Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Pakistan election dictates a new day...by Asif Ali Zardari
Despite massive pre-election and election-day rigging, the people of Pakistan voted their confidence in democracy and rejected the forces of dictatorship. The Pakistan People's Party won a convincing victory, along with the democratic Pakistan Muslim League led by my friend, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The party cobbled together a few years ago by the security services of President Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q Party, often dubbed the King's Party by Pakistanis, was so decimated that their party president and several ministers in Musharraf's government lost their seats in parliament. Monday's election was a clear vote of no-confidence in Musharraf's regime, and a vote of hope for Pakistan's democratic and terror-free future.
My wife, Benazir Bhutto, came back to Pakistan in October last year to lead this fight for freedom, and she gave her life for democracy. We fought this battle empowered by her spirit and we achieved her goal.
We were terribly troubled by the level of rigging and violence. Indeed, 29 of our party officials and activists were killed, more than 200 were injured and 150 of our polling agents were kidnapped. Violence during the days preceding the election exclusively targeted Musharraf's secular opposition; there were no terrorist attacks on the offices or rallies of the ruling party. Despite all of this, and despite the intimidation of the government for people not to turn out, Pakistanis defied the forces of authoritarianism and voted for change.
Let there be no ambiguity to the message of the people of Pakistan: They repudiated the status quo. They rose, almost as one, and said "enough" to dictatorship which has exacerbated terrorism in Pakistan.
Under the constitution of Pakistan, it is now required that Musharraf allow the leaders of the winning parties to form the next government. This will be the first indication of Musharraf's good faith in accepting the mandate of the people.
It is the intent of the Pakistan People's Party to form a broad-based, democratic, liberal government -- an umbrella of reconciliation and consensus.
We have suffered from the politics of personal destruction; we have been battered by dictatorship; we have seen civil society taken apart and a free and independent judiciary destroyed. We have seen religious extremists empowered to justify continuation of dictatorship. We have seen the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We have seen progress on education, health and women's rights stopped and reversed.
Now is the time for miracles in Pakistan.
I see a Pakistan that leads 1.5 billion Muslims all around the world into a new era of peace, reconciliation, progress and innovation, a Pakistan that leads an Islamic renaissance. In other words, I see the Pakistan that my wife lived and died for.
The international community, especially the United States, must support us in this endeavor instead of continuing with the erroneous belief that alliance with a strongman is its best bet to bring stability to Pakistan.
The task ahead will not be easy, but the Pakistan People's Party is prepared to work in good faith with our fellow democratic parties to restore the constitution to its original state, without the distortions introduced by a dictator's diktat.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Pervez Musharraf 'will exit in days, not months'
By Massoud Ansari
Pervez Musharraf is considering stepping down as president of Pakistan rather than waiting to be forced out by his victorious opponents, aides have told The Sunday Telegraph.
Pervez Musharraf is considering stepping down as president of Pakistan rather than waiting to be forced out by his victorious opponents, aides have told The Sunday Telegraph.
 | |
One close confidante said that the president believed he had run out of options after three of the main parties who triumphed in last week's poll announced they would form a coalition government together, and also pledged to reinstate the country's chief justice and 60 other judges sacked by Mr Musharraf in November.
"He has already started discussing the exit strategy for himself," a close friend said. "I think it is now just a matter of days and not months because he would like to make a graceful exit on a high."
According to senior aides, Mr Musharraf wants to avoid a power struggle with the newly elected parliament, in which his opponents will be close to the two-thirds majority needed to impeach him and remove him from office.
"He may have made many mistakes, but he genuinely tried to build the country and he doesn't want to destroy it just for the sake of his personal office," said an official close to the president.
Mr Musharraf, who stepped down as head of the army late last year, had called for a harmonious coalition after the defeat of his party - which won just 38 out of 272 national assembly seats in last Sunday's elections - but his political rivals have demanded he go.
