fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
VIEW: Dictatorship of party leadership Mohammad Jamil
The problem is that political parties in Pakistan are being run as dynasties or family enterprises. They consider their parties to be their fiefdoms and have never cared to establish democratic traditions
Two clauses in the 18th
Amendment have made the top leaders of political parties virtual dictators, a matter that had earlier escaped the attention of media gurus and analysts. One is the deletion of sub-clause 4 of Article 17, which stated: Every political party shall, subject to law, hold intra-party elections to elect its office-bearers and party leaders. In fact, this Article should have been further strengthened by incorporating the provision that party elections be held under the Election Commission of Pakistans watch to put an end to sham intra-party elections that are held just to comply with the formalities of the Political Parties Act. However, the spokespersons of the PML-N and the PPP are defending the deletion on the pretext that the provision of holding elections within the parties is already part of the Political Parties Act. This is an effort to hoodwink the people because there is a marked difference between the requirement in the Political Parties Act and a provision in the constitution, which is adopted by a two-third majority in parliament. Reportedly, Kashmala Tariq, a rebel of the PML-Q, wanted Article 17 (4) to be retained. Saad Rafique and Makhdoom Javed Hashmi of the PML-N supported Kashmala Tariq and opposed the deletion of the above sub-clause. They even staged a token walkout.
The second clause is an amendment to Article 63-A with regard to the disqualification of a member on the grounds of defection, which reads: He may be declared in writing by the Head of the Parliamentary Party to have defected from the political party, and the Head of the Parliamentary Party may forward a copy of the declaration to the Presiding Officer, and shall similarly forward a copy thereof to the member concerned. This right has been taken away from the parliamentary leader and in the amended clause the party head has been given the prerogative in this regard. The problem is that political parties in Pakistan are being run as dynasties or family enterprises. They consider their parties to be their fiefdoms and have never cared to establish democratic traditions. More often than not, different party officials are nominated by party heads. These self-styled custodians of democracy are, in fact, authoritarian leaders, who dictate party policies, and wish to be elected unopposed as lifetime chairman or rahnuma of the parties. Bhutto-Zardaris, Sharifs and the Chaudhrys scions will be the next crop of leaders and merit will have no place in the party hierarchy.
There is a perception that this amendment can be challenged in the Supreme Court because it takes away the right of the elected member to say things or vote as dictated by his conscience. Article 19 of the constitution reads: Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof. We are no legal or constitutional experts, but we can request the apex court to take suo motu notice on the grounds that no amendment to the constitution can be made that negates the fundamental rights of the people. Unfortunately, Pakistans history has been characterised by periods of military dictators and civilian dictators, as Pakistan has overwhelmingly remained a feudal society where jagirdars, vederas, sardars and pirs still wield enormous powers. They enjoy political clout and are in cahoots with the nouveau riche industrial class and the bureaucracy that control the state. Whenever there is a military dispensation, they join the bandwagon. Can anybody claim that he has not compromised with a military dictator at one time or another?
They are master political strategists, who ride the tide and turn the surge to their advantage. But the hearts of patriotic Pakistanis bleed to find the nation divided on various planes, destroying the very fabric of national cohesion. Secondly, it has become difficult for a great majority of the people to keep their body and soul together. Showing utter disregard for the peoples needs and demands, our eminences and leading lights talk about democracy, justice, rule of law and constitutionalism, but such discussions only took place in the past. One dialogue took place more than 2,000 years ago, one that is being reproduced. The venue is the house of Cephalus, a wealthy aristocrat. In the group are the brothers of Plato and Thrasymachus, a gruff and excitable Sophist who is provoked to commit himself to a definition. He thus comes out: I proclaim that might is right; and justice is the interest of the stronger. Different forms of government democratic, aristocratic or autocratic make laws with a view to protecting their interests; and these laws so made by them to serve their interests they deliver to their subjects as justice, and punish as unjust anyone who transgresses them.
Even today, members of the ruling elite control all the resources in the country, and are considered above the law. On the other hand, an ordinary person with a middle-class background cannot afford to field himself as a candidate for a provincial or national assembly seat. The people are losing faith in the system, one that does not address their problems. They seem to be fed up with the present electoral process that sends opulent classes to the assemblies. And this is the reason that, over the years, the turnout has dwindled down significantly. Unless this vast majority of disgruntled and disappointed citizens are inspired to take interest in national affairs and help reform society, no change can be brought about in either the state of society or in the contours of the national uplift. Not through the mechanics of coercion, nor through incentives, but by instilling fresh and matter-of-fact feelings of the obvious in their thoughts and psyche can they be roused to march onwards. Mere existence of contradictions, discrepancies, inequities do not cause a stir in society unless these are fed into the feelings and consciousness of the people. Do we have any visionary leaders to accomplish this task?
