A New Constitution for Pakistan

Ferozk, thank you for saying what you did. I agree that politics and polty has to be an evolutionary thing - else it would be static and meaningless after some time.

However even before we think of the evolutionary nature of it we need a blue print with SUFFICIENT Details - Note I am not saying All the NECESSARY details should be present.

I will give you an example not very far removed from Pakistan itself. This example is thepoint of contention and many an intense argument in Pakistan itself. INdeed Mantolives in his previous incarnation has been a very vociferous person for one pont of view. This is Jinnah`s speech. The problem with it was that it was so vague that you could argue the case in 100s of different ways. And he who musttered the most got his view endorsed. If Jinnah had provided sufficient detail as to his thinking it would have solved many a problem.

Also within the given context of pakistan it is imperitive that sufficient details be put down in writing - pakistan is a nation of lawyers (as is witnesed by the letters pages of many a newspaper) - and each can bring his or her arguments to bear for his or her POV.

You say ``Even if we, Pakistanis, follow your formula, or a ``road map`` vis-a-vis constitutional issues, we have to remember the old adage that no plan, no matter how immaculate, will survive its first contact with reality. ``

That is precisely why I am saying give sufficient details - the necessities can be sorted out as an iteration of the specification once the thing hits reality. All consitutions will need iterations so that they meet The ASPIRATIONS of the people as they move through time and history. BUt if you just give vague directions (ala jinnah`s speech) you have a recipe for a disaster even before we have started.


You says
``The United States` constitution was created in a general sense, with the basic parameters being defined within a set of political paradigms. These paradigms evolved over a time period and became specific through the expereince of translating theory into practice. ``

Yes that is precisely what I am saying. The basic parameters should be there. This is missing - trust is the key issue. 56 years of elite rule (a jibe here) has shown the average pakistani that they cannot trust people who talk in terms of basic parameters of distribution of power without talking of the basic parameters of other aspects as - like rights and dutie4s and responsibilities. Even giving a basic outline like saying I am in favour of the charter of Human rights does not wash - remember Pakistan is also a signatory to this. Big deal the amount of human misery we see in fantastic. Hence you need to provide some details to the basic Parameters. Suficient Details I say not all the Necesary Details!

You say Basic PArameters - i say Sufficient Details and the evolution can sort out the rest. However as a preamble to both the texts it should have been impiritive that the point in mantolives #168 should have been made in much the same way. Trust ferozk is the key issue. You need to establish a connection here between the people and the document. Unless that is there.... There should not be debilitating arguments about Basic things like it happens often with Jinnahs speech andthe objectives resolution. A bit of care and a bit of detail would not go amiss. No one is asking for a 5000 page tome. And no one is saying we should have all the answers for the next 1000 years or eternity. That is shear ego at play then.

I hope this clears it - sufficient details not all the necesarry details.....

Ferozek

Precisely... !

After all how is it that the constitution made by the slave owners became the cornerstone of Martin Luthar King`s civil rights movement....

-Manto

re: bharatvassi

You said Pakistan needs a vision to tell it, where it is headed. You mentioned that the devil in details needs to be worked out before the specific nature of an endeavor can be clearly stated.

If you are looking from an engineering perspective, your agrument would be a rational one. However, politics, by their nature, are of an evolutionary nature and even if you have a ``blue print`` for a political system, it is doubtful whether it will remain unchanged. Politics is about combining idealism with pragmatism and compromising between what is possible and what is not possible. Even if we, Pakistanis, follow your formula, or a ``road map`` vis-a-vis constitutional issues, we have to remember the old adage that no plan, no matter how immaculate, will survive its first contact with reality.

In an utopian society, your arguments would make sense, but we live in an imperfect world with flawed intentions. What you have stated is correct and logical and it implies that all things considered, the basic equatation will remain constant. Politics, however, are not static; they are of a very fluid nature. Hence, to create such an ideal; implementing specific ideas suggests a problematic end. Constitutions can not be specified at their creation, but all good consitution evolve over a period of time through the process of trail and error. The United States` constitution was created in a general sense, with the basic parameters being defined within a set of political paradigms. These paradigms evolved over a time period and became specific through the expereince of translating theory into practice.

