Is Nawaz Sharif a changed man?

Let me be the 1st one to predict that we’ll be having elections in near future and NS & his PMLN will win. Now the question is has NS learned anything from his past? Here Cowasjee sums up situation leading up to NS overthrow in 1999.

http://dawn.com/weekly/cowas/cowas.htm

Our dependent judiciary

By Ardeshir Cowasjee

MIAN Nawaz Sharif is of late somewhat sidelined from his running mania that he claims has much to do with the ‘restoration’ of the judiciary and the upholding of an independence it has never enjoyed, whereas in reality it is all about ridding himself of and getting his own back on President Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf.

What now distracts him is his disqualification from standing for a by-election, handed down to him by the judiciary he is also trying to get rid of. He must also be pondering upon who is behind it all, who is engineering things, and who has stabbed him in the solar plexus.

The emerging Taliban is not as worrying for Nawaz as his latent tendencies, going by his record, swing towards the Taliban way of life. We must not forget his 15th ‘ameer-ul-momineen’ amendment bill which luckily for us came to naught. We must also never forget Nawaz’s tampering with the judiciary during his second round as prime minister. A very fine and precise narrative of the events leading up to the storming of the Supreme Court on Nov 28, 1997 and how it evolved is given in Shuja Nawaz’s book, Crossed Swords, which should be on every shelf.

Shuja has written after extensively interviewing the then president of the Republic, Farooq Leghari, and the then chief of army staff, Gen Jehangir Karamat, an honourable man. Elected in February 1997, one of the first steps taken by Nawaz was to push through his 13th constitutional amendment, annulling the 8th amendment and thus Article 58-2 (b), eliminating the presidential power to dissolve parliament and giving himself powers to appoint the armed services chiefs. Both president and army chief gave their assent to this move.

He then turned to the judiciary which he felt was hostile under Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Sajjad Ali Shah, who could be rather a thorn in the flesh. To quote from Crossed Swords : “Leghari recalls Sharif coming to see him in the company of Shahid Hamid (erstwhile friend of Leghari who had appointed him as governor of the Punjab but now had been won over by Sharif) to ask him to remove the chief justice. Sharif said that Hamid would make the case against the chief justice. Leghari said to Hamid, ‘Why didn’t you tell Nawaz Sharif my expected answer. It would be the same as Benazir Bhutto’s time. No!’ Hamid retorted, ‘At that time the judges were united. Now they are divided. We can do it!’ Leghari … warned against this move… But Sharif was not deterred.”

He somehow managed to get round Karamat, and instigated a revolt among the judges against the CJP who, meanwhile, had dismissed as unconstitutional Sharif’s 14th amendment which made it illegal for any parliamentarian to break ranks with his party when voting in the assembly. Sharif was furious, criticised the chief justice on the floor of the assembly, at which the chief justice filed a case of contempt against him.

Karamat was brought into play, as was the chief of the ISI, Lt Gen Nasim Rana. Leghari arranged a meeting to which all the principals were summoned. Gen Karamat started by asking the CJP whether he would withdraw the contempt case. Leghari recalls the CJP’s face turning red. ‘How can you interfere with cases?’ asked Shah. ‘I came here at the request of the President, not to decide cases.’ When Sharif asked Shah for ‘mercy’ what he got was ‘I am the chief justice not for mercy but for Justice!’.”

No date is given for this confrontation, but it must have been sometime late November as Sharif’s next move was to get the Balochistan High Court to file an appeal on Nov 26 against Shah’s original appointment. Leghari passed on this information to Karamat and also told him that Shah was about to restore Article 58-2 (b). That night at 10 pm Sharif rang Leghari and asked to meet him. He arrived with Karamat, Senate chairman Waseem Sajjad, former law minister Khalid Anwar, Ilahi Bakhsh Soomro, and Gen Rana.

The law minister produced a case against the chief justice and presented a judgment dismissing Shah for Leghari’s signature. Leghari had learnt that “suitcases of money had been taken to Balochistan to obtain this judgment against the chief justice by his fellow judges,” and said he would rather resign than sign. Resignation would be the best course, as Sajjad, who would take over as president, would do as they wanted. Leghari was urged by Karamat and Rana not to resign (Soomro chipping in with ‘Why should you resign for the sake of a mad old Sindhi judge?’) They all went home at 4 am, Karamat on departing telling Leghari that if he resigned he too would resign. Leghari’s retort to that was to tell Karamat not to do so as it would give Sharif total power — like giving ‘a monkey a razor’.

