Column of the Day 28th August

[qaiserpk]

Beautiful Coulmn by Hasan Nisar
He seems to have written in special mood.
Sawad Aa Gaya

[dauno]

[talkyou]

Revive political parties



By I.A. Rehman (Dawn)

ONE of the issues frequently raised by political parties is that the crises of the state and the plight of the people have been aggravated by the failure of political institutions. New institutions have not been developed, it is said, and the institutions created in the olden days have been destroyed.

Political leaders usually do not include political parties in the list of institutions that have decayed. This, perhaps, because of their feeling of guilt. Whenever the matter is broached they attribute the decline of political parties to state repression, especially during authoritarian rule. But no honest political activist will deny that party leaders also have made a large contribution to the process.

As regards political parties Pakistan has been unfortunate since its very inception. The largest party at independence, the Muslim League, was more an organisation in form than in substance. After the Quaid’s death even respect for form was given up. After a brief experiment separating the party from the government the Muslim League became a permanent maid at the prime minister’s house. Until Iskander Mirza added the making and breaking of political parties to his functions as head of state, whoever became prime minister also became the League chief. The party had little say in the wars of succession that began with the Quaid’s demise or in the management of public affairs.

The other parties in existence during Independence were paralysed after losing out to the Muslim League. When they tried to resurrect themselves, largely in defence of provincial rights, they were easily suppressed. A challenge to authority could be mounted during elections only by loose gatherings of estranged members of the elite and the establishment replied by rigging elections in the western wing. When it failed to do so in the eastern wing it abandoned the formality of elections altogether and eventually preferred praetorian rule to representative government.

For 50 years now political elements have been fighting authoritarian regimes, and more than that among themselves, on the strength of intra-elite alliances and their ability to gather the people in one movement or another. They have done wonders but fostering strong democratic parties does not figure in their accomplishments. The field has been dominated by political outfits that prefer to call themselves movements and spurn democratic elections and regular party structures. Some parties have relied exclusively on periodic elections.

The stark reality is that political parties have been competing with autocratic despots in inventing ever new excuses for denying the people their right to democratic choice. They have been functioning as little more than contractors for seats in elected bodies and waiting for moneyed candidates who can buy tickets for offices that offer the highest possible return on their investment.

Since the state started moving away from its democratic moorings soon after Independence it had no interest in helping political parties consolidate themselves as fully operational democratic machines. Indeed, it drew comfort from the disintegration of political parties. Instead of removing the obstacles to the flowering of democratic organisations, by avoiding restraints on the right to assembly and to dissent and by reducing the cost of electoral contest, among other things, the state has tried to exceed its authority by arbitrarily regulating political parties and their activities.

The first attempt in this direction was made in 1962 when Ayub Khan’s all-out campaign to destroy party-based politics was halted by the assembly elected through his own devices and he reluctantly reconciled himself to the existence of political parties. As a result, the Political Parties Act of 1962 was designed largely to check the founding and functioning of parties that could be assailed, however wrongly, for being foreign-aided or inspired by a foreign ideology.

The first PPP government imposed in the 1973 Constitution only two conditions on political parties — they could not work against the state’s integrity and were required to account for their funds. It kept the Political Parties Act of 1962 in place and amended it only to facilitate action against the parties it considered undesirable. Gen Zia added some conditions for parties desirous of contesting elections including their compulsory registration but this condition was struck down by the judiciary. The quasi-civilian governments that followed Gen Zia showed little interest in strengthening political parties.The Political Parties Order authored by the Musharraf regime does acknowledge that “the practice of democracy within the political parties will promote democratic governance in the country for sustaining democracy” (the excessive use of the word ‘democracy’ in this short sentence could well have been meant to hide aversion to it), but the measure merely prescribes easy standards for parties for participation in elections.

It can be argued that this order of 2002 has inhibited political parties from democratising themselves. All that is expected of them is a party constitution, a list of members, a certificate about election of office-bearers, and a statement of audited accounts. This is easy work for professionals. After meeting these legal obligations political parties tend to believe they have become democratic entities and nothing more needs to be done in this area.

That the political parties were in disarray on the eve of the last general election cannot be disputed. The enforced absence of the heads of the two major parties did matter but that alone could not have rendered these organisations dysfunctional to the extent actually noticed. Their preparation for elections was no more than haphazard improvisation. The change wrought by the people on Feb 18 was without much help from the main political parties. And these political parties, with rare exceptions here and there, have not been heard of since then.

The conventional argument is that when a party comes to power priority has to be given to the fundamental task of managing the state, to meeting the threats of disturbance and turbulence, and party affairs have to be put on the backburner. In practice, governance has essentially meant efforts to undermine all other parties (including allies), or score points over them, and providing for self-aggrandisement by a few. The point that is consistently missed is that the availability of organised party cadres will make governance both easier and better. Such cadres are vitally needed to maintain a living link between the rulers and the ruled.

