Emergency Imposed!

[Interceptor]

yes very true only if the politicians avoided calling millitary to save their rule

General Musharraf seized power in coup over the government, no one invited him, it was General Musharraf who created the Kargil conflict, it was him who imposed marshal law and suspended the constitution in 1999; high treason.

 

[Keysersoze]

General Musharraf seized power in coup over the government, no one invited him, it was General Musharraf who created the Kargil conflict, it was him who imposed marshal law and suspended the constitution in 1999; high treason.

This is a nice list ....now will you list the allegations against the Nawaz and Bhutto groups?



Somehow i doubt you will list them as well............

 

[Awesome]

It was added back to the constitution after Nawaz dismissal.

It was wrongfully removed by Nawaz. He wanted no check and balance on his rule over Pakistan.

 

[ejaz007]

Dear All,
Democracy how bad it might be is still better than a good dictatorship. The reason is that there is an end to bad government usually after five years when it completes its tenure or is forced out of office. Then people have a chance to review their last decision through a vote. In this way a system keeps on functioning and a sort of accountability of the politicians is also made by the people. However there is no end to a dictatorship. Usually a dictator is either removed by another dictator or by popular uprising or an accident. All these are bad for a country.
Lets have a look at present scenario in Pakistan. Musharraf came to power through a coup in 1999 then was allowed to govern for three years by Supreme Court. After that elections were held under his supervision and after some parliamentarians were forced to switch sides he again became president. In 2007 he arranged his reelection through the parliament whose own legal term was coming to an end simply because he feared that his party might not get the seats he requires to be reelected. Morally he lost the election when most of the opposition resigned from the Parliament. Then the matter went to Supreme Court and fearing that he might loose he has imposed emergency.
What I mean to say is that all is being done for what to keep one person in power. All decisions are being made by one person and all other institutions are being bypassed. When an institution finally challenged his authority he simply bulldozed it to keep himself in power. This is not good for the country and in the long run might not be good for the army since he is also the COAS. Lets hope some sense prevails in Musharraf and he shall undo the wrongs he has already done.

 

[bhangra12345]

It was wrongfully removed by Nawaz. He wanted no check and balance on his rule over Pakistan.

I am feeling that the army and politicians are making the constitution their favourite playground.

But didnt he remove it only becoz the President misused it three times already twice removing Bhutto and once nawaz, when they had huge majorities.

The president for Pakistan at that time was supposed to be a nominal figure head who will use those powers in extreme situations, not because he didnt the PM's or like that. The presidents at those time exceeded those briefs and remember the president as such does not have direct approval of public and is a semi bureacrat, if you understand what I am saying. So they had to close that loophole and he closed it.

There was a need for checks and balances on the President too, this rule applies not only to the Prime Minister.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ejaz,
A musharraf without his uniform would have been an extremely weak Musharraf.

Real life is about being pragmatic and making compromises, not chasing away after utopias.
The judiciary, CJ especially, forgot that. Here was an opportunity to have a smooth transition to democracy, but he/they wanted that last word so much, wanted to chase that Utopia just a little bit more, and ended up flying too close to the sun. Other than a few individuals pride, what was there to lose with Musharraf as president without his uniform? He would have no more power than most of the other presidents before him who could dismiss government.

As a society, we need to reassess how to proceed forward. Victory does not have to be achieved in one single go. It can be arrived at one step at a time. We were making progress towards that ultimate goal of a free and fair democracy. The greed of certain judges, politicians and lawyers unfortunately resulted in us moving a step back.

 

[Mansoor A Qureshi]

Musharaf AL-Mighty (Nauzobillah)
He is playing in GOD Mode, A disgrace to army, want to write more but i know that it will be scissored by the respected MODS and dear webby No hopes folks, and this is the time we must stop comparing Pak with India, there is simply no comparison, India is far far superior in all aspect of being a nation and a superpower in coming days

 

[roadrunner]

Dear All,
Democracy how bad it might be is still better than a good dictatorship. The reason is that there is an end to bad government usually after five years when it completes its tenure or is forced out of office. Then people have a chance to review their last decision through a vote. In this way a system keeps on functioning and a sort of accountability of the politicians is also made by the people. However there is no end to a dictatorship. Usually a dictator is either removed by another dictator or by popular uprising or an accident. All these are bad for a country.

