KK bhai saheb…long march or any other way of protest is a civilised way of protesting and getting their voices heard by the parliament/government in any democratic society by civilised people…unlike bori band dead bodies…and torture cells…or traping people on roads by placing containers and then spraying bullets on them…
If parliament is not checked they are capable of passing 8th/17th ammendments…we should be glad as civil society that after Pakistan movement…common people have decided that they will not be treated like dummies…and can get their voices heard in a peaceful and civilized manner…we should really appreciate people who have decided to come to the streets…inspite of the threat of suicide bombers…giving a message to both the government and these terrorist bombers…that we are an alive nation…
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=117957
Share this story!
**Objectives of the long march **
Email: [email protected]
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The PPP and some other critics of the lawyers’ movement are saying that the long march is against the supremacy of parliament. This logic needs to be addressed and perhaps a reminder of some basic political science concepts is in order. Traditionally, it used to be said that there are three branches of the system: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Now, some people also include the media as a fourth pillar. We could even extent this further and include civil society as a fifth one.
In a constitutional setup, all these different branches work within the limits prescribed by the constitution. They exert checks and balances on each other and no single pillar is allowed to have absolute power. This includes parliament, which too must confine its activities within certain rules. The idea of unconditional supremacy of any branch is therefore flawed; those who talk of parliamentary supremacy without acknowledging the role of checks and balances and the people’s right to protest against its misdeeds are either mistaken or deliberately misleading the nation. Let us explore this further by briefly looking at the role of the five branches mentioned above.
The executive: it runs the government. The legislature: its role is to pass laws, make constitutional amendments when needed, debate important national policies and scrutinize the executive. However, even parliament can not amend the constitution arbitrarily. It can only do so with a two-thirds majority and not otherwise. This is to ensure that constitutional amendments represent a wider national sentiment because the constitution deals with the very basic rules of how the system is functioning. Even with a two-thirds majority, parliament cannot pass amendments against the basic spirit of the constitution. For example, it cannot arbitrarily take away the fundamental human rights of the citizens, or abolish democracy itself.
The judiciary: in addition to holding trials, the courts also interpret the constitution. If parliament passes a constitutional amendment that violates the basic spirit of the constitution, the courts can repeal it. In this regard, the courts are the final arbiters, and not parliament. The media: its role is obvious. Since the constitution guarantees freedom of the media, it means that the working of parliament is also fully subject to public criticism. Civil society: it comprises concerned citizens organizing on various issues of concern to them and expressing themselves through various means available to them within the democratic framework. These means include the right to criticize the government or even take out protest rallies if they feel strongly enough on a given issue. These are fundamental human rights and are an integral part of democracy.Parliament is not a holy cow that people should not hold demonstrations against it if they are unhappy about its working.
**The argument that the long march is undermining parliamentary supremacy is therefore based on a flawed notion of democracy. There is no such thing as unconditional supremacy of parliament; parliament must work in accordance with the constitution. The November 3 action was a crime against a judiciary that was starting to give relief to the common man against the excesses of a corrupt government. The deposed judges are still the legal judges, and the government’s moral and constitutional duty is to provide executive support to them by letting them go to their chambers and resume their jobs.
If the government, which derives its strength from parliament, does not fulfil its constitutional duty, then the people have every right to take to the streets and even pressurize parliament by all means available to them. The talk of parliamentary supremacy when parliament is violating the constitution by not forcing the government to let the deposed judges resume their duty is self-serving nonsense being produced by vested interests who only want to rule the country without any checks and balances on their power. Their goal is to create a dictatorship in the guise of democracy** and all discerning people (especially TV anchors and other commentators) need to expose and prevent this fraud.
Aqil Sajjad
Boston, US