In such case they will require any kartoos as they will themself act as ICBMs
An indirect coupe will be some thing like this.
1. resignation of PM after he nominates a caretaker PM and/or parliament. This parliament will bring electoral reforms and those who are elected will amend the constitution where needed, including creation of new provinces. And whole this process will be monitored by the army. During this tenure two teams will be made one to run the affairs of government and another to prosecute those who have been looting public money. Those found guilty will be put behind the bars and declared disqualified to contest elections for life. When the term completes there will be another election, by this time corrupt politicians would have been eliminated in totality. All this while Army will keep monitoring and ensure that all pieces of machinery are put in right place. As COAS will not be the chief executive of Pakistan, he will not have any issues of removing wardi or not. The next in line will continue to undertake job of monitor.
In my opinion if a procedure is set for the position of President, whereby one of the armed forces chief is elevated to the position of President of Pakistan(can be in rotation for all three forces), with powers of 58 (2)(b) then we can get rid of these political issues for ever. Why?
1. Armed forces are non political and President of Pakistan is a non political post.
2. Tenure of President is fixed and there is only one term.
Or there should be presidential form of government who selects his cabinet and runs the affairs of country and NA's job restricted to legislation only. Like it is being practiced in USA. there is a set procedure through which people are elevated to Congress and Senate, each state is independent and at no one time complete composition of legislative assembly is changed. This ensure consistency of policies.
Let me share some facts with regards to our constitution and some other constitutions being followed in rest of the world to supplement my thoughts.
Since conception of constitution in vogue, members of the house have always had vested interests in not defining the most important element of democracy. This is also evident through the fact that no provision is available in constitution through which a citizen of Pakistan is able to propose any point for discussion in the House, without help of an elected member who are usually not accessible to common man, thus a common man cannot put his point across the House and remains hostage to political parties’s dictatorial policies. Mi Lord, I am writing this open letter to your good self in anguish and pain. Although the matter needs to be taken up and discussed in National Assembly ;yet I have no voice to take this matter to the house and get an audience as the concern raised is against interests of majority occupying seats in the House. They are representatives of political parties having their own agenda superseding agenda of common man. These individuals are not representative of
people, but their own political parties having non-democratic practices, where individuals are deities and families have the ownership of political parties. These parties administer oath to their members for using their legislative vote satisfying individual’s wishes, rather than responding to call of conscience.The increased influence of individuals in our political system has jeopardized our electoral system. This system is neither free nor competitive and is highly non-representative. These
individuals denying right of qualified candidates from reaching public offices, breed political families, instead of citizen representation. In such an environment, one can never expect that interest of common man will be guarded. It is sad to find these members of National Assembly and Senate making laws to satisfy their own interests under the umbrella of public mandate; nonetheless common man remains the most suppressed element in this system of governance. In great despair I seek guidance from this honorable institution of Pakistan to find my way ahead. Representatives of a trade association or union are from among members of that association or community. A Muslim cannot represent a Christian in interfaith dialog likewise a beverage manufacturer cannot represent textile manufacturers in respective trade body meetings. An Oil
importing country cannot become spokesperson for OPEC. Similarly, a person living in Lahore is incompetent to represent inhabitants of Faisalabad or Multan as he does not know the problems encountered by the resident of concerned city. Or for that matter a person living in constituency NA1 does not qualify to represent people comprising constituency NA2. Unfortunately, our constitution permits this anomaly. Our constitution even allows those who do not live in this
country to represent people of this country and this has led to people possessing dual nationality to come here just to rule us. These people are callous in making laws and legislation, because they know that nothing of theirs is at stake. They, many a times, come from abroad to take back goodie bags and let the common man suffer under their wreckless decisions, policies and strategies.
The only way to restrict these people is to tighten the criterion of people’s representation in National Assembly and Senate. As a matter of fact, similar principle should also apply to all those holding public offices like President, Governor State Bank, Advisors to the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, Governors, etc.
Reference Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Article 62
“A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless:-
(a) he is a citizen of Pakistan;
(b) he is, in the case of the National Assembly, not less than twenty-five years of age and
is enrolled as voter in any electoral roll in-
(i) any part of Pakistan, for election to a general seat or a seat reserved for non-
Muslim; and
(ii) any area in the Province from which he seeks membership for election to a
seat reserved for women. Previous 62(b)
(c) he is, in the case of Senate, not less than thirty years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any area in a Province or, as the case may be, the Federal Capital or the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, from where he seeks membership;”
Mere reading of Article 62(b) indicates that electoral arena is free for all; anyone can contest election from any constituency. My question to legislators would be that how a person living in Defence can be representative of a person living in Orangi Town or Chak 52 somewhere in interiors of Punjab. He does not comprehend problems of that area, hence cannot derive possible solutions to those. Present free hand has allowed wealthy to represent the poor, a person who has never seen poverty can never realize the problems of under privileged. I would like to draw attention of Your Honour, towards constitutions of different countries.
My first reference will be towards India, proclaimed largest democracy of the world, Article 102, Constitution of India:
“102. (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament—
(a)……………..
…………………
(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State;”
Article 102(1)(d) clearly restricts those who acquire the citizenship of a foreign State. Though India does not allow dual nationality vide Article 9, constitution of India “9. No person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of article 5, or be deemed to be a citizen of India by virtue of article 6 or article 8, if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State.”. Nevertheless, Article (102)(1)(d) weeds out the possibility of anyone having a dual nationality, even in times to come and to become member of parliament by using words “or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State;”
My second reference is to the first democracy of the world, the United States of America.
“Section. 2 Constitution of United States of America. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
Members States of USA follow their own constitution with regards to the House of representatives.