Officials said he had considered resigning immediately after the election results were known, but had been persuaded by party loyalists that his sudden departure could precipitate a crisis.
In an article published last week he insisted that he would serve out his five-year presidential term.
Behind the scenes, his staff attempted to broker an agreement with Asif Zardari, who became leader of the main Pakistan People's Party (PPP) following the assassination of his wife, Benazir Bhutto.
Yet despite pressure from America, which has relied on Mr Musharraf's support for its war on terror, Mr Zardari refused to strike a deal.
He declined despite also claiming to have been threatened by Mr Musharraf's allies that the government would revive long-standing corruption charges against him.
"I have seen these jails and this is not something new to me," said Mr Zardari. "I fought all these fake cases instituted against me with courage and never disappointed anyone by asking for a pardon.
"I'm ready to fight it out again, and will never disappoint anyone."
PPP officials said that any deal with Mr Musharraf would have dented the party's public support and it was better to try to govern with the help of the other main parties.
"It doesn't make any sense for us to sink with the dying man," said Nisar Khuhro, a senior PPP leader, referring to Mr Musharraf.
Jamil Soomro, a PPP spokesman, said: "He has betrayed everyone since the very outset and we have no guarantee that he would not betray us once he stabilised his position."
Mr Musharraf's popular support drained away over the past year as he interfered with the independence of the courts, imposed a state of emergency, restricted the media and postponed elections.
Shortages of basic foodstuffs and unreliable gas and electricity supplies have left him more vulnerable now than at any time since he seized power in a bloodless coup in October 1999.
A coalition of the anti-Musharraf parties - the PPP, PML(N) and ANP - would govern with 211 MPs, just short of the 228 needed for the two thirds majority that would allow them to launch impeachment proceedings against the president. They could, however, win support from other smaller parties and independent members, which would leave the former general in a precarious position.
If Mr Musharraf decides to dig his heels in, the opposition parties plan to remove his constitutional powers to dissolve the assembly.
"I think his game is over but if he was able to survive for any reason, he would be like a dead fish, sitting and rotting the presidency," said Khwaja Asif, a senior leader of the Pakistan Muslim League.
The frontrunner to take over as prime minister in the new administration is Makhdoom Amin Fahim, the widely respected vice-president of the PPP.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Aitzaz Warns new parliament
Dawn ReportSome excerpts follow here, full story at Dawn website
LAHORE / HYDERABAD, Feb 23: The legal community kept up the momentum in their ongoing campaign for the reinstatement of deposed judges by using different events of their bar associations held on Saturday to spotlight their demands. At one such event Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Aitzaz Ahsan warned the leaderships of the PPP and PML-N to get the deposed judges reinstated quickly or face a movement themselves.
“The lawyers are providing a chance to the new parliament to reinstate the judges, otherwise they are all set to hold a rally in Islamabad on March 9,” Mr Ahsan said.
The SCBA leader’s detention was relaxed for a short period to allow him to cast his vote in the LHCBA election on Saturday.
Mr Ahsan said the PCO, which led to removal of over 60 judges, including the deposed chief justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, would obstruct the functioning of the new parliament.
Referring to the Supreme Court verdict on the reinstatement of the chief justice, Mr Ahsan said the decision had held out that no judge of the superior judiciary could be removed unless the Supreme Judicial Council decided to do so under Article 209 of the Constitution.
He said if the Nov 3 PCO was not discarded, it would provide legitimacy to future army chiefs to impose emergency, usurp the basic rights of the people and amend the Constitution, forcing the future governments to follow it.
The center of ‘power gravity’ would remain with the parliament if the judges were restored, otherwise it would shift to streets because the lawyers would not abandon their principled demands at any cost, he said.
“If the leadership of both the parties want the parliament to take a decision on judges’ restoration, we give them a chance,” he said. However, he warned, the tide of the lawyers’ movement would turn against them if they did not reinstate the deposed judges. Mr Ahsan said Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and his three children had been confined to the four walls of their house over the past three and a half months. During this period the children had not only been denied access to their schools, the whole family was without electricity, water and gas.
