Still above the law ?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

**Another Arvind Kejrival & AAP (Aam Aadmi Party) in the making …

Thanks to Agitation Style Politics of PTI as we have consistently seen the same pattern in past either boycotting Elections 2008, NATO Supply , Drone Attacks , Against Taliban Kharjis , Opeartion in Waziristan or recently resigning from Assemblies and neglecting 76 Lakh Voters of PTI …
**

Still above the Law?

Babar Sattar
Updated about 2 hours ago

[TABLE=“class: media media–left one-whole palm–one-whole, width: 650”]

The writer is a lawyer.

**
WHY does the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) wish to garnish its credentials as a party that isn’t bound by the law and its procedures? Whether it’s Imran Khan’s resolve to oust Nawaz Sharif in a manner not contemplated by the letter or spirit of our Constitution or his call for civil disobedience (encouraging people to refuse paying taxes and utility bills), PTI seems unable to distinguish between the state and the government, demands of the law and those mandated to enforce it. Is PTI letting its suspicion of the PML-N government manifest itself as disdain for the law?**

Whether it is PTI’s vigilantes blockading Nato containers in KP (an action declared illegal by the courts), PTI convening an illegal assembly at D-chowk in disregard of permission granted to protest in Aabpara, PTI demanding that the Supreme Court disregard Article 225 and declare election 2013 illegal and void, or PTI’s refusal to abide by laid-down procedure to resign from parliament, the party continues to portray a sense of entitlement to be treated preferentially in disregard of the law.

Last week saw needless politicking on the issue of resignations. The speaker might be a PML-N loyalist and there might be doubts regarding the veracity of his own election to parliament. But his position on verification of resignations is backed by the law. Article 64 of the Constitution entitles any member of the National Assembly to resign by writing to the speaker. Article 67 allows the Assembly to frame rules to regulate its business pursuant to which Rules of Procedure and Conduct of National Assembly, 2007, have been promulgated.

Rule 43(2) requires the speaker to accept the resignation, “if (a) a member hands over the letter of resignation to the speaker personally and informs him that the resignation is voluntary and genuine and the speaker has no information or knowledge to the contrary; or (b) the speaker receives the letter of resignation by any other means and he, after such inquiry as he thinks fit, either himself or through the National Assembly Secretariat or through any other agency, is satisfied that the resignation is voluntary and genuine… .”

[HR][/HR]The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf continues to portray a sense of entitlement to be treated preferentially.

[HR][/HR]

The substantive requirement thus is that the resignation must be “voluntary and genuine”. The procedure is meant to enable the speaker to satisfy himself that the member has resigned of his own free will. Had PTI members handed over their resignations personally, the speaker could have confirmed at the time whether they were doing so of their own volition. As the resignations were handed over collectively to the assembly staff, the speaker was required under 43(2)(b) to conduct an inquiry to determine their genuineness and voluntary nature.

Why is PTI refusing to allow its MNAs to meet with the speaker individually to confirm their resignations? Shah Mehmood Qureshi has alleged that PML-N is indulging in ‘Changa Manga’ politics (alluding to the ugly horse-trading practices of the 1990s). The insinuation is that PML-N is trying to create dissension within PTI’s ranks and a collective meeting with the speaker and peer pressure is imperative to keep individual PTI MNAs honest to their commitment to resign. Is this not reason enough to consider that the resignations might be involuntary?

At least three PTI MNAs have publicly refused to resign. PTI has thrown these dissidents out of the party and has also asked the speaker to throw them out of the Assembly for breaching party discipline (notwithstanding that such dissent is no ground for disqualification.)

It has been widely reported that Khan’s decision to force members to resign (except in KP) is deeply contested within PTI. In this backdrop why should the speaker not discharge his legal obligation to ensure that each resigning member is doing so without coercion?

PTI seems to fear that its MNAs might be swayed not to resign in a five-minute private conversation with the speaker but still wants the speaker to rule that the resignations are voluntary. The related question then is who does a parliamentary seat belong to, the member or the party? And to what extent ought freedom of thought and action exist within a party? In a political culture where dissent is abhorred and autocratic party heads order members around like sheep, hadn’t PTI set itself out to be different?

