When it's in your favor it's legit and true. And if it's not, it's fraud? I do not represent the upper class or "bourgeois" as you call them. I support him and will vote for him.
This response was to prove that he can win an election given his support is evidently visible.
You conveniently chose to ignore what I said when I posted the demographics and in your smugness that you somehow caught me trying to distort figures came up with a poor reply.
The latest ones at 160,000 do not mention city and the one before that was carried out when Facebook was facing a glitch and showing 2,000 of his fans living in Palo Alto.
It clears my reason about not posting the latest demographics. Nonetheless, Yyou just want to believe that the Absconder Commando has a huge popular base and that Facebook does not represent the opinion of only the bourgeois and upper middle class. The classes who cannot care less about democracy, voting and social welfare for they are already living comfortable lives.
i- According to Transparency International, corruption in this country rose over 400% since the current government came to power. JUdiciary and lawyers are amongst top on the list of most corrupt in Pakistan.
Firstly, Transparency International carries its "Corruption Perception Survey" across the world and gives and CPI index rating then. They carry out the survey about
10, precisely ten public sectors. If a public sector is at number 10 it means that it is the least corrupt among these public sectors, not among all of them. 10 specific because TI recognizes them as important to public dealing.
Source :
http://www.transparency.org.pk/documents/NCPS 2009/NCPS 2009 Report.pdf
Moving down to 6th is a big step forward and a clear indication of the people's trust in the courts.
Judiciary's ranking has improved amazingly since the revival of the judiciary after the lawyer's movement. It has to be acknowledged that lower courts still are marred by corruption and the NJP 2009 under the NJPMC is working towards improving it. The speed of civil litigation has improved considerably and the high courts worked extra hours (4-9pm) on select days over the past year to complete more than ten thousand cases that had been languishing for years.
De constructing your falsified claims is always easy. So much for the "top of the list".
I should also mention that there's a discrepancy in the figure of the "400 percent" increase in the "value" of corruption.
There are some anomalies as to when the "overall corruption" was around Rs. 45 billion. 2006 or 2002?
"
In NCPS 2006 it was Rs 45 Billion"
"
overall Corruption in 2002 has increased from Rs 45 Billion"
NCPS 2006 says Rs. 45 billion. NCPS 2002 doesn't give a figure in detailed report. This has been debated in a thread already as well.
ii- The office of incumbent CJP is in itself politcized to the extent that even NS had to admit that there are "People" (CJP in code words) involved in politics behind closed doors. Revealed in a news press conference when he publicly pledged support for judiciary to participate in constitutional matters. No where in this world would you expect judiciary to overstep or be consulted in such manner. Not even in banana republic would you find such Judicial activism. Judiciary implements law, safe guard the legal system and has no right to meddle in the affairs of other pillars of state.
I'll quote Dr. Farrukh Saleem:
Are our judges displaying judicial activism’?
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Comment
ISLAMABAD: Are our judges going beyond their appropriate powers and engaging in making law and not merely interpreting it? Are our judges making public policy through their decisions? Are our judges assigning new meaning to old words of our Constitution? Are our judges allowing their personal political values colour their judicial opinions?
‘Judicial activism’ is a political term used to describe “judicial rulings that are suspected to be based upon personal and political considerations other than existing law.” In other words, judicial activism means “judicial rulings that impose a personal biased interpretation by a given court of what a law means as oppose to what a neutral, unbiased observer would naturally interpret a law to mean.” Can the present Supreme Court be termed as being ‘judicially active’?
The term ‘judicial activism’ was coined in 1947 by Arthur Schlesinger, a Pulitzer Prize winner who served as President Kennedy’s ‘court historian’. Over the past six decades, since coinage the term, so much time and effort has been devoted by judges, lawyers, social scientists and philosophers that the determination of a court being ‘judicially active’ or not can now almost be a mechanical exercise. There are three major tests that can be applied in order to determine whether the present Supreme Court is being judicially active or not.
Test Number 1: Test of Majoritarianism - When and if a court invalidates or nullifies a policy or an action that was approved or endorsed through the democratic process the court is deemed to have become ‘judicially active’. Has the Pakistani Supreme Court judicially overturned a policy adopted through the democratic process?
Test Number 2: Test of Interpretive Stability - When and if a court ‘alters earlier decisions, doctrines or constitutional interpretation’ it is said to have become ‘judicially active’. Has the Pakistani Supreme Court amended, adjusted or mutated an earlier decision?
Test Number 3: Test of Specificity of Policy - When and if a court judicially establishes a policy as oppose to allowing discretion to the appropriate law-making organ the court is deemed to have become ‘judicially active’. Has the Pakistani Supreme Court actually established a public policy and denied, refused or rejected the National Assembly of Pakistan’s right to do so?
Clearly, the present Supreme Court has neither overturned any policy adopted through the democratic process nor has it judicially established a single public policy. To be certain, the judges have so far not gone beyond their appropriate powers. Furthermore, they have so far been merely interpreting law and there is absolutely no evidence that their personal values are colouring their judicial opinions.
Gallup Pakistan recently undertook a country-wide public opinion poll in which 57 per cent of all the respondents said that the Supreme Court is acting within its authority, 18 per cent said that the Supreme Court is acting beyond its mandate and 25 per cent were either unsure or gave no response (the poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 to 3 per cent and 95 per cent confidence level).
iii- The new amendment does not require for any policital party to abide by a constitutional requirement to hold elections in a political party. A great win for democracy in Pakistan (I'm being sarcastic).
Certainly a bad move but this does not nullify the improvements this wide range amendment has brought.
Further more, have you seen the economy? FDI levels? reserves? stock exchange? IMF/World bank loans? unemployment?
Fictitious economic growth based on hiding inflation behind subsidies and consumption led growth based on consumer financing has been busted time and again. The economy had to fall after a short term economic boom. And I do not deny positive steps taken. A sorry economic tale has been debated in the previous pages of this thread and you might want to take a look at the figures.
As for today; we are fighting a war across the tribal regions, the world is recovering from an economic crisis and we face huge electricity shortages.
It is easier to climb Mount Everest than to convince somebody who is unwilling to change his opinion. As somebody said on a forum I used to visit, "Opinions aren't excuses to remain ignorant about subjects, nor are they excuses to never examine one's beliefs & prejudices..."