He condemned a caretaker minister for asking the deposed chief justice to vacate his residence. “If he is interested in getting the official residences vacated, he should get the Army House vacated from Gen (retd) Musharraf first,” Mr Ahsan said.
Former Supreme Court Bar Association (SBCA) president Munir A. Malik said that only an executive order was sufficient to enable deposed judges to assume charge of their offices, but a resolution adopted by newly elected parliament would certainly strengthen the position of judges.
“We believe that judges stood reinstated after the lifting of emergency and only an executive order is sufficient to restore them to the pre-Nov 3 position.
“However, a resolution from parliament will be needed to strengthen this position,” he said.
Blogged with Flock
Interim govt. trying to make the SC 'validated' amendments a part of constituition
By Nasir Iqbal and Ashraf Mumtaz
ISLAMABAD / LAHORE, Feb 23: Controversy lies in store for the opening session of the new National Assembly as the interim government’s legal experts have decided to get printed a fresh edition of the Constitution, incorporating all amendments introduced by President Pervez Musharraf during the emergency rule.
The question haunting the PML-N and PPP’s legislators-elect alike is: will they take oath under the amended Constitution, which has been ‘validated’ by the Supreme Court?
Both parties have already rejected these amendments and termed them “unconstitutional and invalid”. They contend that the amendments have been made by an individual instead of the parliament.
The government insists the imposition of emergency (on Nov 3), the enforcement of the Provisional Constitution Order, sacking of judges and other steps taken by the president during emergency had been validated by the apex court and made part of the Constitution.
It also asserts that the legislators-elect taking oath under the amended Constitution would, by implication, be endorsing all these steps.
The PPP has said that it would not give a blanket cover to all steps taken by President Musharraf during emergency.
A PML-N leader said on Saturday that the matter was under consideration and some solution would be found by the time the National Assembly holds its inaugural session.
“Obviously (the new version of) the Constitution would contain Article 270AAA under which amendments made before and during the … emergency rule were given perpetual legal cover,” said a senior government official.
Full Story
Blogged with Flock
Saturday, February 23, 2008
A LUMS Alumni who lives in Charsadda, on the day of yet another suicide attack in his hometown.
It was a sad day for me, like many of my country men. The mayhem has now become order of the day. Unfortunately, such incidents have become just another news item for many people. I am not blaming anyone, but down country, people have not realized the full gravity of the situation prevalent in here. The undercurrents of fear, tension, perplexity that have inflicted the general population over here can only be realized when one lives here. Many sane and educated people are presently more concerened with only one person, whereas, the fact of the matter is that, the situation will not change whether he is there or not. The situation has come to a point that it does not matter who is at the helm of affairs at Islamabad. The War has just begun!
There were two suicide attacks against Awami National Party (1 in charsadda and another in Miranshah). ANP is one of the most liberal, anti-army rule and anti-taliban party in Pakistan. It was specifically targeted after a series of statements by ANP leadership against Talibans. In such a scenario, which party will dare challenge Talibanization. I am afraid that next target of Talibans will be Punjab, which the Taliban see as the hegemon against Pushtoon rights.
Sorry for the lengthy gibberish, but forgive me for that. Anyhow, I hope you are doing good and have a good time.
There were two suicide attacks against Awami National Party (1 in charsadda and another in Miranshah). ANP is one of the most liberal, anti-army rule and anti-taliban party in Pakistan. It was specifically targeted after a series of statements by ANP leadership against Talibans. In such a scenario, which party will dare challenge Talibanization. I am afraid that next target of Talibans will be Punjab, which the Taliban see as the hegemon against Pushtoon rights.
Sorry for the lengthy gibberish, but forgive me for that. Anyhow, I hope you are doing good and have a good time.
Friday, February 22, 2008
PPP's Stance on the Judiciary...