Horse-trading of the 1990s was reprehensible. But what solution did party heads conceive for a malady they had themselves nurtured? They introduced Article 63A into the Constitution that entrenched the party head’s role as a dictator. The original 63A stated that anyone voting against the party line would be thrown out of parliament. Thankfully, that extent of repudiation of free will and conscience seemed excessive even to a real dictator, who got 63A amended and restricted herd voting to money bills and ouster of the prime minister etc.

Imran Khan had promised to develop PTI as a sustainable institution with internal democracy, elections and devolved decision-making (for award of tickets etc). We have seen PTI’s president expelled over his difference of opinion with Khan. We have seen MNAs being thrown out for refusing to tender resignations. We have heard Khan declare that the next time around he will distribute tickets himself. Have events of the last few months caused regression in his thinking and is PTI now to function as a cult?

Benazir Bhutto was a popular leader and PPP revolved around her. Did that entitle her to leave her party to her son as an heirloom? The N in PML-N stands for Nawaz. Does that entitle him to distribute state largesse and offices amongst family members and place public funds under his daughter’s control? All this continues to happen because power within political parties is concentrated at the top, sycophants and lackeys rise within party ranks, and independent minds and dissenters are condemned to oblivion.

If PTI is to be an entity larger than the person of Imran Khan and different from the one-man political parties he has been critical of, it must strike the right balance between individualism and collective action, create room for dissent and embrace a culture that doesn’t shun voices critical of its leader’s black-and-white worldview.
*

The writer is a lawyer.*
[EMAIL=“[email protected]”][email protected]

Twitter: @babar_sattar](https://twitter.com/Babar_Sattar)
*

Published in Dawn, November 3rd, 2014*

2

Re: Still above the law ?

Strategic failure of MQM and PTI

Najam Sethi](TFT-Story)

TFT Issue: 31 Oct 2014

[HR][/HR]

The MQM and PTI are facing a strategic identity crisis. The MQM has concluded that the politics of “national mutahidaism” has not yielded any significant dividends in Sindh or any other province, therefore it is time to beat the drums of “provincial muhajarism” to stave off political threats to its traditional “muhajir” vote bank in the urban areas of Sindh.

The PTI has concluded that the democratic route to elections is long and uncertain, therefore it is time to explore shortcuts to power via conspiracies with disgruntled elements in the military and judiciary. Both strategies are full of contradiction and confusion.The MQM has quit the PPP government in Sindh for the umpteenth time. In the past, a parting of ways with the PPP was always part of the game of leveraging power and patronage.

This time, however, the pretext is unprecedentedly “ideological”. The MQM has taken umbrage over a statement by the PPP Leader of the House in the Senate, Khurshid Shah, that it is an “insult” today to refer to the migrants from India into Pakistan at the time of partition as “mujahirs”. His argument is that the term “muhajir” connotes a temporary or transitional arrangement for foreigners** whereas the “muhajirs” of 1947 have been fully and permanently integrated into the organs of the Pakistani state and society, to the extent that their Urdu language is the national language of the country**.Khurshid Shah has stated a fact. But it is tinged with the power politics of Sindhi ethnic nationalism and PPP provincialism.

In the past such PPP provocations were par for the course for the MQM. But the MQM faces multiple threats within and without today that have required it to take such a shrill hardline position, going so far as to charge Mr Shah for “blasphemy” against “muhajirs” since the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) was also a “muhajir” from Mecca to Medina. Several factors are at stake here.First, the MQM hasn’t been able to extract any significant mileage from changing its name from Muhajir Qaumi Movement (denoting a political-ethnic base) to Muttahida Qaumi Movement denoting a national platform.

It has made no headway in the other provinces. **Instead, the ANP and PTI are making inroads into its traditional vote bank in the urban areas of Sindh, especially Karachi, the former on the basis of Pasthtu-speaking “refugees” from KPK, FATA and even Afghanistan, and the latter on the basis of a demographic shift in population favouring the young between the ages of 18-29 who want “change” from the traditional pattern of political parties. **

Second, the MQM’s militant wing which used to call the shots in Karachi as a powerful tool for leveraging power, has suffered a setback following an effective Rangers-led federal operation to cleanse the city of criminal elements, many from the MQM.

Third, the PPP is in the process of formulating a law for local body elections that will tilt power and patronage toward PPP appointed provincial administrators instead of local politicians, thereby depriving the MQM of its traditional right to administer Karachi on the basis of winning the local elections.