The United States` constitution today is not what the Found Fathers designed it, but your argument suggests that they should have considered the American constitution, as it exists in 2003, while articulating it in 1789 and if they could not, then were a ``bunch of visionless elites``. A constitution is an living thing, which changes over a period of time and to suggest that it is the ``ultimate`` implies that it is incapable of evolving. Things, which are incapble of evolving became dogmas and they favor orthodoxy over innovation and what you are suggesting implies that once a choice is made, the people have no choice but continue even if their experience convinces them that the choice was wrong. How is such a constitution supposed to mirror the wishes of the people, when it condemns by its dogma?

That is a flawed agrument; it may sound reasonable, but it does not make any sense. What you are suggesting - of ironing out all the details, only makes sense if you have a crytal ball to gaze into the future and predict all the problems and how they will be solved. Most of us are simple human beings and not endowed with god like gifts of predicting the future, as you seem to be blessed. If you can peek into the future, will you please share with the rest of us what the future holds? I would like the details of what the future is going to be; we need rains in Pakistan. Could you please tell exactly at which time and minute and when the rains will arrive in Pakistan?

Ciao

PS I admit point 7 also requires that all parties be made strictly to observe internal democracy in the party.

Like I pointed out earlier, my proposals had only as much to do with the US constitution as the current Pakistani constitution has to do with the unwritten constitution of the UK. So why do you continue to accuse me of `copying the American constitution` I don`t know.. and like I pointed out #7 has nothing to do with the US constitution. Infact I would say it is inspired in many ways by the german constitution.

The fact of the matter is that these `feudals` enjoy dominance in those parties precisely because of their importance as single-member constituency candidates. Had they not been so important as biradari candidates, they would be dropped from party upper echelons. Thus they have managed to take up the reserved seats as well... Do you think if PPP or PML(N) were properly organized and were not victims of the biradari politics, the workers would give two shi-ts about the feudals? When they will lose their importance as `sure shot winners` they would lose their importance in the party as well. Sure maybe BB and NS would survive but then they would have to cater to the workers of the party and not the feudals. The system has worked well in Germany.

Hence in my opinion it is the only solution. You have the right to disagree with me, but neither you nor Mr. Bharatvasi have the right to indulge in the kind of vitriol that both of you have done so. I have suggested one possible solution... I don`t see you presenting any solutions... it is easier being a nay sayer and accusing others of being bedroom arm chair idealists.. isn`t it?

-Manto

Re manto:

Just to make the point a bit more CLEARER to you so that you understand what pakistani politics is really about and how feudalism cant just be gotten rid of by arm chair critics idealizing in their bedrooms and copying the US constitution.

Just take a look at the present composition of the assemblies and try to get a picture of what will happen if # 7 gets implemented.

Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari, former president of Pakistan. and his son
Awais Ahmed Khan Leghari were elected from NA-172 and NA-173, and Sardar Farooq`s first cousin,
Sardar Mohammad Jaffar Khan Leghari, won elections from NA-174 under the banner of the National Alliance.
Meena Ehsan Leghari, wife of Sardar Jaffar, and
Ayla Malik, niece of Sardar Farooq Leghari, have been accommodated on women reserved seats. Whereas,
Sumaira Malik, sister of Ayla Malik, has won elections from NA-69 from the platform of National alliance.
The wife of Farooq Leghari belongs to the family of
Aftab Ahmad Sherpao, who is also a member of National Assembly and federal minister for water and power.
Sikandar Sherpao, son of Aftab Ahmad Sherpao, is member of the NWFP assembly.

---

Gohar Ayub, son of late Gen Ayub Khan and former speaker of National Assembly, who was out of the elections contest due to educational qualification condition, helped his wife
Zeb Gohar and son
Omar Ayub Khan win National Assembly seats.It may be mentioned here that
Gohar Ayub, said to have passed his graduation recently, is likely to get a ticket for the upcoming senate`s election.