Later that day, Nov 28, “the PML supporters stormed the Supreme Court.” By Dec 2, both Leghari and Shah had resigned, leaving Sajjad free to do as he liked as acting president and a new CJP, Justice Ajmal Mian. Karamat lasted until October the following year, when he was pushed by Sharif into resigning. What a sorry tale!

Nothing changes. Nawaz Sharif and his men are back, as are Asif Zardari and his bunch of dangerous cronies, all preaching democracy. They, with the advancing Taliban, will destroy, even maim and kill, to get their way. And the poor will suffer on — and on.

The one piece of bright news to come our way in Karachi last week came via the Consul General of France, Pierre Seillan, a considerate and kind man who takes much interest in the welfare of the poorer and the deprived of the city. For some time, the prisoners in Karachi Central Jail have been given the opportunity to attend art classes.

Pierre, together with Mohammad Yamin Khan, the Sindh Inspector General of Prisons, organised an exhibition at the Alliance Francaise of paintings and drawings produced by the prisoners. As the invitation card announced it was an exhibition of ‘Imprisonistic’ drawings and paintings — and it was most impressive and even more touching to see what transpires in the minds of these unfortunate men.

Overheard at the opening of the exhibition was a classic remark: Whilst the poor petty thieves and druggies suffer inside …, the Grand Larcenists are out and about, their crimes forgiven and forgotten, trumpeting their love and affection for an ‘independent’ judiciary, something they could never either tolerate or live with.

[email protected]

Nawaz Sharif is a good Industriliast but he is not a good politician. His party is family run just like their business. He still hasnt learned anything from what happend to him in past, being negitive all the time and not listen to any one thats his tradmark.

The best thing about Nawaz Sharif I like is he has admitted his past mistakes and and standing his moral ground after admitting his past mistakes…which no other person in the history of Pakistan has done…at the moment a lot of people in his party want him to become pragmatic and work within the space available to him…but I think he is the only leader in the history of Pakistan who has realised after Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto that real power is to act according to public aspirations. I think he should ignore the people in his party who want him to become pragmatic and compromise on immoral grounds…he should leave Asif Zardari to become an ally of relic of the past and continue doing his moral politics which he has recently started…

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=122291

The specious coalition

Legal eye

Saturday, July 05, 2008
Babar Sattar

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School

There are two schools of thought within the PML-N: those who believe in asserting the party’s principled position on the issue of restoration of the judges and the impeachment of General Musharraf, even at the cost of unravelling the coalition; and those who argue that democracy would be better served if the coalition remains intact, even if that requires a compromise on the twin issues of restoration and impeachment. This transformation-versus-transition debate now rages on within the PML-N, and the arguments of transitionists are still as misconceived as they were prior to Nov 3, 2007. It is hard to fathom what is holding this coalition together, for the two mainstream parties neither have a shared conviction on vital principles nor any agreement on elementary policies.

In view of the policies being pursued by the government, the process of devising the policies and the people contriving and executing them,** the coalition government appears to be an extension of the Musharraf regime. **By staying in such a coalition government, the PML-N is not saving and strengthening democracy but adding to the growing disillusionment with democracy and the democratic process. With the rudderless PPP-led government continuing its flip-flops at the centre, and the PML-N enjoying power in Punjab while continuing its feeble protests over the PPP’s policy towards restoration, impeachment and the military operation in the NWFP, cynics argue that what we are witnessing is one big deal with everyone on board except the people of Pakistan. It is the proliferation of such cynicism and loss of the nation’s hope and faith in the ability and intent of a popularly elected government to usher change that threatens democracy much more than a breakup of the coalition.

In a country where elections have traditionally been fought and won on the basis of parochial identities, loyalties and interests, the PML-N ran an issues-based campaign in the 2008 elections and its message resonated with the people. However, the change people voted for on Feb 18 was not to alter the façade and replace a few faces, but to modify the character and functioning of the state, so that the interests of citizens across Pakistan no longer seem to be in conflict with the interests of the state. The true value of a bipartisan government comprising the country’s two mainstream parties lay in its potential and strength to bring about such a fundamental change in the aftermath of extended military rule. Thus, when the coalition government turns out to be an extension of the Musharraf regime and not its nemesis, it does more harm to democracy than good.