Fourth, the MQM is facing some significant splits and desertions following pressure from the British government on Altaf Hussain in London regarding the murder of Imran Farooq and money laundering. Several stalwarts have left the party and are in hiding.

Under the circumstances, it seems that its leadership has decided to hunker down and defend its core interests by raising the spectre of an erosion of Sindhi “muhajir” rights that always evokes a militant response from its traditional seats of support.

The PTI is facing a serious dilemma too. Its dharnas and jalsas have failed to overthrow Nawaz Sharif because the **“third umpire” **– disgruntled elements in the military who have been egging Imran Khan on —has not raised his finger. Tahirul Qadri has packed his bags and quit. A degree of fatigue has set in among his supporters. This is reflected in internal party dissent over the logic of resigning from the National Assembly while staying put in KPK as a device to hasten the end of the Nawaz regime.

**
The Supreme Court,** too, has refused to entertain PTI petitions to declare the 2013 elections as rigged. If Imran insists on continuing on his current path without success, his supporters will drift away and think twice before returning to his fold the next time. If he retreats like Qadri, he would erode his image of infallibility. In a last ditch effort he has summoned his supporters to Islamabad on November 30 to hurl a final threat to Nawaz Sharif.

Whether the crowds become violent or disperse peacefully, the outcome is not likely to be favourable.Both Altaf Hussain and Imran Khan need a** reality check**. Their current tactics and strategies are flying against the grain of popular mood. They should disavow shortcuts to power and dig in for the long democratic haul.

Strategic failure of MQM and PTI ‹ The Friday Times

3

Re: Still above the law ?

http://dunya.com.pk/news/authors/detail_image/x9023_14192004.jpg.pagespeed.ic.ZVlCmIlhNc.jpg

4

Re: Still above the law ?

http://dunya.com.pk/news/authors/detail_image/x9032_31522869.jpg.pagespeed.ic.8Y0WZlxQtL.jpg

5

Re: Still above the law ?

What law are we talking about here?
The one that gives cover to rigged elections?
Or the one that allows political supremos to steal public funds, and get away with it by telling NAB and courts to quash cases against them?

Its the lack of law that has prompted PTI to come on the streets. If analysts are happy to live with status quo, that is their choice. If others have chosen to tackle it, I can understand PPP and PMLN getting worried at the prospect of eventual accoutability, but whats bothering the media?

6

Re: Still above the law ?

Nope disinformation, lying and general stupidity is what called the PTI to come out on the streets.

7

Re: Still above the law ?

The bull-dozer operator looks like Rana Sanaullah… coincidence? :smiley:

8

Re: Still above the law ?

Difficult to debate with someone who disguises his PMLN persona with an 'independent' facade hypocrisy.

All parties claim rigging. Which one of them is spreading disinformation? all of them?
As for lying, PMLN ministers/PM are happy to lie through their teeth and then claim 'constitutional cover' in courts.
Stupidity? PMLN followers are happy to accept every tom, dick and sharif as a PM, minister, head of youth loan, and still claim that PMLN is a democratic party.

9

Re: Still above the law ?

Proves that PML (N) and PTI are the same then :D

Just to point out nobody at all considers the PML (N) an democratic party. Its family politics. Just like Khattak and the PTI :D

10

Re: Still above the law ?

Well when the garbage is found in the ballot boxes instead of votes then you will get the garbage in the parliament and that is exactly what is destroying Pakistan. When your law makers are biggest law breakers and only talk about laws when their illegal existence is under threat then no point complaining about others going"Above the law".

Sadly, some people have done NOTHING to change the system other than complaining about it 24/7 but if someone tries to challenge the system, they will go out of the way to save it but still won't do anything to improve the system. One such example is implementation of 62/63 for scrutiny of candidates before elections, almost every criminal on earth was cleared (on the basis of some Quranic verses that they had memorized) and then we were celebrating continuation of democracy after that.

11

Re: Still above the law ?

Take out Imran Khan from last four years of Pakistani politics for a moment and you will know the difference he has made. Little by what he did, but more of what others did out of his fear.

This is called 'opposition', which NS and Zardari are not used to of. All they knew was filing cases in NAB against each other and blackmail. No recipe works with this single tracked Khan.

12

Re: Still above the law ?

Just like the PTI violating the constitution. Violating laws and nit listening to the Supreme court. Both are wrong.