Practical and tangible steps to bring about structural changes in Pakistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This, dear Sir(s), is the reality:

from: Parliament is supreme over all institutions: Zardari | Pakistan | DAWN.COM

ISLAMABAD: President Asif Ali Zardari said on Friday that the Parliament is supreme over all other institutions, DawnNews reported.

A high level meeting was called at the Presidency after a second extension was issued to the government by the Supreme Court.

The meeting was headed by President Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

In the meeting it was decided that the parliament will be strengthened and its supremacy will be ensured. It was also decided that no compromise will be made on the authority of the executive.

Senior Law Minister Babar Awan briefed the meeting about the resulting situation after the decisions made by the Supreme Court.

“The parliament is answerable to the aspirations of the people,” said President Zardari.

Moreover, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Asma Jehangir said government should implement decisions of Apex Court otherwise non implementation would lead the country towards anarchy.

And here is my response, posted as a comment on the Tribune site:

As pointed out, ‘Parliament is not Supreme’, the Constitution is.

Parliament cannot will nilly go around passing laws or ‘executive orders’ in violation of the rules and processes laid down in the Constitution.

If there is a disagreement over the interpretation of the constitution with respect to the powers of the Executive and certain ‘laws passed by Parliament’, then it is the courts that are the final arbiters of whether or not the actions of ‘Parliament and/or the executive’ are constitutional or not.

Parliament is not a ‘dictatorship’ that it can claim to lord over everything as ‘supreme’ – it must follow the constitution and it must follow the rulings of the judiciary in terms of interpreting the constitution.

 

[Solomon2]

Isn't "practical and tangible" change already happening? Here we have Zardari emphasizing parliamentary supremacy, and there is the scene of Pakistan's new FM making peaceful overtures with India. Yet for structural change doesn't there have to be some sort of arrangement to guarantee that neither the Army nor any other uncivil armed group can seize power for its own ends?

 

[VCheng]

.............................

So, any suggestions on your part on how to achieve 'a removal (from power) of the current political class'?

In my opinion, a removal from power of the current political class is NOT possible, unless there is an imposition from without more than than within. Faces may change, but the class will not. Further, the imposition from without is not going to happen as long as the current political class keeps meeting certain international exigencies.

That is the truth the way I see it.

 

[indushek]

In my opinion, a removal from power of the current political class is NOT possible, unless there is an imposition from without more than than within. Faces may change, but the class will not. Further, the imposition from without is not going to happen as long as the current political class keeps meeting certain international exigencies.

That is the truth the way I see it.

History tells us that whenever civilizations face existential threats they either perish or re invent. Pakistan is at such a cross road, it is making certain changes atleast from an external point of view which are trying to make peace with India, some form of stable government etc. While i respect you very much i find it a little bit sad or even annoyed (pardon me for that) at your pessimistic outlook. Where you in some way threatened or experienced some bad things in Pakistan that you had to come to this opinion??

 

[VCheng]

History tells us that whenever civilizations face existential threats they either perish or re invent. Pakistan is at such a cross road, it is making certain changes atleast from an external point of view which are trying to make peace with India, some form of stable government etc. While i respect you very much i find it a little bit sad or even annoyed (pardon me for that) at your pessimistic outlook. Where you in some way threatened or experienced some bad things in Pakistan that you had to come to this opinion??

Sadly, I know my nation far better than you do. I have good reasons for my apparent "pessimism", which is merely realistic, when evidence is looked at impartially without patriotic blinders.

 

[indushek]

Sadly, I know my nation far better than you do. I have good reasons for my apparent "pessimism", which is merely realistic, when evidence is looked at impartially without patriotic blinders.

I beg sincerely for your pardon if i have in any way hurt you, it was not at all my intention. I was just curious for the reason.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Isn't "practical and tangible" change already happening? Here we have Zardari emphasizing parliamentary supremacy, and there is the scene of Pakistan's new FM making peaceful overtures with India. Yet for structural change doesn't there have to be some sort of arrangement to guarantee that neither the Army nor any other uncivil armed group can seize power for its own ends?

Zardari is emphasizing 'parliamentary supremacy' to get away with violating the constitution and push back against judicial orders against executive decisions considered illegal and aiding corruption.

This is hardly the kind of tangible change to strengthen important institutions we are talking about. If anything, the only thing this will do, if Zardari succeeds, is increase disenchantment among Pakistanis about a political system that is corrupt and a political class that cannot be held accountable by anyone - even when the Supreme Court rules their actions to be illegal.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In my opinion, a removal from power of the current political class is NOT possible, unless there is an imposition from without more than than within. Faces may change, but the class will not. Further, the imposition from without is not going to happen as long as the current political class keeps meeting certain international exigencies.

That is the truth the way I see it.

So you really have very little to discuss and offer then - there is no point in you calling for 'proposals on reforming institutions', including 'reforming the military'.

 

[VCheng]

So you really have very little to discuss and offer then - there is no point in you calling for 'proposals on reforming institutions', including 'reforming the military'.

You might find very little of what I say to be of any interest to you in serving your particular agenda, but, whatever little I hope I may have of change, it is the most likely to happen in the armed forces first.

