Non-Reformist but Non-Cleric

Rozaiba,

I did not expect you of all people to misunderstand the intent of the mention of Manmohan Singh... the idea was explain to you that even Manmohan Singh , the prime minister of a country the credit to which one can say for certain that it is a free democratic society... would not win a direct election... and yet he is the Prime Minister... because of the political considerations... the Prime Minister under a parliamentary system is not necessarily equivalent of a directly elected president but his party is ...

In a free and fair elections the influential local politicians of the hurriedly cobbled together ruling coalition (that has ensured Shaukat Aziz`s position as Prime Minister) would still pretty much win their own respective constituencies... which is why Musharraf- the all powerful military dictator- is dependant upon them.

Read the post again... with special reference to comment about Benazir Bhutto...

Maulana urstruly


death camps of Guantanomo Bay


How many people have died in gitmo? AFAIK, it`s ZERO....

Re: # 65

Bullshit ... Bullshit .... Bullshit...

I can`t believe how fast this Romair guy is to abuse Jinnah like any military wallah for his own ends... this is he is doing because he can`t stand Liberals like Hamidm and Islamists like Urstruly agreeing on the 1973 constitution ... even Imran Khan makes more sense than Romair... Imran Khan is a thorough believer in the 1973 constitution...

Jinnah resigned from the presidency of the All India Muslim League in the last (and only) session (after independence) held in Karachi. He refused to become the head of the newly constituted Pakistan Muslim League saying that it would affect the impartiality of the governor general of the dominion. The president of the Pakistan Muslim League during Jinnah`s government was Khaliquzzaman... the old congressman from UP...

Whatever the reasons for Jinnah becoming the governor general... he worked within the Government of India Act 1935 which was the defacto constitution of the new dominion... centralisation or not... Jinnah was bound by the constitution ... he was not a military man or arbitrary ruler... his influence as a major politician was bound to be ... but there is no single instance in which he overstepped the constitutional authority given to him by 1935 Act... which gave the governor general the executive authority... if this is not the case PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PROVE IT BY QUOTING THE 1935 ACT... instead of mouthing off like an idiot.

Rozaiba, harish-hyde, mohar, ally, iron-mask

The post below from hamidm is quite telling. Me and him who disagree on almost everything on God`s green earth, however, do agree on Constitution of 1973. THis agreement is so strong that he was even willing to overlook the fact that I did invoke God and tooth fairies in my post.

Musharaf did not take over the power because the constitution and its process had hit some sort of stonewall from where it could go nowhere, but because it was a tussle and power struggle between an incompetent Prime Minister and his rogue employee and subordinate. Yes, the blame also goes to the people of Pakistan that they elected an incompetent, idiot, and shortsighted little man as a leader. But that does not justify, PMs rogue employee to occupy the whole country and take the whole nation as a hostage. Yes it does appear that we celebrated Musharaf`s comming but if one is fair-minded, he would see that those celebrations and dancing in the streets were not to welcome Mushraf and fauj but it was a celebration that a rule of tyrrany, stupidity, corruption, incompetence and oppression has ended. Don`t you think that people would celebrate if this military regime is dispatched to slammer today - yes they would - those people whose loved ones have been martyred by this murderous regime, those who were exiled by them, thousands of those whose loved ones have ``disappeared`` during this regime; those whose loved ones have been kidnapped by this regime and handed over to foreign countries without due process and constitutional guarantees and now suffer inhuman torture and murder in the death camps of Guantanomo Bay and dungeones inAfghanistan and Iraq sure they would dance in the streets; sure they would distribute mithai and do bhangra; who in their right mind could blame them.

And yes foreign hand is important to what happens to the people of Pakistan. Wasn`t Britain the first to slap sanctions on the face of Paksitan when Musharaf took over. Britain as a matter of fact spearheaded the EU to get every country into condemning Pakistan and imposing sanctions, and expelling it from Common Wealth. Those were the toughest three years for the Pakistani nation when economic embargo effected economy at all levels. Only ordinary Pakistani suffered. And wasn`t it the Britain that was first to lift sanctions from Paksitan and include it into Common Wealth and got EU to revoke its sanctions when Britain US and other colonial interests found in current regime the thugs and goons to do their dirty work and clean up the mess they have created in whole middle east and rest of the world? It is again Paksitani nation that has suffered. I am not even discussing US role in this whole debacle because they don`t even bother to uphold any moral values in their foreign affairs.

It is time that Pakistanis learn from their mistakes. As a nation we do have a common ground; we do have a fibre that binds us; we do have a constitution that unites us; and guarantees us equality, fairness, justice, and gurantees to protect our lives and honor. Pakistani nation must stop accepting the lesser of the evils from now on. We must aim high and on every step of the way we will soar higher and higher. Its a given.

rakho nigah ko buland keh yahi hay nazria-e-hayat
raho zameen par magar baat aasman ki karo.