Throughout the past many weeks party mobilisation has been sorely missed. If the coalition partners had cadres to mobilise a few hundred thousand people the task of restoring the judges and getting rid of Musharraf could have been completed in a shorter period and quite cleanly. So long as political parties are not revived and raised to due strength the democratic experiment will remain vulnerable to disruption by praetorian guards.

[halka]

Quite an interesting analysis by Irshad Haddani.

[dauno]

Nov 3 actions cannot be undone: Naek
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Says Iftikhar's return to create crisis

By Muhammad Ahmad Noorani

ISLAMABAD: The PPP government on Wednesday finally conceded that the Nov 3 unconstitutional steps were validated by the Supreme Court and the National Assembly could not reverse them.

Law Minister Farooq H Naek told the media at the Parliament House that as the apex court had validated the Nov 3 actions of Pervez Musharraf, only the highest court of the country could reverse them and the PPP government could not do anything in this regard.

During the last nine months since the imposition of emergency, the PPP was continuously terming the Nov 3 acts unconstitutional and had stated repeatedly that the PPP government would reverse them through parliament.

Sources in the PPP are sure that their chief Asif Zardari is planning to give an indemnity to Gen (retd) Musharraf's unconstitutional acts of breaching the Constitution. Naek also stated that with the restoration of the deposed chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, a constitutional crisis will emerge as the present occupant of the office, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, has taken oath under Schedule III of the Constitution and is a constitutional chief justice.

It is worth mentioning that Naek made this stunning statement almost at the same time that the PPP chief was making the statement that all the deposed judges, including Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, would be restored and only one day after the statement of Prime Minister Gilani that Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was the Imam of judges and would be restored.

Naek for the first time declared that the deposed judges could only be restored if they took a fresh oath. Quoting sources, The News on Aug 7 had reported that eight deposed Sindh High Court (SHC) judges, who were ready to accept reappointment and take fresh oath, had met former president Pervez Musharraf and PPP chief Asif Zardari. The PPP co-chairman had set the condition of taking fresh oath for the reinstatement of the pre-Nov 3 deposed judges.

Sources in the PPP told The News that the conflict over the restoration modalities adopted by the PPP chief through Naek was creating rifts among the top party leadership. A top PPP leader confirmed to this correspondent that the deposed SHC judges took a fresh oath after accepting the notification bearing signatures of the same person who had dismissed them on Nov 3 � Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf.

The ruling PPP faced an embarrassing situation when despite the statement of the Leader of the House in the Senate Mian Raza Rabbani on Tuesday, the law minister did not make a policy statement on Wednesday.


SHC judges� oath-taking shocks lawyers
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Legal community stages countrywide sit-in today

By Sohail Khan

ISLAMABAD: Lawyers on Wednesday termed the oath taken by eight deposed judges of the Sindh High Court (SHC) violation of the Constitution, as it is to accept the extra constitutional measures taken on November 3, 2007 as legal.

�The SHC deposed judges� oath taking has shocked the legal fraternity, as it was in violation of the Constitution and against the commitment they made and stand they took on November 3, 2007,� said Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, senior advocate of the Supreme Court.

He said till today the indemnity bill has not been passed by Parliament to validate the unconstitutional acts of November 3, 2007; therefore, the acceptance of reinstatement order amounts to surrendering to the unconstitutional decisions.

�I consider the judges� reappointment is a violation of the Constitution, betrayal to the people, and acceptance of the position of November 3, 2007, taken by Pervez Musharraf and adopted by PPP Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari,� Ikram Chaudhry said.

He said the �Zradari� government is bent upon damaging the cause of independent judiciary, the federation and the Constitution. He further said that deposed judges till today were not ready to resume their duties until and unless the order of Pervez Musharraf was not set aside through resolution by Parliament, and an executive order was issued.

�The underhand practice of the government seems to be creating a rift and division amongst the deposed judges and causing damage to the lawyers movement for restoration of judges and Constitution,� Ikram Chaudhry added.

Another lawyers� movement leader Justice (R) Tariq Mahmood condemned the government for creating such a situation for the last nine months that forced the 8 deposed judges to accept the reappointment orders.

�They have disappointed us by accepting the fresh appointment as judges of the Sindh High court, admitting that the unconstitutional steps taken on November 3, 2007, were legal,� said Munir A Malik, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

He said that the legal fraternity would continue its struggle for the restoration of deposed Judges of the superior judiciary, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. He said that accepting their re-appointment, the eight judges also accepted the judgment given by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar in Tikka Muhmmad Iqbal�s case, ruling that the amendment made by President Pervez Musharraf were part of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, lawyers will stage today (Thursday) a two-hour sit-in from 12 noon to 2 pm across the country at tehsil and district level for the reinstatement of deposed judges of the superior judiciary, who had refused to take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO), promulgated by former military dictator Pervez Musharraf on November 3, 2007.

