Emergency Next for Pakistan ?

[Bull]

With the supreme court halting the procedures againt the sacked CJ, what options are mushraff left with?

Reports in newspaper says emergency is even an option. Would Mushraff go for it? Is there any other way out for him.

Yesterday CJ made a mockery of Mushraff's 'advice on safety' and travelled by road, accepting greeting from thousands of supporters enroute. He has openly challeneged the Muhsraff;s regime by calling Mushraff a 'dictator' and his rule a 'dictatorship', both of which face destruction.

 

[kidwaibhai]

this is i think a testament to musharraf he is alowing this guy to do all this. if it were zia he would have made the ISI pick this dude up and make him disappear.
although i do think this a temporary thing pakistanis are very emotional they get flared up from time to time and then everything will frevel away.

 

[Bull]

Well he is no Zia. Zia didnt have a hostile US at its borders. It didnt have jihadis up in arms against his rule.

Mushraff is in much more trickier situation. He isnt doing anything because i feel he cant do much because of his percieved image of moderatism.

he cant act as a Zia, bcoz thats what he has told Pakistan till now. he is just setting a new example or trying to set a new trend.

 

[Neo]

May 08, 2007

Remarks on emergency didn’t mean intent: govt

By Raja Asghar

ISLAMABAD, May 7: The government assured the National Assembly on Monday that Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's explanation of constitutional provisions about imposing emergency were not a hint of intent, after it came under fire from the opposition that saw the remarks as a threat to cope with the prevailing judicial crisis.

Opposition members sought a debate on Mr Aziz's remarks made in reply to a question at a news conference in Islamabad on Sunday and said he had tried to influence the situation created by the President Pervez Musharraf's controversial action of suspending and charge-sheeting Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and to scare the civil society from protesting against the move.But Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sher Afgan Khan Niazi said the prime minister's remarks were only cursory and did not mean to say that conditions existed to justify a proclamation of emergency, which the president can do under the constitution's articles 232 and 233 on account of war or internal disturbance and suspend certain fundamental rights.

“This does not mean that he has given an intent,” the minister said about Mr Aziz's remarks, after the issue was first raised in the house by Mr Naveed Qamar of the People's Party Parliamentarians, who described the present situation as “dark times” and said he feared that the government could make such a move in response to a massive reception given to the chief justice during a 25-hour drive from Islamabad to Lahore on Saturday and Sunday.

Mr Farid Piracha of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) later said that if the government saw an “internal disturbance” due to its action against the chief justice “then it should think who had blown the bugle”.

Mr Saad Rafiq of the Pakistan Muslim League-N said that Mr Aziz’s remarks constituted “a threat to the civil society” while the nation was already “in a state of shock” after the presidential move against Justice Chaudhry.

BLOCKED TV CHANNELS: In another development, NA Speaker Chaudhry Amir Hussain set Tuesday for taking several opposition adjournment motions seeking a debate on the blockage of live telecasts of some private television channels in Sindh during the chief justice's trip and his speech at the bar in Lahore on Sunday morning.

The decision came after a token walkout by PPP members against the TV channels’ blocking, which some opposition members blamed on the government while some held the governing coalition’s ally Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) responsible, provoking some sword-crossing between the MQM and MMA.

But the MMA got an unusual political support from the chair when the speaker asked members to abstain from recalling any political party's or politician's opposition to Pakistan before the creation of the country at the subcontinent's independence and partition in 1947.

The speaker termed his remarks only as a “statement” to end a controversy rather than a binding ruling after an MQM member, Ishratul Ebad, accused MMA’s component Jamaat-i-Islami of opposing the creation of Pakistan.

“From today there should be no talk about the opinion of any personality or religious or political party about the Pakistan movement before the creation of Pakistan,” Mr Hussain said in remarks in Urdu.

He said it was possible that some people opposed the Pakistan movement thinking their view at the time was correct, but added that after the creation of Pakistan “nobody should call another a kafir” on that account.

“To end this controversy, I am making this statement that now every person, political party or religious party should respect Pakistan in the same manner as Muslims respect their mosques, Christians respect their churches and people of other faiths respect their places of worship.”

MMA members greeted the speaker's statement by thumping their desks.

Some adjournment motions by MMA and PML-N members regarding the increase in electricity and gas rates were also put off until Tuesday, when the house will meet at 10am.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/08/top4.htm

 

[Neo]

Shadow of emergency?

