demanding; we are defining the details, which you keep asking! The details are all there and so is the basic vision and the direction and the lack of operationalization of these criteria only suggests we have to convince one another of the efficacy of our arugments. The fact that we disagree does not mean we are incapable of providing the details and vision, which you keep demanding from us as some sort of a constitutional holy grail.

re: Mantolives

Y, patience is a virtue! :)

There is a saying, ``the wise man points to the moon and the fool looks at the finger of the wise man``

Ciao

Manto: Read your letter in TFT.

PS: Yes Bharatvasi we know... I am a visionless elite pi-g who wants to keep his power over the masses (ofcourse minor details like the fact that I don`t have any power nor am i in the army is quite irrelevant).

Ferozek,

It seems to me that Bharatvasi is incapable of grasping the basic idea that this article was NOT a constitutional draft, but a simple response in the Presidential vs Parliamentary debate in the article initiated by you. I don`t understand. The fundamental Rights Charter is already given in 1973 constitution. My #168 has only extended the equal rights to homosexuals which were not expressly mentioned in the 1973 constitution, and simple retracted some of the Islamic elements of it.

I seriously don`t understand why I should have presented the preamble to the constitution in an article which was only dealing with the separation of powers between executive, judiciary and the legislative body. Maybe the `separation of church and state` point shouldn`t have been made also, because it was irrelevant to this discourse. While he has a point of about clearly defining the state`s nature and not leaving it to interpretation, that is beyond the scope of this article.

Bharatvasi,

No it doesn`t clear all because atleast I have presented all the `sufficient` details. I believe I have given a clear charter of peoples` rights in #168 and I have given an outline of how the executive and legislative bodies would be elected and run in the article. Infact I have gone a step further and defined the process by which Judiciary should be appointed....

Yet you continue to attack me. Both Ferozek and I have asked you to add something new.. but you have failed miserably to do so... Your continuous mantra is `not enough details`... Why don`t you tell us what details ... because I think we, ignorant and foolish as we are, have exhausted our `vision`. Since you are a know all... why don`t you tell us. Either quit attacking us as `visionless elite` (which is your imagination) or add something which you think is missing.

And the statement about Pakistan being a nation of lawyers... unfortunately it is not. Yes there have been outstanding lawyers produced by Pakistan, but the nation can hardly be called a nation of lawyers. It is because it is not a nation of lawyers, that it suffers at the hands of incomprehensible and unworkable constitutions like the 1973 constitution which goes into the minutest detail. It is a nation which is run on a compromise. Like FerozeK says, Constitution should be kept flexible so that the posterity can adapt it to the times.
The state should be limited and the Human Rights of every citizen should be protected. This is the general framework. Constitution is the skeleton, the Penal Code and other statutory and Procedural laws are the flesh and bones.

-Manto