Let us start with the policies of the PPP-led government. The policy towards the judiciary – as evident from the PPP’s constitutional package and the party’s approach to the judges’ restoration – is that the court’s ability to function as an effective check on abuse of executive power must be clipped by amending the Constitution, the general’s illegal actions of Nov 3 trouncing the judiciary should be indemnified, the PCO judges should be protected and the deposed judges restored through a constitutional amendment. The rationale of the general’s mini-coup of Nov 3 was that the judiciary was preventing the executive from performing its functions without restraint.** Endorsing such logic, the PPP has proposed to take away the suo motu powers of the court and dilute the security of tenure of the judges to keep them under the executive’s control. Further, the general and his cronies in the Q League also agree that the judges can be brought back, but through a constitutional amendment. And that is now the PPP’s position as well.**

In the security realm too the PPP-led government is acting on the script written by the general and his foreign patrons. One, the US and NATO forces are still allowed to attack suspected militant hideouts within Pakistan, with the understanding that every time such attack results in a carnage of innocent citizens (collateral damage!), the government will make loud noises. Two, the official policy still draws no distinction between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And, three, while on paper Pakistan is pursuing a three-pronged policy wherein military action is aimed at creating leverage for political negotiations that are to be supplemented by socio-economic development of the tribal areas, in practice no development work is taking place and there seems to be no considered plan and strategy to either win the war or the peace.

What is more disturbing than abiding by a failed policy is the perpetuation of a non-consultative policymaking process that makes a mockery of the sovereignty and presence of our Parliament. **What is the difference between the present Parliament and its predecessor if neither is vested with the authority to discuss and determine the manner in which national security challenges are to be addressed? How does one distinguish democracy from dictatorship if all matters of war and peace confronting a nation continue to be decided by a coterie of faceless men without any parliamentary instruction or supervision? Part of the reason for the unpopularity of security operations in Pakistan’s tribal belt is that they are viewed as an extension of the US war on terror and suffer from lack of ownership, as this nation has no shared resolve to make them a success. **

The scourge of terror afflicts the entire nation and jeopardises our rights to life, liberty and property. Yet, there is widespread public opposition to the operations carried out by the army against those who pose imminent threat to lives, property and lifestyles of citizens. It is not the merit of our existing security policy that is its paramount weakness or even its flawed execution. The process through which this policy is formulated generates an abhorrent perception that our security forces are fighting an alien war against our own citizens on the dictation of foreign masters. People had pinned hopes on the ability of a democratic government to address the simmering security crisis in Pakistan more effectively. This is not because it could devise a superior military strategy or wave a magic wand to wish away the problems; but because it was expected to (i) initiate an inclusive wide-ranging debate on the issue that would produce a policy backed by national consensus and (ii) undertake socio-economic development of the tribal areas on war-footing to win the hearts and minds of those most affected. None of that has been forthcoming, and thus we continue with the general’s failed security policy.

The Murree Declaration that hinged the PPP/PML-N coalition on the restoration of the judges within thirty days of the formation of the federal government went unimplemented. The other understandings between the two parties as documented by the Charter of Democracy have not being meaningfully reflected in the PPP’s proposed constitutional package or the executive actions of its government. For example, the NRO has replaced the proposed “Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” there has been no talk of appointing a commission to investigate the Kargil episode, and the principled position denouncing military intervention in politics and the resolve to hold dictators accountable has been all but overturned by Asif Zardari. What, then, are the shared principles, policies and goals of the PPP/PML-N coalition? And to what end is this coalition being kept alive?

Let us remember that the real threat to democracy emanates not from the person of the general, but from the deep-seated civil-military imbalance in Pakistan that allows the military to control elected governments from behind the curtain or throw up people like General Musharraf when its institutional interests are directly threatened. How, then, will this coalition strengthen democracy while it continues to behave like the King’s League of yesterday? So long as the unrepresentative policies of the Musharraf regime, its autocratic policymaking processes and the people sustaining such policies and processes remain intact, the nation will find it hard to distinguish between democracy and dictatorship. And by remaining a part of such a dispensation, the PML-N will lend credence to the view that the politics of expediency still reigns supreme in Pakistan.

This coalition is also providing Asif Zardari with vital wriggle-room to avoid acknowledging the unpopular policies he is pursuing. Retention of the Musharraf regime’s relics is deliberate, for Mr Zardari is keeping open the option of working with the general and his cronies should the PML-N walk out. **The PML-N needs to call his bluff and let him openly ally himself with the discredited court jesters of yesterday in full public view, so that, with the smokescreen gone, this nation can take full measure of the reality. Further, the PML-N’s support is also strengthening the hands of Mr Zardari and his unelected buddies to sideline saner representative voices within the PPP who are in touch with reality and worried about the future of the party and its electoral prospects.