Not true. Democracy is not always better than dictatorship. Let me give you the example. You have one group of 10 people (no morals, poor, uneducated), and a second group of 10 (wealthy, educated, good morals). They are asked to choose between 2 men, say to run an orphanage. 1 man is a swindler (he will run the orphanage as a business making lots of "ghost" beds), the other one is honest and caring. The swindler pays the first group (no morals, poor, uneducated) $5 each for a vote. The second man pays them nothing (but he's the best man for the job). You can see who such a democracy will elect, right? Now if your population is like the second group (educated, good morals, wealthy), they won't be bribed. This second group of people is the sort of population that works best for democracy. Pakistan does not have it yet. So a good dictator is better than the current democratic situation in Pakistan. Of course when the "pillars of democracy" as Musharraf calls them have been created, democracy will be better than any sort of dictatorship. But it's not ready for democracy.

Lets have a look at present scenario in Pakistan. Musharraf came to power through a coup in 1999 then was allowed to govern for three years by Supreme Court. After that elections were held under his supervision and after some parliamentarians were forced to switch sides he again became president. In 2007 he arranged his reelection through the parliament whose own legal term was coming to an end simply because he feared that his party might not get the seats he requires to be reelected. Morally he lost the election when most of the opposition resigned from the Parliament. Then the matter went to Supreme Court and fearing that he might loose he has imposed emergency.
What I mean to say is that all is being done for what to keep one person in power. All decisions are being made by one person and all other institutions are being bypassed. When an institution finally challenged his authority he simply bulldozed it to keep himself in power. This is not good for the country and in the long run might not be good for the army since he is also the COAS. Lets hope some sense prevails in Musharraf and he shall undo the wrongs he has already done.

That "institution" was run by a crooked lawyer affiliated with the PPP. I don't like him interfering in the judiciary, but anything that is associated with PPP needs to be re-populated. I would rather Musharraf smash every institution, than to let PPP have a say in politics again.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I agree with the sentiments over the PPP. While the party may very well have highly capable and principled men and women in its ranks, the fact that they choose to continue to support "one man rule" within the party, that they pledge loyalty to an individual rather than a set of policies and ideals, is indicative of the fact that are nothing but lackey's - and we don't need more of those, since it is naught but dictatorship in disguise, as seen already during their previous tenures.

However, if the PPP members, or PML-N, were to show character and discard the caricature of a "leader" that they tow around for "emotional votes", there would be something to be said about giving them a chance.

 

[EagleEyes]

Musharaf AL-Mighty (Nauzobillah)
He is playing in GOD Mode, A disgrace to army, want to write more but i know that it will be scissored by the respected MODS and dear webby No hopes folks, and this is the time we must stop comparing Pak with India, there is simply no comparison, India is far far superior in all aspect of being a nation and a superpower in coming days

I think we all get the hint of what your going to say, and that is enough. There is no need for pouring your emotions on the forum. We all know how you feel, and donot need further elaboration.

 

[roadrunner]

I agree with the sentiments over the PPP. While the party may very well have highly capable and principled men and women in its ranks, the fact that they choose to continue to support "one man rule" within the party, that they pledge loyalty to an individual rather than a set of policies and ideals, is indicative of the fact that are nothing but lackey's - and we don't need more of those, since it is naught but dictatorship in disguise, as seen already during their previous tenures.

However, if the PPP members, or PML-N, were to show character and discard the caricature of a "leader" that they tow around for "emotional votes", there would be something to be said about giving them a chance.

Could be right. Trouble arises when you have no accountability in the party. Rather than having a Bhutto head constantly, party elections could create some sort of internal accountability which might cleanse it of corruption. It's a good point that all these parties are dictatorships in disguise. But I still think you need an literate population for this to work.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Ejaz,

So, bad democracy is better than good dictatorship----would you kindly ask Britain or the U S A or the Scandinivian countries to adopt bad democracies for awhile and see how devastating they are.

Is that the reason that Benazir is the life time chairperson of PPP---just to prove her point that bad democracy is ok in the form of permanent dictatorship as party chairperson--wallah.