According to Haroonur Rashid, the president Islamabad District Bar Association, the lawyers of Islamabad would assemble on the premises of Islamabad District Courts, from where they would proceed towards Zero Point, where a two-hour peaceful sit-in would be staged.

Sardar Asmatullah, president of the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) Bar Association, said lawyers with the help of other people will stage sit-ins at the busy intersections of Rawalpindi city like Kutchery Chowk, Liaquat Bagh and Murree Road.

Meanwhile, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Secretary Muhammad Amin Javed told The News that the lawyers with the participation of members of civil society, students, workers of All-Pakistan Democratic Movement and traders, would stage sit-ins at every busy intersection of the country and jam the traffic except ambulances and student vehicles.

Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, president Supreme Court Bar Association had already said sorry to the public for any discomfort on the part of lawyers� sit-in and had appealed to the owners of educational institutions in the country to close their respective schools today (Thursday). He, however, had assured that the sit-ins would completely be peaceful and non-violent.

[NoToRi0uS]

Yeah that's most shameful act of PPP

[dauno]

Senate debates PTV chairman�s appointment, package Thursday, August 28, 2008
By Rauf Klasra

ISLAMABAD: Information Minister Sherry Rehman and Leader of the House in Senate Raza Rabbani came under fire in the Senate on Wednesday when they tried to defend the big financial package given to the newly-appointed chairman PTV Dr Shahid Masood, as one senator after the other stood up to lash out at the controversial deal which, they termed a bid to "silence" a bitter critic of PPP.

The Senate, whose proceedings otherwise went on smoothly in the last couple of days, witnessed angry verbal clashes for over one hour -- first between Sherry Rehman and Senator Kamil Ali Agha followed by Raza Rabbani and former ISI chief General (retd) senator Qazi Javed Ashraf.

These four lost their tempers during the debate on the package given to Dr Shahid Masood. Raza and Sherry were greatly irritated when questioned by the opposition senators as to how could th egovernment give such a generous package from the taxpayers' money to someone who was not at all trained to run an organisation like the PTV.

They wondered how could a medical doctor without any administrative experience could be appointed to run the PTV. It was pointed out that he might have been a good anchor, but this alone could not entitle or qualify him to bear the huge responsibility of running an organisation like the PTV.

Some senators also taunted that now Dr Shahid Masood will start a show with the title "Subb kay Mutabiq". This debate consumed the entire Question-Hour, something unprecedented in the recent parliamentary history.

It generated a bitter exchange of hot words between the PPP ministers and opposition senators who accused the party claiming to be fighting for the cause of the poor of distributing millions of rupees on such packages.

Interestingly, Sherry Rehman did not object to a long debate on the issue, rather she egged on the angry senators to put more questions about the appointment of Dr Shahid Masood. Her strange attitude could be explained by the fact that now she has bitter relations with the Dr Shahid Masood and she has virtually lost control over the affairs of the state-run TV. In a rare show, the opposition obliged her by asking more than usually allowed three supplementary questions, and Sherry as minister entertained them without any objection.

She could have easily ended the debate asking the chair to restrict the questions being put. Judging the mood of the house, the Senate chairman generously allowed more than 18 supplementary questions.

Thus, Dr Shahid Masood and those who had given him a very lucrative deal were at the receiving end. However, when towards the end when the opposition senators started grilling Sherry Rehman herself, she lost her temper and had a loud verbal bout with Kamil Ali Agha.

Likewise, when Qazi Javed Ashraf termed the TV license fee of Rs 25 per month added to the electricity bill of each consumer 'Goonda Tax' that was being used to give hefty packages to individuals like Dr Shahid Masood, Leader of the House Raza Rabbani lost his temper.

He shouted at the top of his voice, "General, if you had the moral courage, you should have resigned as you were part of the government which imposed this 'Goonda tax'". This enraged Qazi who shouted in return in the same fashion.

Rabbani continued pointing finger at him and shouting, "You generals don't have any morality even in uniform, let alone without uniform". The acting chairman allowed them to exhaust their fury.

Sherry Rehman tried to defend the appointment and package of Dr Shahid on the plea that the former chairman Yousuf Baig Mirza was getting the same salary. She also rejected the allegations that any underhand deal was done and secret payments were made to Dr Shahid Masood during the course of negotiations.

Earlier, to a question, Sherry Rehman told the house that Dr Shahid Masood was being paid Rs 850,000 as monthly salary, chauffer driven 1600 CC car with unlimited petrol for private and official use maintained by the corporation.

Daily allowance would be in line with MP-1, Shifting Allowance Rs 200,000 one time only, entertainment on actual basis, medical, bonus as paid to other staff every year, mobile phone without any limit, one residential land line phone with Rs 10,000 per month ceiling, one fax at residence, security guards at residence round the clock, one month basic salary as gratuity, 10 percent of the basic salary as provident fund, Rs 50,000 yearly increase. The contract period will be for five years and in case of early termination of contract, a notice of six months will be required from either side or gross salary in lieu thereof.