Instead of getting maligned by remaining part of a remote-control coalition, the PML-N should step aside to preserve its credibility and continue its struggle for democracy as a mature opposition.**

Email: [email protected]

Re: Is Nawaz Sharif a changed man?

Well...if you are talking about Obama...I can believe in...but you are talking about a Pakistani...its hard to change...

PS: Kya kisi Pakistani ka dimagh kharab hai kay woh change ho jai...lol

PS1: Bhai...hum lakeer kay faqeer hein... :D

He has lost weight and has had a hair transplant - does that qualify as a changed man?

Re: Is Nawaz Sharif a changed man?

what difference does it make? Every politician has a past to guard. Any amount of 'change' cannot cleanse that and the ongoing impact of that. Their past is like a millstone around the neck - Nawaz;s is the attack on the court, Musharaf's is Kargil defeat, Zardari's is 10%, Iftikhar's is his son's promotion......

We Indians have made open corruption and crime a basic requirement for up to the 2nd highest level of the government but you guys have taken it a step further.

I hope he never wins. He is a Taliban supporter, and therefore a security risk to Pakistan.

Re: Is Nawaz Sharif a changed man?

But chances are that he will win. Because he's stroking the sentiments that PPP has yet to fulfill.

Re: Is Nawaz Sharif a changed man?

I just hope him and Shahbaz continue to take a stand against Musharraf as vehemently as they have today, and for the restoration of the pre nov judiciary.

Re: Is Nawaz Sharif a changed man?

Man oh Man! Can you imagine the temperature in Aiwan-e-Sadr, if NS should become the PM. Someone's not going to be able to fly out of Pakistan :D

Yes, chances are that he will win. Not because of any sentiments against Musharraf but because he represents Punjab in general. Unfortunate but true.

But his being Punjabi does not make him any less threat to Pakistan's security due to his having soft corner for violent Talibanic jingoism.

So then why did he lose in 1988, 1993, 2002, and if I am not mistaken he didnt emerge as the sole winner in the 2008 elections either :hehe:

....And how did you come to that conclusion sir!...tomorrow you will say Imran is also a taliban supporter....Aitzaz and Ch. Iftikhar are also taliban supporters...

This precisely is the problem with mentality like yours/Musharraf/Bush....you can label anyone a taliban supporter and start brutalities against them...

Can this war against taliban mentality ever be won with another extremist mentality...you can never defeat taliban ideology with such a low moral ground and illegality...Nawaz Sharif and Imran just hold an alternate opinion compared to yours about how to combat extermeism...and the idealogy you are representing is another extremeism...nothing better than taliban...and with this mentality taliban idealogy can never be defeated....infact if people with this exteme mentality remain the decision makers....extremeism will prosper...and taliban will multiply in numbers...as their low moral ground is being fought by even a lower moral ground and illegality...

Re: Is Nawaz Sharif a changed man?

If he is really sincere now, the best he can do is to quit policitics for his younger brother and IK and do some soical services to the country like Edhi.

I think he should not quit without ensuring the illegal President gets a fair trial infront of an impartial judiciary...

If by IK you mean Imran Khan, wheres the logic in that? Why in the world would he quit politics for someone who isnt even in his party, or shares different political views? Why should he quit politics is hes sincere? Hes the only one right now whose standing up for what we want, that actually has some power. I support the others, including Imran and Aitezaz, but sadly their punches arent as effective as Nawaz right now.

Re: Is Nawaz Sharif a changed man?

I have to say NO.
but I agree he is a changed politician now, much better one.
If he was a "man" he would have taken more stiff stance against zardai on judges issue.

I think what hes doing is smart, because if he opposes Zardari, then Musharraf gains alot.

I will buy the moral argument if NS gives up the seat even if he was allowed to run for the election by the lota SC. Otherwise he is no better than corrupt lots (and remember he was the guy who was trying to appoint himself aamir-ul-momaneen).

I don't think he has a choice...public ab choray gi nahin...if he doesn't stand for what he has preached his fate will not be much different from Q lota league...

I any case I do agree with you that if Mr. Zardari does not change his course in a few days, and does not honour his various agreements and commitments....Nawaz Sharif should just quit the coalition...and step aside and let Mr. Zardari ride alone or ally with the illegal President and his MQM/Lota leaguers...and let Mr. Zardari get fully exposed together with his NROs....as far as his past is concerned the guy admits his mistakes...a rare act from a Pakistani politician...