Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Riaz Haq on December 30, 2007 at 2:28pm

Benazir was not only chairperson of PPP for life but designated her husband a successor for leadership in her will. This only confirms the undemocratic nature of Pakistan's feudal elite that includes Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, also chairperson of PML(N) of his party.
As long as Pakistanis accept this behavior, they will continue to ruled by a small elite.
The only way out of this is to let the current economic growth continue the strengthens the size and the power of the middle class to develop sufficient clout to bring about real broad-based democracy based on rule-of-law.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by khalid Hassan on January 3, 2008 at 7:52pm

I totally agree with you my friend & I believe that this is the common thought of every sensible individual of our society. On the same note I want to point out another very interesting/disturbing trend prevailing in our society, which is customization of values, culture even religion for personal gains. I don't mean any disrespect to any one but it’s a living example how every thing has become so brand oriented & how we twist, mold & customize any thing even our heritage for personal benifits. Have you noticed Bilawal’s current name for instance, its Bilawal BHUTTO Zardari. Every one knows that traditionally, family name goes after father’s side of the family. It seems like the days are gone when you have to be true SHAMSHEER to be called as SHAMSHEER IBNE SHAMSHEER IBNE SHAMSHEER. Here even if the family tree is a little bit skewed, and some where some how any SHAMSHEER is missing, you don't have to worry at all. The fix is very easy, just including middle SHAMSHEER would fix it all.... …..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Riaz Haq on February 14, 2012 at 9:39am

Here's an Associated Press report on Pakistan's assertive judiciary challenging the military and civilian leadership:

....Some believe the court’s actions are part of a necessary, if messy, rebalancing in a country that has long been dominated by the army or seen chaotic periods of rule by corrupt politicians. Others view the court as just another unaccountable institution undermining the elected government.
-------------
The army has been the principal point of contact for the U.S. in the decade since it resuscitated ties with Pakistan to help with the Afghan war. While the army remains the strongest Pakistani institution, recent events indicate it has ceded some of that power to the Supreme Court and the country’s civilian leaders.
----------------
The Supreme Court’s activism was on full display Monday.

The court charged Pakistan’s prime minister with contempt for refusing to reopen an old corruption case against the president. Later, it ordered two military intelligence agencies to explain why they held seven suspected militants in allegedly harsh conditions for 18 months without charges.

Some government supporters have accused the court of acting on the army’s behalf to topple the country’s civilian leaders, especially in a case probing whether the government sent a memo to Washington last year asking for help in stopping a supposed military coup.

But no evidence has surfaced to support that allegation, and the court’s moves against the military seem to conflict with the theory. The judges have also taken up a case pending for 15 years in which the army’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, is accused of funneling money to political parties to influence national elections.
------------
The court’s actions against the army are a significant turnaround. For much of Pakistan’s nearly 65-year history, the court has been pliant to the army’s demands and validated three coups carried out by the generals.
-------------
The Pakistani media have largely applauded the court’s activism against the army, which has also had its power checked by a more active media and the demands of a bloody war against a domestic Taliban insurgency.
-----------
“I think the Supreme Court is going too far,” said Pakistani political analyst Hasan-Askari Rizvi. “In the past, it was the army that would remove the civilian government, and now it’s the Supreme Court, another unelected institution trying to overwhelm elected leadership.”

Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president based on recommendations from a judicial commission working in conjunction with parliament. The judges can serve until the age of 65 and can be removed only by a judicial council.

The cases have distracted the government from dealing with pressing issues facing the country, including an ailing economy and its battle against the Pakistani Taliban.

Moeed Yusuf, an expert on Pakistan at the United States Institute of Peace, said the jockeying for power between the army, Supreme Court and civilian government was expected given the shifting political landscape and could be beneficial to the country in the long run.

“No country has managed to bypass several phases of such recalibration before they have arrived at a consensual, democratic and accountable system where institutions finally are able to synergize rather than compete endlessly,” Yusuf wrote in a column in Dawn.
-----------
“No single group will totally dominate the system,” said Rizvi. “That will slow down decision making further in Pakistan because nobody can take full responsibility for making a decision.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistans-assertiv...

• ▶ Reply