You do make the assumption that since you do not agree with what I say, it must be of no value. That is patently wrong.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You might find very little of what I say to be of any interest to you in serving your particular agenda, but, whatever little I hope I may have of change, it is the most likely to happen in the armed forces first.

You do make the assumption that since you do not agree with what I say, it must be of no value. That is patently wrong.

And what exactly will 'change in Armed forces' accomplish in terms of reversing the rot in society and Pakistan's institutions? How will it make the political class more amenable to the kinds of reforms that will improve law and order, security, economy and increase the faith of Pakistanis in a constitutional democracy?

This is exactly what I mean by your 'circular arguments' why other members criticize you - after claiming that 'nothing will change because of the current political class', here you are, again arguing for 'reforms in the military', which, given your argument of 'nothing will change', will be irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.

 

[VCheng]

And what exactly will 'change in Armed forces' accomplish in terms of reversing the rot in society and Pakistan's institutions? How will it make the political class more amenable to the kinds of reforms that will improve law and order, security, economy and increase the faith of Pakistanis in a constitutional democracy?

This is exactly what I mean by your 'circular arguments' why other members criticize you - after claiming that 'nothing will change because of the current political class', here you are, again arguing for 'reforms in the military', which, given your argument of 'nothing will change', will be irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.

Have you considered that what seem like circular arguments (which they are not) to you, are merely looking at ALL aspects of a complex issue?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Have you considered that what seem like circular arguments (which they are not) to you, are merely looking at ALL aspects of a complex issue?

What is the point of 'looking at all aspects', when your final answer will be 'nothing will change'?

Or, to repeat my earlier question, does 'reform in the military' somehow 'allow the current political class to implement change and reform?'

And if so, then how?

 

[VCheng]

What is the point of 'looking at all aspects', when your final answer will be 'nothing will change'?

Or, to repeat my earlier question, does 'reform in the military' somehow 'allow the current political class to implement change and reform?'

And if so, then how?

Because "nothing will change" is a fair and honest assessment, based on a careful consideration of all the evidence.

Rather than deriding me endlessly, how about telling me how and where change will occur? You have already admitted elsewhere that the implementation of any useful ideas presented will remain unlikely. Then you get upset at me for saying nothing will change.

IF the military remains away from political meddling (which it won't), and reforms itself into a nationalistic force (which it won't either), THEN it MIGHT form the nidus of a useful change.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because "nothing will change" is a fair and honest assessment, based on a careful consideration of all the evidence.

If you wish to stick to that position that is your prerogative, but than there is no point for YOU to 'analyze all aspects', since your conclusion of 'nothing will change' will eventually result in the 'analysis of ANY aspect' being reduced to 'nothing will change'.

Now, if you have thoughts on 'HOW things will change', that would be a refreshing change from your circular arguments that lead to the same despondent conclusion of 'nothing will change'.

Rather than deriding me endlessly, how about telling me how and where change will occur? You have already admitted elsewhere that the implementation of any useful ideas presented will remain unlikely. Then you get upset at me for saying nothing will change.

I have pointed out 'how things will change' - through a change in the behavior of the electorate, if change is to be brought about democratically. You have chosen to ignore that.

IF the military remains away from political meddling (which it won't), and reforms itself into a nationalistic force (which it won't either), THEN it MIGHT form the nidus of a useful change.

How, since according to you, the current political class is neither going away nor willing to implement change? Whether the Army stays out of politics or not (and it is staying out of politics in this particular PPP stint at power), the political class is not going to 'change their spots'.

Please explain how this 'reform in the military' makes the current political class more amenable to 'implementing reform and change'.

 

[VCheng]

If you wish to stick to that position that is your prerogative, but than there is no point for YOU to 'analyze all aspects', since your conclusion of 'nothing will change' will eventually result in the 'analysis of ANY aspect' being reduced to 'nothing will change'.

As I have said before, my position is NOT static. I am evaluating evidence on an on-going basis, and will change my assessment and position as soon as any evidence makes it necessary to do so.

Now, if you have thoughts on 'HOW things will change', that would be a refreshing change from your circular arguments that lead to the same despondent conclusion of 'nothing will change'.

It is not a circular argument my dear Sir. It may appear so to you at the moment, since there is no change that will break the cycle, but, like I have said, it will change, as soon as something gives me cause for hope.

I have pointed out 'how things will change' - through a change in the behavior of the electorate, if change is to be brought about democratically. You have chosen to ignore that.

That can happen, similar to when Pir Pagara failed to be elected. For that feat to be repeated on a wider scale, free and fair elections are a pre-requisite. It may need the military's active assistance to happen in the present day environment.

How, since according to you, the current political class is neither going away nor willing to implement change? Whether the Army stays out of politics or not (and it is staying out of politics in this particular PPP stint at power), the political class is not going to 'change their spots'.

Because the Army is still the best-respected among all the national institutions, and the public has a tendency to follow the PA's leads of behavior.

Please explain how this 'reform in the military' makes the current political class more amenable to 'implementing reform and change'.

The same way that you say - by leading by example that the electorate follows to change the current political class in free and fair elections with the military's active support to ensure them.