Following, on the 1973 Constitution, is by by Ardeshir Cowasjee (the Parsi businessman/writer who knows Pakistan far better than all of us on Chowk):

``Now, to educate the newborn or moribund constitutional experts (my note: quite a few of these individuals are present on Chowk) who lay much stress on constitutional niceties, using as their bedrock the constitution of 1973. This Constitution promulgated on August 14, 1973, had a life of four, repeat four long hours. It was passed, not unanimously, but by consensus by the many members who believed that as it guaranteed fundamental rights it was better than no constitution at all - and certainly better than martial law. None dissented. The few who were not happy with it abstained.

Before the ink was dry, within four hours of its promulgation, the people of Pakistan were deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights through a Gazette Notification issued by the maker of the Constitution, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Fundamental rights having been rendered non-justiciable, he then had all his political opponents arrested. They were held in various jails until released by Ziaul Haq four years later.

Not satisfied with the notification, Bhutto had his Constitution amended seven times between its promulgation on August 14, 1973, and July 5, 1977, the date of his fall from grace.

An amendment of a constitution is an extraordinary measure necessitating a great deal of deliberation on the part of the ruling party, consultation with the opposition, and a careful objective study of public opinion on the subject. Its passage through the legislature must be deliberately regulated to ensure full discussion, to provide ample opportunity for criticism.

According to the rules of procedure which govern parliamentary procedure under the 1973 Constitution, a bill, other than a finance bill, on its introduction in the house must be referred to the relevant standing committee, unless the requirements of the rules have been dispensed with by the House through a motion of the relevant member. The standing committee is asked to present its report within 30 days. When this is received, copies of the bill (and any changes recommended by the committee) are to be supplied to each member within seven days. Two clear days must then elapse before the bill can be sent down for consideration.

These rules were suspended by Bhutto for the passage of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendment Bills. The First Amendment Bill was introduced in the house on April 15, 1974. The standing committee presented its report the next day and within a week it was passed leaving no time for debate.

The Third Amendment Bill was introduced on February 11 1975, the required report was presented and the bill passed the next day.

Then came the Zia-Junejo era. The Eighth Amendment Bill was passed in 1985. The rules were not suspended. Debates continued for around six months before it was passed. This amendment affected as many as 67 Articles of the Constitution. The exercise was undertaken to enforce on the nation Ziaul Haq`s own particular and expedient brand of Islam.

The Ninth Amendment Bill (concerning Islamic injunctions) was introduced by the Junejo government but never passed.

The Tenth Amendment Bill, a bread-and-butter bill (amending Articles 54 and 61) was passed by the Junejo government after due deliberation.

The Eleventh Amendment Bill (women`s seats) was introduced in Benazir Bhutto`s first round and was not passed.

The Twelfth Amendment Bill (special courts) was introduced by Nawaz Sharif in his first round. The rules were suspended and it was rushed through with little discussion and passed.

The Thirteenth Amendment Bill was introduced by Nawaz Sharif in his second round into both assembly and Senate on the same day, four years ago, on April 1, 1997, and it was passed that day without any discussion, without one member even rising to ask why the rules were suspended, or to suggest there be a discussion. Government and opposition unanimously approved its passage. Not a dog barked.

The Fourteenth Amendment was introduced on July 1, 1997, specifying that there must be no dissent within a party, and no defection from the party by any member. The rules of procedure were suspended and it was passed the same day.

Fifteenth Amendment was introduced in the National Assembly on August 28, 1998, adding a new Article 2-B, and amending Article 239. It was passed by the assembly on October 10 and referred to the Senate on October 13. It never came up for debate in the Senate, where Nawaz`s party had no majority. The plan was to wait until the Senate Elections of March 2000, when Nawaz was sure of gaining a majority, and then rush it through the upper house. The Quran and Sunnah were to be the supreme law, thus, inter alia, disempowering the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

The Sixteenth Amendment was passed unanimously on August 3, 1999, amending Article 27, extending the quota system from 20 years to 40 years.

Come General Pervez Musharraf on October 12, 1999, in his uniform, and in his third year of rule, in 2002, he brought in his own amendments suited to his way of thinking, by means of his Legal Framework Order, gazetted in August of this year, which affect some 30 Articles of the Constitution (less than half of those affected by Zia`s Eighth Amendment).

(http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20021013.htm)

Re: # 52

Urstruly,

You are absolutely right on the money about the 1973 constitution... but let me tell you how I see it...

The constitution of 1973 was a remarkable compromise document... it was inclusive, liberal and democratic for the secular liberals, adequately federal for the sub-nationalists, feminist for the women`s rights activists and we thought it was Islamic enough for the Islamists....