---

Col Ghulam Serwar Cheema (retired), another central leader of the PML-Q and an aspirant for Senate`s ticket, had his daughter,
Dr Saira Tariq, elected to the National Assembly on women reserved seats.

---

Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam chief and general secretary of MMA,
Maulana Fazlur Rehman, also a winner of two National Assembly seats, has three sisters-in-law elected to national and provincial assemblies.
Shahida Akhtar Ali and
Nayyer Sultana are members of the National Assembly, and
Rehana Ismail is member of NWFP assembly on women reserved seats.

---

Mohammad Azeem Chaudhry, organizing secretary of the PLM-Q, is contesting senate elections, had his wife, Asiya Azeem, elected to the National Assembly on the reserved seats for women.
Rahila Yahya, member of National Assembly on women reserved seats, is wife of
Yahya Munnawar, political secretary to Prime Minister Jamali.
Makhdoom Mohammad Javaid Hashmi, acting president of the PML-N, who won the election to the National Assembly from NA-123, also had his wife,
Maimona Hashmi, elected as member of the parliament on women reserved seats.
Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Amir of Jamaat-i-Islami, who had also won on two National Assembly seats from the platform of Muttahida Majlis-i-Ammal, got his daughter,
Samia Raheel Qazi, elected on women reserved seats as member of National Assembly.

---

Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and
Chaudhry Wajahat Hussain, two sons of late Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi, have been elected to the National Assembly from two Gujrat constituencies. Their niece,
Eman Naseem, daughter of
Maj Tahir Sadiq (retired), Nazim of Attock District, has also won elections on general seats from NA-59.
Tanzeela Aamir Cheema, who has been elected to the N. Assembly on women reserved seat, is daughter of Chaudhry Tajammal Hussain, first cousin of Chaudhry Shujaat. She is also daughter-in- law of
Chaudhry Anwar Ali Cheema, another member of National Assembly from Sargodha (NA- 67) and wife of Anwar Sultan Cheema, who has also been elected member of Punjab Assembly.
Chaudhry Shufaat Hussain, younger brother of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, was Nazim of Gujrat District and his cousin,
Chaudhry Pervaz Elahi, has become chief minister of Punjab.

---

cheers

raza

Re manto:
My point is that the list system proposed by you in point # 7 is quite impractical.....infact it sux considering the pakistani political scenario. Do you think the ONE MAN parties in pakistan like PPP, MQM and PML -N and even the other political parties like PML-Q would choose the right persons to represent their parties in the legislature if they get the right to nominate their candidates. Just by looking at the present set up of the national assembly we`ll get to know whats really going on. Most of the women elected on the reserve seats for women prescribed by the LFO are related to or friends of the big cohorts of the political parties.
With the daughters, wifes and nieces of the political leaders taking the lead. So even with that in practice you actually felt like suggesting point # 7. ???
Suppose # 7 really gets implemented...what will we get......legislatures full of butlers, cooks and drivers of Nawaz, Benazir and Altaf Hussain. I hope you now get the POINT. !!!!!!!!


cheers
raza

Yes... I know my views must be really bothersome to you... Like I said, if you really are such a big shot add to or give us your own pearls of wisdom as to what a constitution should look like. But ofcourse, it is easier to be a nay sayer, that actually be productive. God help Pakistan if I lead it but if some one like you leads, I doubt that even God can help Pakistan.

-Manto

mantolives - you design the vehicle first. But before you design the vehicle you need to give specification to it. You just do not go and design the car. You want to build the car even before you know what it has to do! That is what I have been trying to tell. So dont twist what I said. You were the guy who suggested that we build a car even before we know what it has got to do.

Now your post of 179 tells me you have not really read my posts and responses. I must admit now that you are seriously impaired of mind and need some help. Good luck to you. I hope you attain whatever it is you want....and god helppakistan if you happen to lead it at some point in the future....