In order to look at the rules of qualification to represent each state, first reference is made to Constitution of Texas, Sec. 7.
“QUALIFICATIONS OF REPRESENTATIVES. No person shall be a Representative, unless he be a citizen of the United States, and, at the time of his election, a qualified voter of this State, and shall have been a resident of this State two years next preceding his election, the last year thereof a resident of the district for which he shall be chosen, and shall have attained the age of twenty-one years. “
State of Texas further enumerates qualification of Senators vide Section 6 of Texas Constitution.
“Sec. 6. QUALIFICATIONS OF SENATORS. No person shall be a Senator, unless he be a citizen of the United States, and, at the time of his election a qualified voter of this State, and shall have been a resident of this State five years next preceding his election, and the last year thereof a resident of the district for which he shall be chosen, and shall have attained the age of twentysix years.
Likewise Indiana’s Constitution Section 7 refers to the qualification of House of Representatives.
“Section 7. No person shall be a Senator or a Representative, who, at the time of his election, is not a citizen of the United States; nor any one who has not been for two years next preceding his election, an inhabitant of this State, and, for one year next preceding his election, an inhabitant of the district whence he may be chosen. Senators shall be at least twenty-five, and
Representatives at least twenty-one years of age.”
California has been very explicit in defining qualification of its candidates for representative government. It has addressed the issue similar to dilemma faced by Pakistani citizens with their constitutional anomaly.
Reference is made to Article 4 section 1.5 of California Constitution.
“ARTICLE 4: SEC. 1.5. The people find and declare that the Founding Fathers established a system of representative government based upon free, fair, and competitive elections. The increased concentration of political power in the hands of incumbent representatives has made our electoral system less free, less competitive, and less representative. The ability of legislators to serve unlimited number of terms, to establish their own retirement system, and to pay for staff and support services at state expense contribute heavily to the extremely high number of incumbents who are re-elected. These unfair incumbent advantages discourage qualified candidates from seeking public office and create a class of career politicians, instead of the citizen representatives envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
These career politicians become representatives of the bureaucracy, rather than of the people whom they are elected to represent. To restore a free and democratic system of fair elections, and to encourage qualified candidates to seek public office, the people find and declare that the powers of incumbency must be limited. Retirement benefits must be restricted, state-financed incumbent staff and support services limited, and limitations placed upon the number of terms which may be
served.
SEC. 2. (a) The Senate has a membership of 40 Senators elected for 4-year terms, 20 to begin every 2 years. No Senator may serve more than 2 terms. The Assembly has a membership of 80 members elected for 2-year terms. No member of the Assembly may serve more than 3 terms. Their terms shall commence on the first Monday in December next following their
election.
(b) ………
(c) A person is ineligible to be a member of the Legislature unless the person is an elector and has been a resident of the legislative district for one year, and a citizen of the United States and a resident of California for 3 years, immediately preceding the election.”
Another State Utah mentions in Article VI Section 5 of its Constitution:
“Who eligible as legislator. No person shall be eligible to the office of senator or representative, who is not a citizen of the United States, twenty-five years of age, a qualified voter in the district from which he is chosen, a resident for three years of the State, and for one year of the district from which he is elected.”
Arizona declares under Article 4
“2. Qualifications of members of legislature Section 2. No person shall be a member of the Legislature unless he shall be a citizen of the United States at the time of his election, nor unless he shall be at least twenty-five years of age, and shall have been a resident of Arizona at least three years and of the county from which he is elected at least one year before his election."
In order to further substantiate my point of view I would like to draw your attention to a Monarch based country Norway. Article 1 of Norway’s Constitution states:
“ Article 1 [Integrity of the Kingdom] The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy.”
Yet the constitution gives legislative powers to the people under Article 49 and outlining the requirement of becoming Member of Parliament under Article 61:
“Article 49 [Legislative Power]
The people exercises the Legislative Power through the Parliament [Storting], which consists of two departments, the Permanent Chamber [Lagting] and the General Chamber [Odelsting].”
“Article 61 [Residence Requirement]
No one is eligible as a representative to the Parliament [Storting] unless he has resided for 10 years in the Realm, as well as being entitled to vote.”
Yet another example of a Kingdom which gives the right of legislation to the people is of Thailand. Section 101 of Thai Constitution states:
“Section 101. A person having the following qualifications has the right to be a candidate in an election of members of the House of Representatives:
(1) being of Thai nationality by birth;
(2)……………….
…………………..
(4) a candidate in an election on a constituency basis shall also possess any of the
following qualifications:
(a) having his name appear in the house register in Changwat where he stands
for election for a consecutive period of not less than five years up to the date of
applying for candidacy;
(b) being born in Changwat where he stands for election;
(c) having studied in an education institution situated in Changwat where he
stands for election for a consecutive period of not less than five academic years;
(d) having served in the official service or having had his name appear in the
house register in Changwat where he stands for election for a consecutive period
of not less than five years;”
Former East Pakistan and present Bangladesh which declares in its constitution.
“(1)…….
(2) A person shall be disqualified for election as, or for being, a Member of Parliament who-
(a)…………….
………………..
(c) acquires the citizenship of, or affirms of acknowledges allegiance to, a foreign state;"
Flaws exist in all constitutions being followed in the world and these constitutions continue to undergo changes based on trepidation. The idea behind giving these references is to point towards the fact that constitution of each country protects interest of its people by providing a provision for true representation in House of Representatives. These constitutions have restricted access of career politicians to the House by defining stringent rules. This allows fresh blood, new ideas, broadened vision and dynamism in field of politics. On the contrary, Constitution of Pakistan gives a free hand to opportunists.
@
WebMaster @
Aeronaut @
batmannow @
orangzaib @bartva @
Sedqal
