It is likely that existing parliament is going to elect Gen. Musharraf for the new tennure. Express your views, if it is fair and just for this parliament to elect him?
Re: Re-election of Gen Musharraf
Muslim leaders should implement islamic law, otherwise they are useless.
Re: Re-election of Gen Musharraf
I do not know why some crook politicians (and their paid supporters) are trying to confuse the people on re-election of president through same parliament as fair or unfair.
According to Pakistan constitution, Maximum possible time between two parliaments in Pakistan is 5 years and 3 months (5 years for parliament full term and 3 months for caretaker government, that should hold the election for next parliamentarians) whereas Maximum possible time between election and re-election of Presidential post is 4 years 11 months.
**
So when constitution is such that maximum presidential term is lower then maximum terms between two parliament, how same parliament electing president twice is unfair?**
According to Pakistani constitution, Parliament elects President for five years. Re-election has to happen between 30 to 60 days before that five years expire. By law, presidential re-election has to happen within that specified period and when that time comes, the people in the parliament elect the president. It does not matter if elected parliamentarians are same as those that elected the president first time.
Parliament elected President Musharaf in November 2002. That mean, re-election has to happen in September 2007 or October 2007.
Present Parliament time would expire in November 2007 and there is no reason for it to resign before that time, thus present parliament would stay put until November 2007 and then President would be obliged to dissolve this parliament for next election that has to happen under caretaker government within 3 months.
Thus, new parliamentarians could start their parliamentary life in February 2008.
Now, how is it possible that when Presidential re-election times expire in October 2007 and new Parliament would start life in February 2008, new parliament can elect President?
That is only possible if President dissolve the parliament in June 2007 so that 90 days caretaker government can get election done and new parliament start working in September 2007, so that they can re-elect president.
But, why President should dissolve Parliament in June 2007 when their time expires in November 2007 (5 months before time)? Is it just to make some crook looser politicians happy?
If anyone can give a reasonable and logical answer to this, then maybe it is possible for presidential re-election through new parliament.
Note: Actually, if I was President Musharaf, I would not have bothered to give trouble to the parliament for electing me rather I would elect myself. That would be no problem. It can happen with one ordinance (or presidential decree) and no crooks (politician) in the country have much support amongst the people to challenge that seriously.
Well, giving it another thought, I would have abolished parliamentary system and would have introduced Presidential system in Pakistan. Further, I would have changed the title of President with Khalifa (so that mentally handicap and retarded terrorists in the country start thinking that ruler is ruler, whatever you call a ruler Khalifa, King, President or Prime-Minister). Actually, a ruler can be good or bad and nothing else. How that ruler came to power or what one call that ruler is irrelevent.
Pakistan is a poor country and what we need is a better life for people of Pakistan, with good health facility, good education and good job opportunity. Poor of Pakistan cannot afford crooks (like NS or BB) ruling them who even though are experts in making fools of others but they are still crooks. Those that have any means to keep these crooks away from Pakistan should do that for the country. Luxury of democracy is subsidiary that can wait and would come with time (if country get enough prosperous and people demand that at that time).
As for religion, I believe that Pakistan as state should not get involved in that and leave it on individuals to follow what they like. They can preach what they like and it should be people that would decide what is good for them and what is bad for them, I believe that Islam is good and people would decide Islam for themselves (not interfering with what others decides). Forcing one own interpretation of Islam (or any religion) over others is neither Islamic nor desirable.
[From today's ARY news (2-7-06): President of Pakistan (Khalifa-e-waqt of Pakistan) today gave an order that all women prisoners should be released from Pakistani prisons other then those that are involved in murder, terrorism or dacoity.
He ordered that Pakistani government should make all necessary legislation by Tuesday (4th of July) and he (President Musharaf) would issue an ordinance in this respect.
What do you think? :)]
Re: Re-election of Gen Musharraf
Saleem,
It can be argued that President Musharraf was not actually formally elected by the electoral college of the present parliament in the first place. He was in fact directly elected by the people of Pakistan in a referendum in April 2002, for a 5-year term to begin after the general elections. Hence, Musharraf took the oath of office on 16 Nov 2002 for a 5-year term, on the same day as the present National Assembly was sworn in. Whatever one can say of the merits of that Presidential Referendum (even Musharraf conceded errors in the voting) it was recognized as a legitimate election by the 17th amendment to the constitution passed on 30/31 December 2003 by more than 72% of the members of this parliament.
http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part3.ch1.html
Further to this, the direct election of Musharraf received a vote of confidence for further affirmation by a 56% majority of the Electoral College on January 1, 2004. Again, this was not a formal election by the Electoral College of Musharraf for President, but just an affirmation of his previous direct election by the people in a referendum.
If the argument is that this present parliament should not “re-elect” Musharraf for another 5-year term in the fall of 2007, then it can also certainly be argued that they did not actually elect him in the first place – they only validated his earlier direct election in a referendum. **Hence, there need not be any real moral qualms about electing him in September or October 2007, by the Electoral College route, as they would in fact be doing it formally for the first time anyway!