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com
The problem is that political parties in Pakistan are being run as dynasties or family enterprises. They consider their parties to be their fiefdoms and have never cared to establish democratic traditions
Two clauses in the 18th
Amendment have made the top leaders of political parties virtual dictators, a matter that had earlier escaped the attention of media gurus and analysts. One is the deletion of sub-clause 4 of Article 17, which stated: Every political party shall, subject to law, hold intra-party elections to elect its office-bearers and party leaders. In fact, this Article should have been further strengthened by incorporating the provision that party elections be held under the Election Commission of Pakistans watch to put an end to sham intra-party elections that are held just to comply with the formalities of the Political Parties Act. However, the spokespersons of the PML-N and the PPP are defending the deletion on the pretext that the provision of holding elections within the parties is already part of the Political Parties Act. This is an effort to hoodwink the people because there is a marked difference between the requirement in the Political Parties Act and a provision in the constitution, which is adopted by a two-third majority in parliament. Reportedly, Kashmala Tariq, a rebel of the PML-Q, wanted Article 17 (4) to be retained. Saad Rafique and Makhdoom Javed Hashmi of the PML-N supported Kashmala Tariq and opposed the deletion of the above sub-clause. They even staged a token walkout.
The second clause is an amendment to Article 63-A with regard to the disqualification of a member on the grounds of defection, which reads: He may be declared in writing by the Head of the Parliamentary Party to have defected from the political party, and the Head of the Parliamentary Party may forward a copy of the declaration to the Presiding Officer, and shall similarly forward a copy thereof to the member concerned. This right has been taken away from the parliamentary leader and in the amended clause the party head has been given the prerogative in this regard. The problem is that political parties in Pakistan are being run as dynasties or family enterprises. They consider their parties to be their fiefdoms and have never cared to establish democratic traditions. More often than not, different party officials are nominated by party heads. These self-styled custodians of democracy are, in fact, authoritarian leaders, who dictate party policies, and wish to be elected unopposed as lifetime chairman or rahnuma of the parties. Bhutto-Zardaris, Sharifs and the Chaudhrys scions will be the next crop of leaders and merit will have no place in the party hierarchy.
There is a perception that this amendment can be challenged in the Supreme Court because it takes away the right of the elected member to say things or vote as dictated by his conscience. Article 19 of the constitution reads: Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof. We are no legal or constitutional experts, but we can request the apex court to take suo motu notice on the grounds that no amendment to the constitution can be made that negates the fundamental rights of the people. Unfortunately, Pakistans history has been characterised by periods of military dictators and civilian dictators, as Pakistan has overwhelmingly remained a feudal society where jagirdars, vederas, sardars and pirs still wield enormous powers. They enjoy political clout and are in cahoots with the nouveau riche industrial class and the bureaucracy that control the state. Whenever there is a military dispensation, they join the bandwagon. Can anybody claim that he has not compromised with a military dictator at one time or another?
They are master political strategists, who ride the tide and turn the surge to their advantage. But the hearts of patriotic Pakistanis bleed to find the nation divided on various planes, destroying the very fabric of national cohesion. Secondly, it has become difficult for a great majority of the people to keep their body and soul together. Showing utter disregard for the peoples needs and demands, our eminences and leading lights talk about democracy, justice, rule of law and constitutionalism, but such discussions only took place in the past. One dialogue took place more than 2,000 years ago, one that is being reproduced. The venue is the house of Cephalus, a wealthy aristocrat. In the group are the brothers of Plato and Thrasymachus, a gruff and excitable Sophist who is provoked to commit himself to a definition. He thus comes out: I proclaim that might is right; and justice is the interest of the stronger. Different forms of government democratic, aristocratic or autocratic make laws with a view to protecting their interests; and these laws so made by them to serve their interests they deliver to their subjects as justice, and punish as unjust anyone who transgresses them.
Even today, members of the ruling elite control all the resources in the country, and are considered above the law. On the other hand, an ordinary person with a middle-class background cannot afford to field himself as a candidate for a provincial or national assembly seat. The people are losing faith in the system, one that does not address their problems. They seem to be fed up with the present electoral process that sends opulent classes to the assemblies. And this is the reason that, over the years, the turnout has dwindled down significantly. Unless this vast majority of disgruntled and disappointed citizens are inspired to take interest in national affairs and help reform society, no change can be brought about in either the state of society or in the contours of the national uplift. Not through the mechanics of coercion, nor through incentives, but by instilling fresh and matter-of-fact feelings of the obvious in their thoughts and psyche can they be roused to march onwards. Mere existence of contradictions, discrepancies, inequities do not cause a stir in society unless these are fed into the feelings and consciousness of the people. Do we have any visionary leaders to accomplish this task?
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com