I am afraid I may be too cynical, but I saw Zardari's press conference and it wasn't exactly confidence inspiring.
When asked about restoration of judges, he dodged the issue by talking about a larger systemic change that would be brought about by the Parliament.
When asked about working with Musharraf, he dodged the issue by leaving it to the Parliament to decide.
When asked about forming an alliance with PML (Q), he dodged the issue by denying the existence of PML (Q) as a party without clarifying whether he'd ally himself with the group of 39 individuals who were elected on the PML (Q) ticket.
In a party-based parliamentary system, parties are expected to define their position on issues and members of parliament who have been elected on the party ticket are expected to follow the party line on those issues. Zardari knows that full well.
For instance, he didn't leave it for 'the Parliament to decide' whether there should be a UN enquiry into Benazir's assassination. He didn't leave it for the Parliament to decide whether the freedom of media should be protected by repealing the draconian provisions of the PEMRA Ordinance. He clearly stated his party's position on these issues and said that any coalition partners would have to agree on these pre-conditions.
Quite frankly, this talk of a long-term strengthening of the judicial institution rather than a short-term focus on the restoration of individuals merely seems to be a ploy to gain time and somehow brush the travesty of 3rd November under the carpet.
We didn't take to the streets clamouring for restoration because Iftikhar Chaudhry was a nice guy. We did it because we believe that if today the executive is allowed to get away with kicking out undesirable judges, we shall never in future have an independent judiciary in Pakistan. Assuring judges of security of tenure is possibly the most important single step you can take to ensure their independence.
To my rather plodding mind, if you want to strengthen the judicial institution and ensure its independence, you start out by reversing the damage caused on 3rd November. There can be no ifs and buts about that. Sure, if you want take further measures to reform and improve the institution, go ahead and publicly float your specific proposals - discuss it with your coalition allies and the other stakeholders including the Bar and the Bench - and pass a law. But there is no call for linking the former to the latter (particularly when you haven't even formulated any of your radical 'reformative' ideas).
It seems that PPP is creating this linkage simply to win time and eventually side-step the issue of restoration. As we saw even back when BB was alive, what Aitzaz says and what PPP says are frequently two different things. A couple of days before the election, Makhdoom Amin Fahim was asked on Geo to explain what the PPP actually meant when it talked about focusing upon the 'independence of the judiciary' rather than 'restoring individuals'. He didn't seem to have a clue. First he asked why everybody is focused on the restoration of judges removed in last November and not on the judges earlier removed by Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf (in 2001).
Well - actually Ayub and Yahya didn't remove any judges. The judges removed by Zia are either dead or over 80 years in age. Likewise, all except 2 judges (Rasheed Razvi and Mushtaq Memon) removed by Musharraf in 2001 have long passed their retirement ages. If the PPP wants to restore those 2 as well, we would be more than happy.
Also, the crucial difference between then and now is that the removal of the earlier judges through the PCO only became final once it was (unfortunately) ratified through a constitutional amendment passed by a 2/3rd majority of parliament. There has been no such ratification in the present case. Without this ratification, the deposed judges legally continue to be judges. What is stopping PPP from recognising them as such?
Fahim also said that the PPP is more interested in introducing constitutional safeguards that will prevent the arbitary removal of judges as happened on 3rd November. It seems that he was simply oblivious to the whole 9th March ruckus. Those safeguards are already part of our constitution. A judge simply cannot be removed without a enquiry before the Supreme Judicial Council. The problem was that a military dictator used brute force to simply brush aside all the constitutional restraints. What we need is the political will to, firstly, resist and secondly, reverse the desecration of the constitution. Future improvements to the constitution, while welcome, come third.
As far as Zardari's ideas about forming parliamentary committees to sift good judges from bad are concerned, I don't think I've heard a worse idea. If he means to use these committees to oversee the restoration process - decide on a case to case basis whether to restore or not - it is simply unacceptable. Musharraf had also offered to restore the judges on a case to case basis but the judges and lawyers refused to accept this pick and choose policy.