However that was not to be... but I even accept the definition amendment (which is to my mind pure nonsense) ... but the majority willed that a definition be charted out for a ``Muslim`` because after all the President of the Republic was to be a Muslim (within the constitution there is no mention of Prime Minister being a Muslim mind you- that comes through the oath)... so I accept that for the time being working of the constitution and law a Muslim could be decided as a person who accepted finality of the Holy Prophet (PBUH)... thats alright...

The Islamists (no matter what they say today) however were NEVER happy with the 1973 constitution and not even content with the Ahmadiyya amendment... which is why they supported and actively cooperated with General Zia-ul-Haq... Now tell me does the amendment also say that Ahmadis would not be able to exercise their religion freely? That they would be harassed and their places of worship be ransacked? Mind you the Ahmadis had more to do with the creation of this country than those harassing them in its name..

Wait... oh wait... Zia ul Haq also made the Objectives Resolution the ``Substantive part of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan`` under article 2 A... now whats wrong with you ask? Regardless of our differences on the Objectives Resolution... (I object to the way it was passed in 1949 with all minorities opposed to it- thereby standing in complete contravention to the Pakistan movement which had sought to fight the tyranny of the majority)... I say that if a document like the Objectives Resolution has to become the SUBSTANTIVE part of the constitution ... then atleast it should be made completely the part of the substantive constitution... the document which is part of the constitution under 2 A is NOT the original objectives resolution... The word ``Freely`` used for minorities is very conspicious by its absence in 2 A ... this is shamelessness at its worst!


I for one stand completely for the 1973 constitution even in its current mutilated form... because I know that if it is allowed to work... over time Pakistan will move closer to democratic pluralism and away from religious theocracy ... The Islamists know this as well... so they want a dictator to intervene and stop it from becoming so...

I have never quite figured out people`s infatuation with the 1973 Constitution. I wonder how many people have studied its history. Democracies are not based on Constitutions. There can be democracies, even without Constitution(s). Democracies are based on people and their ideas. The people upholding or creating the Constitution are important......

It is quite easy to create and write Constituitons. However, it is extremely difficult to find leaderships that uphold those Constitutions. Be the civilian or military. I have yet to see democracy in my life in Pakistan, since the day I have been born. The govt. has alternated between civilian and military dictatorships.

There is actually no democratic mechanism within these organizations, internally. In military, it is by design, all over the world. But what about political parties like PPP, PML etc.? One would have thought they would, at least, internally establish democracy. How will they demand democracy in Pakistan, when internally they have lifetime Chairpersons.........

Centralized hold on power is a problem the geographical areas of Pakistan have hand for a long time. After (and before) the creation of Pakistan, it actually started from Jinnah. He centralized power under his control (for all the right reasons, in my opinion), much like Lee Kuan Yu, etc. He was the head of a political party and the Governor General. Yet he had powers of Prime Minsiter also. Why didn`t he opt to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan, instead? Isn`t that what Nehru did? He was a one man band (again for the right reasons). When he died, the system crumbled, in his party and in Pakistan. Because he never set up a system within his own party. And didn`t have time to set one up in Pakistan.........

There are certain pre-requisites to democracy that need to be established. It is more than just elections after elections. The only democratic groups in Pakistan, at the moment, are the religious parties, like Jamaat-i-Islami. They hold internal elections, where a common person can reach the top. This is one of the reasons that religious parties seem to be winning all over the Muslim world (though not in Pakistan, since Pakistanis, at their core, hate mullahs; even democratic mullahs).

For those who want to know about the 1973 Constitution, kindly read my next reply:

Re: # 52

urstruly,

........ i really hate to admit this, but i agree with the gist of your post (maybe it is because you didn`t invoke god and the tooth fairy) ........... the 1973 constitution was a great achievement and the military is the biggest culprit in side-lining it .............

....... by the way, how is your friend echoboom doing ? ..... have you heard from him ?

Yasser:

As Hamidm suggested you should certainly this write-up to Niall Ferguson, and engage him a dialog where you should challenge him why only the West can bring democracy. If democracy is defined as a system of accumulation and distribution of people power through popular one person one vote, including transitions and balance of power without destabilzation, then Turks and Iranians have done it without the need to guns. Question him, on the West`s moral of otherwise ascendancy and right to doubt Iranian democracy including peacful transition of power achievd through ballot is any different than the shift in the U.S. toward the right. Ask him why doubts Iran, while the U.S. approach toward democracy in Iraq with thru guns may produce no democratic results other than chaos.

Good write-up.
Anil Kapuria

#52 by Urstruly

[Oh Lord! Help us free ourselves from the shackles of vassalage of these heartless criminals. Send us the Messiah who would pull us from this misery and humiliation.]

Can you please show us a country that is not corrupt? Even a country as developed as the US is not corruption-free. Therein lies the problem. Just because civilian rulers have been corrupt doesn’t mean you overthrow them.

