Ankahi - Political Voice of People

People often ask why this ‘Charter Of Democracy’ is mentioned so much in the speeches of politicians, why can not they instead address the real problems of the common man. In my view the Charter of Democracy which was signed on May 14, 2006 between the two major parties, is nothing short of a revolutionary document in the history of this nation. If made a part of our constitution and the laws, this agreement can go far towards in undoing much of the follies of our past which will have a subsequent effect on the people. Let us look at some of its proposed clauses in detail.

1. The 1973 Constitution as on 12th October 1999 before the military coup shall be restored with the provisions of joint electorates, minorities, and women reserved seats on closed party list in the Parliament, the lowering of the voting age, and the increase in seats in parliament and the Legal Framework Order, 2000 and the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment shall be repealed accordingly.
2. The appointment of the governors, three services chiefs and the CJCSC shall be made by the chief executive who is the prime minister, as per the 1973 Constitution.

It invites hardly a debate among intellectuals. This system right now, with vast powers delegated in the President, is not the true essence of Parliamentary system. Either revert to a true Presidential rule like in U.S. or make it a true Parliamentary democracy with the President just a constitutional head. With his own party in the government Zardari will not have much to lose in this; in fact he will gain some lost political ground for its party if he needs to make it big again in the next elections.

3. (a) The recommendations for appointment of judges to superior judiciary shall be formulated through a commission, which shall comprise of the following: i. The chairman shall be a chief justice, who has never previously taken oath under the PCO.

ii. The members of the commission shall be the chief justices of the provincial high courts who have not taken oath under the PCO, failing which the senior most judge of that high court who has not taken oath shall be the member

iii. Vice-Chairmen of Pakistan and Vice-Chairmen of Provincial Bar Association with respect to the appointment of judges to their concerned province

iv. President of Supreme Court Bar Association

v. Presidents of High Court Bar Associations of Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, and Quetta with respect to the appointment of judges to their concerned province

vi. Federal Minister for Law and Justice

vii. Attorney General of Pakistan

(a-i) The commission shall forward a panel of three names for each vacancy to the prime minister, who shall forward one name for confirmation to joint parliamentary committee for confirmation of the nomination through a transparent public hearing process.

(a-ii) The joint parliamentary committee shall comprise of 50 per cent members from the treasury benches and the remaining 50 per cent from opposition parties based on their strength in the parliament nominated by respective parliamentary leaders.

(b) No judge shall take oath under any Provisional Constitutional Order or any other oath that is contradictory to the exact language of the original oath prescribed in the Constitution of 1973.

Again, this is absolutely no alien concept. By enacting the proposed law, the influence of executive over judiciary would be highly curtailed which happens to be a touted aim of our constitution, that is to separate judiciary from executive. The notable point here is the ‘public hearing’ which will ensure that the name of no compromised candidacy will be put forward unless someone wants a public investigation and a resulting embarrassment. U.S. Senate committee which ratifies the name of judges works somewhat along these lines where anyone is allowed to raise an objection on any candidacy.

5. The Concurrent List in the Constitution will be abolished. A new NFC award will be announced.

Provincial autonomy has become one of the pressing issue of the times and this very clause proposes something that should have been done ages ago. After the dismemberment of East Pakistan, our fathers only had a consensus on the constitution of 1973 with the declared hope that the concurrent list would be abolished soon. Concurrent list is a legal way to encroach upon the right of provinces by the centre. Provinces as well as the centre can legislate on the 47 subjects provided in the list but the federal law reigns supreme in a case of conflict. The problem here would be to reach consensus between all the major parties. As much time has passed after 1973, many parties like MQM propose much extreme legislation which would leave only few subjects with the centre (MQM proposes 3, while PMLQ suggests 4 as opposed to 67 subjects in the federal list right now). The formula for NFC awards is another issue that would be vigorously debated upon. Awards distributed only on the basis of population right now has earned serious discontent of other three provinces. Factors like territory, poverty and the collection of revenues should also be included in the computation of final share.

8. FATA shall be included in the NWFP province in consultation with them.

9. Northern Areas shall be developed by giving it a special status and further empowering the Northern Areas Legislative Council to provide people of Northern Areas access to justice and human rights.

These two above steps in my personal opinion are the most important that can contribute to the solution of growing militancy in FATA and to bring social uplift in the aforementioned areas. The FATA areas, with draconian FCR laws and deprivation of other political rights, should have been integrated in the country much earlier. Again, this all can be achieved by taking on board the very population of FATA. Unless the people of FATA see some incentives for them in the proposed amendment, they will not be very much enthusiastic about it.

I will discuss the rest of the clauses some other time, but it is important to emphasize here that such enormous changes can only be brought to effect when other parties are also included in the process. The Charter of Democracy remains only a document signed between PPP and PMLN for now.

I can’t belive the title of this blog.  i’m not one to pick fights or get into needless arguments.  However, this is another example of using screwed up titles to get milage for an otherwise useless post.  I wish the author would concentrate more on the content and less on the cheap title.

I’d rather not propagate the entry needlessly, but it deserves a bit of thrashing, so here goes.  Click here and feel free to share your “views” with the author.

Interestingly, I really can’t figure out what the author is trying to achieve with this blog.

Events during past few days have left Pakistani’s wondering if they are governed by a democratically elected government? The people don’t miss the previous dictator anymore or perhaps they do. Perhaps like me they think “we were better off without the dictated democracy”.

When our previous president, in his last speech used the words “Pakistan ka khuda hafiz”, many of us already knew what he meant. While I am in no way an advocate of his regime, I still believe we were better off back then.

We are ruled today by a dictator parliament, who is repeating the acts that they called sins of the previous regime. Once again judiciary is used for personal benefits; once again plans are being made to impose restrictions on media (news in daily jang today); once again power would be used to crush lawyer’s movement; once again there would be rule of the jungle.

If the previous regime was ruled by one brain, this regime is an example of too many cooks spoiling the broth. And while all this political drama continues I see no straight communication between the government and the common people.

We the people continue to see the political drama continuing and waiting for another government’s downfall.And once that happens we shall be again out on streets cursing the leader who fell and hoping for the best in future.

When a child is born till he reaches a certain age, the decision making for him is done by the parents. Wise parents make sure that not only do they make good decisions for their child’s life ahead but also groom him in a way that eventually makes their child a good decision maker. If they fail to do so, they live in a fear all their lives, the fear to bear the consequences of their own mistakes.

Pakistan suffers from the same mistake. We are shown the way to democracy. Democracy is the choice made by the majority. But who that majority is? What is their vision? Our majority is of people who are lost in a war of survival. Our majority is of people who are deprived of knowledge and wisdom. Can this majority be left to make decisions for our nation? Democracy means a more evil can win over a less evil by the difference of one vote. I am not an advocate of dictatorship but I do believe in selection rather than election.

Until the masses are fit enough as individuals and are not provided with health and education; they should not be given the right to vote-the right to decide the future of our nation.

What is the alternative way then? My suggestion is that voters should be given a right to vote only if they pass a certain qualification or appear in an I.Q test to prove themselves fit enough to make a decision. This would not only emphasize on the importance of education but our dear politicians would love to invest in the education of the people.

Until that happens I choose dictation rather than democracy.