Even if he means to use this process only for future appointments, it's still a terrible idea. Our judiciary does not need further politicisation. Political involvement in the appointment of judges will only harm the long-term stability and impartiality of the institution. Even in a country like the U.S., the fact that Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate has led to a situation where judges are defined by their political affiliations and judicial decisions become dependent on whether there are more Democratic or Republican nominees on the bench. I am sure everyone remembers the 5-4 Republican-Democrat split in the US Supreme Court that allowed Bush to become President.
Our current constitutional system of appointments is not too bad. The President appoint HC and SC judges in consultation with the Chief Justice of the SC and the Governor and Chief Justice of the province concerned. The problem starts when the CJs and the Governor/President start disagreeing. In BB's second stint, matters came to a head when the PPP forced through numerous political appointees to the Bench over the objections of the CJs. Incidentally, Dogar is a product of the same period. In another famous example, a non-practising lawyer with strong PPP links was asked to take oath as a judge but needed directions to get to the High Court. Eventually, the SC resolved the issue in the Al-Jehad case by holding that the President did not enjoy discretionary powers to appoint whom he pleased but was bound to ordinarily abide by the advice/recommendation tendered by the CJs and, in case he disagreed with their recommendations, he was required to assign concrete reasons for doing so.
If the guidelines laid down in Al-Jehad are strictly followed, appointment of judges becomes a relatively merit-based and politics-free affair. However, there is one important improvement that can be made to the system which is to make this whole process of consultations/appointments/assignment of reasons between the CJs and the executive branch more transparent and visible to the public so that everyone can be satisfied that the constitutional provisions and the Al-Jehad guidelines have been followed. Once again, this would not require any constitutional amendment. A simple law passed by a parliamentary majority would be enough.
The next 2-3 weeks are absolutely crucial. Its make or break time. The lawyers put a very good show in Lahore and Karachi today. We need to raise the level of pressure all round to make it clear to all political parties that this issue will not die down.
When asked about restoration of judges, he dodged the issue by talking about a larger systemic change that would be brought about by the Parliament.
When asked about working with Musharraf, he dodged the issue by leaving it to the Parliament to decide.
When asked about forming an alliance with PML (Q), he dodged the issue by denying the existence of PML (Q) as a party without clarifying whether he'd ally himself with the group of 39 individuals who were elected on the PML (Q) ticket.
In a party-based parliamentary system, parties are expected to define their position on issues and members of parliament who have been elected on the party ticket are expected to follow the party line on those issues. Zardari knows that full well.
For instance, he didn't leave it for 'the Parliament to decide' whether there should be a UN enquiry into Benazir's assassination. He didn't leave it for the Parliament to decide whether the freedom of media should be protected by repealing the draconian provisions of the PEMRA Ordinance. He clearly stated his party's position on these issues and said that any coalition partners would have to agree on these pre-conditions.
Quite frankly, this talk of a long-term strengthening of the judicial institution rather than a short-term focus on the restoration of individuals merely seems to be a ploy to gain time and somehow brush the travesty of 3rd November under the carpet.
We didn't take to the streets clamouring for restoration because Iftikhar Chaudhry was a nice guy. We did it because we believe that if today the executive is allowed to get away with kicking out undesirable judges, we shall never in future have an independent judiciary in Pakistan. Assuring judges of security of tenure is possibly the most important single step you can take to ensure their independence.
To my rather plodding mind, if you want to strengthen the judicial institution and ensure its independence, you start out by reversing the damage caused on 3rd November. There can be no ifs and buts about that. Sure, if you want take further measures to reform and improve the institution, go ahead and publicly float your specific proposals - discuss it with your coalition allies and the other stakeholders including the Bar and the Bench - and pass a law. But there is no call for linking the former to the latter (particularly when you haven't even formulated any of your radical 'reformative' ideas).