Mansoor A Qureshi,

Sir, all writings with a proffessional and reasonable approach are welcome on this board---either in favour or against is not the issue, but the quality of the content is and so far the content shown does not have the quality.

 

[niaz]

Just to clarify a few points. I was in Pakistan when the 1973 Constitution was being formulated. At that time ZA Bhutto; after being a civilian CMLA and just become the President and there was no Prime Minister. Abdul Wali Khan, then the Chief spokesman of the opposition ensured that the Constitution is heavily tilted towards the Prime Minister; a post then vacant. Also because Wali Khan wanted to curtail Bhutto’s powers. ZAB agreed to all his suggestions with the aim of getting the Constitution accepted unanimously. As soon this was done, ZAB promptly resigned as President, made himself the PM and had Chaudhry Fazal Elahi elected as President. Fazal Elahi, hitherto a nonentity, was so elated that he was happy to continue as a ceremonial President.

Once Zia declared Martial law and then wanted a civilian government. He realized that President had no powers; that is why he insisted on clause 58 –II (B) which gave the power of dissolving the assembly to the President.


Regarding the current situation; I have been told that President wanted to impose Emergency quite a while back. However, he was advised that his action could be nullified by the Supreme Court by a Suo Motu suspension of the Emergency Ordinance. Thus Musharraf was forced to take extra constitutional means. There was an error in the execution of the order. Mushy had asked that the Judges are to be treated with courtesy. This delayed the entry of the security forces into the Supreme Court and the Judges had time to issue a Suo Motu rejection of the PCO. A major cause for trouble as it is very difficult for a Supreme Court decision to be overturned.

Mushy was also right not wait for the Supreme Court decision because if once he had been declared ineligible; he was a goner. Let us not forget that a duly elected PM, Mr. Nawaz Sharif arranged storming of the Supreme Court when he feared that the judgment would go against him.

As already been suggested in the previous posts; things were going smoothly. Mushy had promised to shed uniform as soon as re-elected and hold free election by Jan15, 2008. The Supreme Court Judges carry a lot of blame of sabotaging this process and throwing the country into a chaos. They could have declared in his favour last week by disallowing the official notification of the Presidential Election results. For heavens sake! this is politics where nothing is hundred percent black or white. This not clear cut “Amr bil maroof was nahi anil munkir” situation. Do honorable Justices of the Supreme Court not care about what chaos there actions were causing??

If there ever was a conspiracy to sabotage Pakistan’s transition towards democracy,
This is the prime example. In my opinion our people, regardless of the position they hold; have not learnt the “Real Politick’ or diplomacy and the fact that peace and prosperity of Pakistan is more important than either their ego or the nay thing else. I don’t imply the Musharraf is blameless because you need two hands to clap.

WE have been discussing right and wrong of individual actions, we should worry about the future instead.

 

[bhangra12345]

Just to clarify a few points. I was in Pakistan when the 1973 Constitution was being formulated. At that time ZA Bhutto; after being a civilian CMLA and just become the President and there was no Prime Minister. Abdul Wali Khan, then the Chief spokesman of the opposition ensured that the Constitution is heavily tilted towards the Prime Minister; a post then vacant. Also because Wali Khan wanted to curtail Bhutto’s powers. ZAB agreed to all his suggestions with the aim of getting the Constitution accepted unanimously. As soon this was done, ZAB promptly resigned as President, made himself the PM and had Chaudhry Fazal Elahi elected as President. Fazal Elahi, hitherto a nonentity, was so elated that he was happy to continue as a ceremonial President.

Once Zia declared Martial law and then wanted a civilian government. He realized that President had no powers; that is why he insisted on clause 58 –II (B) which gave the power of dissolving the assembly to the President.

didnt know this history. So basically Pakistan made a constitution unanimously and ZAB became the PM constitutionally. So 58-II B is simply the wishes of a dictator, ZIa to have complete power. With this history, now I think removing that clause was the right thing to do. I was under the impression that the clause was originally there, but due to its misuse was removed.

By the way, I dont remember Zia to have even a facade of democracy, did he have one? If he didnt have one, why did he need this clause?