**
Re: Re-election of Gen Musharraf
Whatever the arguments about the constitutional and moral rights and wrongs of President Musharraf getting re-elected by the present parliament in Sep/Oct 2007, it will all most likely be superseded by a political agreement between the government and a major section of the opposition (i.e. PPP or MMA) well before this period.
As I have said previously said negotiations have been ongoing with the PPP (since Zardari's release in Nov 2004) on the drafting of an 18th amendement to the constitution, which would in effect turn Pakistan into a French-style Presidential system with Musharraf being re-elected in 2007 for an extended term (6-7 years). The PPP would form the federal and Sindh governments (in alliance with the MQM), and the PML Q allowed to continue to rule Punjab, while there would likely be alliances in other provinces.
From what I have heard the only outstanding matters are when Benazir would return to the country i.e. before, or after the general elections when a new government is already in place? It has been already been agreed that the term of the National Assembly (and provincial assemblies) would be fixed at 4 years following the next election. The sweetner for BB is that the two terms bar on her (and NS) becoming PM again will be removed in 2014 i.e. which would also allow Musharraf to be re-elected for a third term.
Re: Re-election of Gen Musharraf
The process of self election of a military president does make me chuckle, in the end you can call a wolf whatever you want, but if it looks like a wolf, talks like a wolf, acts like a wolf its definitely a wolf..dressing it up as a sheep doesn't make it so..after all both Ayub and Zia got themselves "elected" but the world will always know them as dictators who violated their oaths. In the end when ones authority comes from the application of force with disregard of oaths, promises and pledges..you inevitably get ousted by a similar process.
As far as an opposition deal with Mush, you see there is a quandry for a lot of them..what could Mush offer as guarantee to any opposition group? a promise? an oath? maybe another address to the nation? After all he's done all that before and broken his pledges everytime.
Re: Re-election of Gen Musharraf
[QUOTE]
Muslim leaders should implement islamic law, otherwise they are useless.
[/QUOTE]
i totally agree
Re: Re-election of Gen Musharraf
kinda confusing there :D, anyway, I agree that a military ruler's "referendum" and "re-election" as President is always a farce and such "elections" are always sham, just like Saddam Hussein got 99% vote in re-election or was it 99.9%?
[quote]
As far as an opposition deal with Mush, you see there is a quandry for a lot of them..what could Mush offer as guarantee to any opposition group? a promise? an oath? maybe another address to the nation? After all he's done all that before and broken his pledges everytime.
[/quote]
All that bullsh!t spurred out by Musharraf in early phase of his presidency and all that campaign against corruption is now clearly coming out naked as nothing but publicity stunt.
Re: Re-election of Gen Musharraf
Silly Billy: Nice posts thanks. I am not sure how serious people negotiating are but I believe that lot of politics and negotiating for the sake of negotiation is going on. I feel, other then talks, nothing much would happen until next general election. After next election, all negotiating would depend on how PML (Q) would do in election.
As for rigging and all, believe me, whatever would happen, those who would lose would keep shouting rigging. If one become arrogantly haath-dharm then one can also say that every election was rigged and anyone that got into parliament got their due to rigging. It was due to rigging that MMA won in NWFP, rigging brought in Nawaz Shareef into power in Punjab and then Pakistan, Bai-Nazeer only won election anywhere was because of rigging. MQM wins election in Karachi due to rigging, PPP wins election in interior Sindh due to rigging, blah, blah, blah. Well, one can say that ZA Bhutto won election in West Pakistan during 1970 was due to rigging and Mujib won the election in East Pakistan during 1970 was due to rigging. If all was rigging then result of Musharaf Presidential election was rigging, else what outcome happened, it was OK.
According to Pakistani politicians, all their political opponents who win election, it is due to rigging but if they win election, it was opponent trying to rig but failed.
*If these corrupt politicians believe that elections in Pakistan is nothing but outcome of rigging then why they take part in elections. Rather, why these politicians demand election? What is the use to have election in Pakistan with such cost? Is Pakistani election just an exercise to make fool of people? Why these politicians spend so much money and ask people to vote them when their vote does not count as election result would depend on rigging anyhow? Actually these politicians know that when they lose, they talk Shi*t and nothing much. *
If, their cry about rigging has any truth it means that Pakistan should not have democracy and having a military ruler is justified in every way, as all democracy in Pakistan is result of rigging.
Actually, I believe there is little truth in politicians cries, as selective rigging do happen in Pakistani election (by all sides) and substantial intimidation, influences plays role in most Pakistani rural election (again by all sides). Who does rigging also nothing to do with establishments, military or party ruling but influential people from ruling party or from opposition; all do rigging in their respective area. That is why Pakistani politics (especially rural politics) does not completely depend on voters, but it depends on personalities that can win the election by hook or crook.
** This is why Pakistan democracy is sham democracy. Such country can only have presidential form of government to prosper. It is because presidential electorate is whole country and it is difficult to intimidate, rig or have unfair influence over the voters living all over country, it is not one constituency where intimidation, influences and rigging can matter.**