When Nawaz Sharif was overthrown, these very Urstrulys went into raptures and were jumping in joy in front of television cameras, but now that their dreams have gone sour, and Mushy has proved to be as power-hungry as the civilian ruler he overthrew, they are crying foul.

If corruption were the main issue, you wouldn’t see the likes of Laloo Yadav in power in India. I’m not saying we must condone corruption, but that it is practically impossible to wipe it out, especially in poor countries like ours where the temptation to earn a rupee more always exists.

But I guess in the land of the pure, they seek perfection and purity to the exclusion of everything else, even democracy and good governance. Which is why I feel that they fully deserve the regime that rules them with an iron fist.

Fuzair,

To join the EU they have to have share core values with the EU, they must run their country like a European country. The govt. knows the benefits and army or no army they will try to join the EU and in order to do that they will remain secular - Inshallah!

Even tho the govt. is `Islamic` why then have they still not allowed Turkish women to wear the Hijab at universities and govt. buildings?

#52

Be your own messiah, stop waiting. Thats a dangerous psychological predicament, don`t wait for anyone else to make/break your life/country etc, do it yourself!

Re: # 56 Yes! You see have asked the right question. I am looking forward the usual speel of the west undermining things and not letting democracy take root et al. The usual dishes taken out of the cookbook and the usual recipes dished out.

Re: # 52
Urstruly, you pray ``Oh Lord! Help us free ourselves from the shackles of vassalage of these heartless criminals. Send us the Messiah who would pull us from this misery and humiliation. ``

See a post below, and I quote from it

`` Again a small difference in perspective here. Much as I agree with the general thrust of the above, I have a small point to make. The faujiz have a natural in built talent for usurption of power. However, this instinct can be kept down, as is done in other states. The issue is with the civilians, who either invite these faujiz or conspire with them to do down their opponenets. This is something which Pakistani civilians have excelled in right from the start. Too much bhaav was given to these faujiz.

I wouldnt blame the faujiz for their actions. the blame lies squarely with the civlians - the politicians, the civil servants et al who gave this bhaav to the faujiz. ``


Dont blame the faujiz for the troubles. They are just as human as the weasles around them. Blame the rest of the populace (which is ten of thousands times morethan the faujiz in numbers). Blame the educated and intelligent people like yourself, manto and others on this board. (I donot hold you guys personally responsible but you get my drift).

The lord will not save the sorry ass. He will however, provide the ass with some intelligence and expect the ass to use it. If the ass cannot use then no point propitiating the lord and exhorting him to save the ass.

Urstruly`s analysis begs the question: did Iran or Turkey ever have a consensus document - a constitution that was brought about without any sense of intimidation or through the barrel of the gun?

If they did, and they`re still toying with backdoor manipulations, it`s a pretty sad state Muslims nations are in (except Senegal - but no one seems to take them seriously).

If they did not, it shows that the Pakistanis had the ability to rise above and build the most sacred document of 1973 but the fauji freaks completely ripped it apart.

As I`ve explained, my last post wasn`t meant to draw comparison on whether Iran is ahead of the game or not. It was merely a query if there always must be trade-off between certain values of progress and freedom of expression.

Fauji freaks like Romair dismiss the need of democracy and present models of Singapore etc. to show case the path to success. But it`s like comparing the uncomparable.

Anyhow, the sad part is that when Musharaf goes, the whole drama will begin again.

There is not ONE incident we can use to say that `Here! This shows we`re on track! We`re building institutions! This won`t happen again.`

Nothing.

No indepenent election commission. No independent judiciary. No changes to constitution (a document more easy to tear up than alter - Musharaf is after all no General Zia!). Nothing.

In any case, you know very well the status if Shaukat Aziz and it`s laughable to compare him to Manmohan Singh. One can only start the comparison if one accepts Pakistan as being a parliamentary system. It is not. So it`s not possible to compare apples to oranges.

I wonder if Shaukat Aziz had even been to Tharparker or even heard of it before he got elected.

Anyway, the more important question is the one raised earlier and in relation to Turkey and Iran. Did those two states ever have a consensus making document? Or does the 1973 Constitution stand even taller! :D

#48 by Romair

[None of these guys could compete with the Pakistanis (the Turks could, at a professional level, but they had other issues).]

Then how come it took only 15 (?) days for India to get 93,000 ``brave`` and ``professional`` Paki soldiers down to their knees? At least the Iranians and Iraqis fought a 8-year war.

Well with due deference, the essay does not serve its purpose other than give an impression that democracy has worked nowhere in the muslim world. In the Turk system, Military acts as the commisar while in Iran, it is the cleric. Just because Malaysia is a success story, does not mean it has genune democracy. See what happened to Ibrahim and how electrol process is rigged.

The question is why does it not work. Any explanations Yasser.

Cheerios