EVEN though he was vague about it, Mr Shaukat Aziz’s remarks about a possible imposition of the state of emergency deserve to be taken note of. Addressing a press conference in Islamabad on Sunday, the prime minister said the Constitution did provide for such an eventuality but that a decision to that effect would depend on circumstances. The “circumstances” he referred to were obviously the countrywide protests by the legal community and political activists following the presidential reference to the Supreme Judicial Council against Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. The nationwide controversy that the presidential reference has caused and the rousing receptions given to the ‘non-functional’ Chief Justice in different cities and to his drive in a motorcade to Lahore were beyond the expectations of even the most diehard optimists among the government’s opponents. As for the government, it has simply been jolted into reality and made to realise the political and legal blunder it has made. No multi-party conference provided such a forum as the CJ reference issue has for all opposition political parties to come together on a single platform. Regrettably, the government machinery’s handling of the demonstrations, the manhandling of protesting lawyers and the CJ himself and the attack on media offices fuelled rather than dampened the fire of the anti-government sentiment now sweeping the country. The protests show no sign of abating, and that is what seems to have led to the talk of emergency.

What is worrying is that the prime minister did not rule out the possibility of declaring an emergency. That the Constitution does provide for such a resort is widely known. But the question the government must consider is whether such an action will serve the country’s interests and those of the regime itself. What the “circumstances” are is, of course, a matter of opinion. In the prime minister’s own words, the parliament is in place and the system is working normally. Then why this talk of emergency? If the protests degenerated into violence, as they sometimes did, the government has amply demonstrated the sweep and sting of its coercive power in tackling a particular situation — and ruthlessly at times. Besides, even without the emergency, it has behaved in a way as if fundamental rights stand suspended. Its law enforcement agencies have raided homes and arrested thousands of political workers, and the regime has come down hard on the media, with several channels going off the air. What more power does it need? The only guess is that an emergency will enable the government to impose censorship on the media, curtail civil liberties, restrict the courts’ habeas corpus jurisdiction and choke all avenues of dissent.

The government would be well advised not to opt for an emergency declaration. If it does, the regime itself would be the loser, because it is unlikely that a declaration of emergency will be able to contain the current wave of demonstrations. In fact, there is every possibility that even those who are sitting on the fence and are truly interested in the outcome of the legal battles going on in the Supreme Judicial Council will then be forced to take sides. More important, coming before the general election scheduled for later this year, a declaration of emergency will amount to queering the pitch for the opposition. With the re-election of President Pervez Musharraf by the existing assemblies already decided in principle, the emergency will reduce the electoral exercise to a farce.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/08/ed.htm#1

 

[KashifAsrar]

I think an emergency looks mor eprobable at the moment.
A quick fix to the situation can be provided if Bhutto arrive 'Early'.
Then what ever Musharraf would do, it would be portrayed in the interest of restoring democracy in Pakistan.
Itr is clear Musharraf needs a support hand here.
Kashif

 

[PakSniper]

I think an emergency looks mor eprobable at the moment.
A quick fix to the situation can be provided if Bhutto arrive 'Early'.
Then what ever Musharraf would do, it would be portrayed in the interest of restoring democracy in Pakistan.
Itr is clear Musharraf needs a support hand here.
Kashif

Their is no emergency, and If Mushy needed it he would have done something already and right now he hasn't. And I wouldn't not want Ganja (Nawaz) and BB back into the country I rather die then live with them crooks.

Also, how are you going to declare a Marshal law over a Marshal law? So this emergency is just bull.

 

[EagleEyes]

Declearing emergency is a weak case. Ignoring is the best option, while stopping for any wrong activity by law.

 

[KashifAsrar]

Wait and watch the unfolding drama!
kashif

 

[Srirangan]

Exit through fair elections seems to be the best way out for Musharraf.

 

[Awesome]

That's not going to happen. Musharraf can simply concede that the CJ is innocent and let the proceedings go on. See Musharraf just has to keep the CJ tied up till the Presidential elections after that, the regular courts can either acquit him or find him guilty. What difference does that make to Musharraf?

Rana Bhagwandas may think he sided with the CJ by sending the matter to the regular courts instead of keeping the matter with him in the SJC, but at best he's managed to save the CJ not hurt Musharraf.

The best option is to wait it out, wait for the Presidential elections and then withdraw the case from the CJ.

 

[Awesome]

SJC was the wrong venue to fight the CJ. It's full of bias towards the CJ. Rana Bhagwandas is a close personal friend of the CJ.

The Full court will find in favor of the government and will find the SJC to have a bias. The courts on the other hand should have the ability to make a non-political decision of which the CJ is definitely guilty.

 

[EagleEyes]

Wait and watch the unfolding drama!
kashif

What happened? Case closed?

 

[KashifAsrar]

What happened? Case closed?

Yeah.
And CJ is on the road with his supporters!
I say again, 'WAIT and WATCH'.
I hope that in this episode every thing happens in favour of Pakistani public.
Kashif