It seems that PPP is creating this linkage simply to win time and eventually side-step the issue of restoration. As we saw even back when BB was alive, what Aitzaz says and what PPP says are frequently two different things. A couple of days before the election, Makhdoom Amin Fahim was asked on Geo to explain what the PPP actually meant when it talked about focusing upon the 'independence of the judiciary' rather than 'restoring individuals'. He didn't seem to have a clue. First he asked why everybody is focused on the restoration of judges removed in last November and not on the judges earlier removed by Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf (in 2001).
Well - actually Ayub and Yahya didn't remove any judges. The judges removed by Zia are either dead or over 80 years in age. Likewise, all except 2 judges (Rasheed Razvi and Mushtaq Memon) removed by Musharraf in 2001 have long passed their retirement ages. If the PPP wants to restore those 2 as well, we would be more than happy.
Also, the crucial difference between then and now is that the removal of the earlier judges through the PCO only became final once it was (unfortunately) ratified through a constitutional amendment passed by a 2/3rd majority of parliament. There has been no such ratification in the present case. Without this ratification, the deposed judges legally continue to be judges. What is stopping PPP from recognising them as such?
Fahim also said that the PPP is more interested in introducing constitutional safeguards that will prevent the arbitary removal of judges as happened on 3rd November. It seems that he was simply oblivious to the whole 9th March ruckus. Those safeguards are already part of our constitution. A judge simply cannot be removed without a enquiry before the Supreme Judicial Council. The problem was that a military dictator used brute force to simply brush aside all the constitutional restraints. What we need is the political will to, firstly, resist and secondly, reverse the desecration of the constitution. Future improvements to the constitution, while welcome, come third.
As far as Zardari's ideas about forming parliamentary committees to sift good judges from bad are concerned, I don't think I've heard a worse idea. If he means to use these committees to oversee the restoration process - decide on a case to case basis whether to restore or not - it is simply unacceptable. Musharraf had also offered to restore the judges on a case to case basis but the judges and lawyers refused to accept this pick and choose policy.
Even if he means to use this process only for future appointments, it's still a terrible idea. Our judiciary does not need further politicisation. Political involvement in the appointment of judges will only harm the long-term stability and impartiality of the institution. Even in a country like the U.S., the fact that Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate has led to a situation where judges are defined by their political affiliations and judicial decisions become dependent on whether there are more Democratic or Republican nominees on the bench. I am sure everyone remembers the 5-4 Republican-Democrat split in the US Supreme Court that allowed Bush to become President.
Our current constitutional system of appointments is not too bad. The President appoint HC and SC judges in consultation with the Chief Justice of the SC and the Governor and Chief Justice of the province concerned. The problem starts when the CJs and the Governor/President start disagreeing. In BB's second stint, matters came to a head when the PPP forced through numerous political appointees to the Bench over the objections of the CJs. Incidentally, Dogar is a product of the same period. In another famous example, a non-practising lawyer with strong PPP links was asked to take oath as a judge but needed directions to get to the High Court. Eventually, the SC resolved the issue in the Al-Jehad case by holding that the President did not enjoy discretionary powers to appoint whom he pleased but was bound to ordinarily abide by the advice/recommendation tendered by the CJs and, in case he disagreed with their recommendations, he was required to assign concrete reasons for doing so.
If the guidelines laid down in Al-Jehad are strictly followed, appointment of judges becomes a relatively merit-based and politics-free affair. However, there is one important improvement that can be made to the system which is to make this whole process of consultations/appointments/assignment of reasons between the CJs and the executive branch more transparent and visible to the public so that everyone can be satisfied that the constitutional provisions and the Al-Jehad guidelines have been followed. Once again, this would not require any constitutional amendment. A simple law passed by a parliamentary majority would be enough.
The next 2-3 weeks are absolutely crucial. Its make or break time. The lawyers put a very good show in Lahore and Karachi today. We need to raise the level of pressure all round to make it clear to all political parties that this issue will not die down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)