Regarding the current situation; I have been told that President wanted to impose Emergency quite a while back.

for the same reasons?

However, he was advised that his action could be nullified by the Supreme Court by a Suo Motu suspension of the Emergency Ordinance.

Thus Musharraf was forced to take extra constitutional means. There was an error in the execution of the order. Mushy had asked that the Judges are to be treated with courtesy. This delayed the entry of the security forces into the Supreme Court and the Judges had time to issue a Suo Motu rejection of the PCO. A major cause for trouble as it is very difficult for a Supreme Court decision to be overturned.

To be treated with courtesy?, delayed entry? Jana told that the first place army entered after declaring emergency was SC.

Mushy was also right not wait for the Supreme Court decision because if once he had been declared ineligible; he was a goner.

An individual Mushy was a goner, not Pakistan. For the sake of an individual, Mushy imposed emergency on the whole of Pakistan.

Let us not forget that a duly elected PM, Mr. Nawaz Sharif arranged storming of the Supreme Court when he feared that the judgment would go against him.

So what better is this Mushy better than NS? both wanted to cling to power whatever the means.

As already been suggested in the previous posts; things were going smoothly. Mushy had promised to shed uniform as soon as re-elected and hold free election by Jan15, 2008.

I put my gun to your head and say you give your whole wealth to me and after you give the wealth, I will remove the gun. I dont find any difference between these two.

The Supreme Court Judges carry a lot of blame of sabotaging this process and throwing the country into a chaos. They could have declared in his favour last week by disallowing the official notification of the Presidential Election results.

So, if it is against constitution and against justice, it is against justice and constitution. The SCJs just tried to do their job, that is their f*king job.

For heavens sake! this is politics where nothing is hundred percent black or white. This not clear cut “Amr bil maroof was nahi anil munkir” situation. Do honorable Justices of the Supreme Court not care about what chaos there actions were causing??

The moment courts start caring about chaos, only chaos will reign. If a murderer who is an MP, but can cause trouble of making chaos, is not punished because of his ability to cause chaos, only chaos will reign supreme.

If there ever was a conspiracy to sabotage Pakistan’s transition towards democracy,
This is the prime example.

conspiracy by whom? Who do you think are the prime backers of this and what exactly do they want? i.e. what is the ultimate aim of this conspiracy.

In my opinion our people, regardless of the position they hold; have not learnt the “Real Politick’ or diplomacy and the fact that peace and prosperity of Pakistan is more important than either their ego or the nay thing else. I don’t imply the Musharraf is blameless because you need two hands to clap.

Real Politick or diplomacy is not for courts. Justice for them should be more important than bruising of the ego of any individual.

WE have been discussing right and wrong of individual actions, we should worry about the future instead.

Only because those individual actions decide the future direction of Pakistan.

 

[niaz]

Hon Bhangra,

Zia held some sort of elections and Junejo was made the PM on the condition that 58-II(B) was passed by the assembly. Junejo agreed because even a sham democracy is better than dictatorship.

You are entitled to hold your view point. I maintain that Court's job is to act with the Executive and not is direct conflict with it. After all a judgement is meaningless unless it is exectued, which is done by the Executive. This was a case of Judicial activism gone beserk. Your agrument about giving the whole wealth at gun point is not related as the same Supreme Court and the same CJ ( he was made CJ because then CJ, Saeed uz Zaman Siddiqui refused to take oath under PCO) had earlier given validity to the Mushy's Coup in 1999.

You are of course entitled to rub your hands with glee at the destabilisation of Pakistan and the ensuing chaos. I cannot see how a decision against Musharraf would have helped Pakistan in any way. I am also a democrat and would like to see democracy in Pakistan. The conspiracy I talk about relates to derailing the democratic process. Only forces who gain by this choas are "Undemocratic forces" such as religious extremists and suicide bombers.

I am willing to accept a corrupt PM such as Benazir and a President in uniform such as Musharraf, if it means peace and prosperity for Pakistan. To hell with idealism if it means more law and order problems, strikes and down turn in economy. I would go along pragmatism and take the path which would eventually lead to democracy to avoid needless disturbances. This is why I am worrried about what comes next than what has already happened. I have nothing more say on this subject.