Anyway this is my last post...on this take care....

Yes Bharatvasi, you are the sanest person around, and I am an elitist spoilt brat with no vision... happy now ? Thankyou so much for telling me that Automobile companies decide on the kind of CD player and the Music system first, and then design the shape of the car. I was mistakenly under the impression that they designed the looks first.

It is totally my fault. How could I think that after 4 years of repeating the charter in 168 I could for a minute take it for granted that people here would know what I mean... and it was totally my fault that in an article specifically designed to further the debate on Presidential vs Parliamentary democracy didn`t include my vision of Human rights. Every time we open our mouths, we should make it absolutely clear to everyone where we stand on every issue ... History, Human Rights, religion, Politics, Abortion, Right to arms, and cloning... Otherwise we are worthless visionless scum.

Sridhar 174 - no I am happy that he finally did it and there is nothing there I have an argument with. All I am saying (rather asking) is for him to define what it is that the vehicle he is designing in the article will deliver. Now It has taken a long time and the poor chap has gone in circles and has not really grasped the import of what I asked.

I have said it before. All I am asking for is clarifications. His charter okay - fine now that he has spelled out what he wants the vehicles described in the article to deliver we can see how this can be achieved.

If he quitely gave the list and spelled it out with clarity the problem would have been solved.

PS note that I have not argument with 168 and once I saw that I stoppped. And ofcourse he reached a point where he was genuinely asking us to call his sanity into question with the analogy he developed from my specific query .....

Ofcourse I will leave the rest of the vision part out...since as Ferozk explained that is something which will come later..... ;-)

Mantolives - i have explained it in my prev post to Sridhar. 168 should have been the starting point of the reply rather than waste all the bandwidth with things like everyone knwos what I stand for etc. For no one knows it. Reading the article it comes across like a vision less statement of cutting the pei of power amiongst the elite. Please note that is what I said in all my earlier interacts. You have taken it personally!

I have no angle whatsoever other than to elucidate answers from you....

sridhar note 169 of mine was not a reply to mantolives 168. I have not replied to 168. That in itself should tell that I have no quarrels with it. Note the posts reach me at different times to what you see hence the sequence of posts is not quite correct ....

Rsidhar,

Thankyou.. :)


I am myself very surprised at this continuous and vociferous haggling. I still don`t understand what Bharatvasi`s angle is.

-Manto

mantolives #167 listen you are being foolhardy. you complain (I have excluded the wild delusions of yours regarding me that ``If I say `adult franchise` he says `you mean religious and gender based voting`.. ``

Yes. I want this to be explicit. For within the context of pakistan this is important and needs to be spelled out. Given the past 50 odd years where sequentialy rights and freedoms of a large minority have been eroded one cannot be anything else but careful.

Vitriol is what you will get - though I have not indulged init by any strech of imagination (I am sure from this form that you do a a fatalistic imagination which is taking you to the boundaries of apoplexy and paralysing you your thoughts proceses (witness the foolhardy statement in post 166) - when you come up witha document which calls for more questions then the answers and pointers it provides. If you think the questions are vitriol be my guest and I only wish that you do not show yourself to be well and truly over schooled (over schooled was meant to be jibe but now I see that it holds good atleast in your case).

Thank you for this wonderfulglimpse in your mind and the thought processes there.

re:#169 by bharatvaasi
I hate to jump in between you and Manto but really, what have you got against his charter in post # 168. It is the only way to go. I actually think it is overambitious, given Pak`s conditions right now but that should not deter Manto or anyone from seeking the best.

The best part of that charter is one-man-one-vote Universal Adult Franchise. That in one stroke eliminates all the vested interests and empowers the poorest of the poor, which is what any consititution or legal framework in a democracy should be doing. The other good aspect is right to educaton for children. If you have any specific issues, please say so clearly. India will benefit enormously if Pak can become a secular democracy and transfer real power to its people and keep its Army at bay. People like Manto are doing a great job of keeping that vision alive. I think naysayers like you need to take a break.
Sridhar