The LFO Controversy

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Here are some interesting articles on the LFO controversy. What’s interesting is the level of back roomd ealing that’s going on and how desperate and shaky the government looks. I never liked the JI’s politics but the fact that they are opposing the LFO despite all the offers of Ministries is surprising. ANyway the links are below, the articles are a bit long.

“The opposition will not allow the assembly to be used as a rubber stamp”

  • Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Chief of Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam

“Politicians will start lining up to the new army chief the day I take off my uniform,” a visibly agitated President Musharraf told a group of pro-government senators as he argued why he could not accept the opposition’s demand.

2

I think that some form of compromise between the Jamali administration and the MMA on either Musharraf's position or the LFO itself is inevitable. The very fact that back room dealing is still going on emphasises how seriously Jamali & co want to include the MMA in the government. With the MMA refusing to budge much from its demands, that means the only way for Jamali's administration to draw in the MMA will be to make some manner of concession towards the MMA.

3

I think this this LFO "controversy" will be a deciding moment for Pakistan economy. If the resoulotion is quick and stability prevails then I belive the much talked about Take off point for the economy will be realized. However if the politics of confrontation and Goonda gardi, is once again brought back, then like what happened in the 90's the poor will suffer poverty will increase. Lets hope for once politicians will rise above there petty disputes and do the job they are there for, to make Pakistan prosper.

4

Re: The LFO Controversy

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Zakk:

I never liked the JI's politics but the fact that they are opposing the LFO despite all the offers of Ministries is surprising.
[/QUOTE]

Try to see past your bias against the military and the Jamali government to tell the truth. The MMA is now on record as stating that it was agreed with the government on 27 of the 29 clauses of the LFO, when it previously accepted 22 of them until a few weeks ago. So now the MMA accepts almost 95% of the LFO, and it is on record as saying that it will support and help elect Musharraf as President for another five years through the parliament.

Any statements by Qazi et al are all for show, and public consupmtion, nothing more.

5

Re: The LFO Controversy

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *

"Politicians will start lining up to the new army chief the day I take off my uniform," a visibly agitated President Musharraf told a group of pro-government senators as he argued why he could not accept the opposition's demand.
[/QUOTE]

thats rite....he wont stay for long if he takes off that army uniform!!

6

Try to see past your bias against the military and the Jamali government to tell the truth.

Malik I am not opposed to the Armed forces, every country needs an Army to defend itself. And no doubt the Pakistan Armed Forces predominantly comprise of good patriotic people. Unfortunately there is more then the odd inidvidual who acts like interfering in the natural process of government is their right.

Much of the LFO is on the whole a good thing. The parts which I am 100% in favour of include those increasing women setas, and the local government scheme. Many of the rest are as a whole for the good of the country, what is NOT, includes clauses reducing the power of the senate, bribing Judges with an increase in retirement age to keep them on the governments right side, the National Security Council being a supra Parliamentry body, and validating Musharrafs "referendum".

I also don't agre with the PML(N)'s stance or for the PPP who would probably validate the LFO in total if Nawaz and BB were let of the hook. That's not in the National interests but the fact that someone is actually negotiating a proper compromise, and like I said surprisingly that is the MMA (and more so the JI) is good, it's the politics of opposition. And the MMA so far has held it's ground despite threats against their NWFP government and now more recently attempts to disqualify them on the basis of their educational qualification.

7

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Zakk:

I also don't agre with the PML(N)'s stance or for the PPP who would probably validate the LFO in total if Nawaz and BB were let of the hook. That's not in the National interests but the fact that someone is actually negotiating a proper compromise, and like I said surprisingly that is the MMA (and more so the JI) is good, it's the politics of opposition. And the MMA so far has held it's ground despite threats against their NWFP government and now more recently attempts to disqualify them on the basis of their educational qualification.
[/QUOTE]

It's good that you acknowledge that the PPP-P and PML-N would accept the LFO in any shape if they got their selfish aims accepted i.e. a deal for BB or Nawaz. As for the MMA and it's political maturity is as much down to Musharraf and the powers that be promoting them as an alternative political force to the PPP-P and PML-N, than down to the success of the MMA on it's own. Let's not forget that it was the Musharraf government that specifically amended the graduation clause law to allow degrees awarded from Islamic semanaries to be counted? The Musharraf government put no obstacles in the way of the MMA when it formed the government of the NWFP, or when they became one half of the coalition government in Balochistan. So at every turn the Musharraf government has either put no obstacles in front of the MMA's rise and in fact removed any obstacles. What does that show?

The rest is all rhetoric for public consumption, nothing else...

8

Re: Re: The LFO Controversy

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *

Try to see past your bias against the military and the Jamali government to tell the truth. The MMA is now on record as stating that it was agreed with the government on 27 of the 29 clauses of the LFO, when it previously accepted 22 of them until a few weeks ago. So now the MMA accepts almost 95% of the LFO, and it is on record as saying that it will support and help elect Musharraf as President for another five years through the parliament.

Any statements by Qazi et al are all for show, and public consupmtion, nothing more.
[/QUOTE]

This controversy is created by Qazi, Nawaz and Benazir on a personal agenda. Some of the arguments by their party members say that one man cannot make the Rules and that LFO is illegal. If so then, the other clauses, such as womens seats, increase of seats and lowering the age for voters are also illegal. Thereby the whole lot elected are illegal and should be declared illegal. This is a personal vendetta going on and the public as usual is being made a fool once again. It's high time that the public wakes up to this non-sense.

9

Malik, Pakistans establishment, which thinks that the Mullahs are easier to control then a political party like the PPP ( that beliefs a left over of Zia and his pathological fear of the PPP) is still very strong, but its assumptions are flawed. You can only manipulate things so much before the puppets decide they don't like strings. When the 1990 election was rigged in favour of Nawaz, they overdid it and Nawaz was secure enough to start thinking for himself, even Junejo who was handpicked by Zia ul haq started flexing his muscles against Zia. Power is very addictive, but Democracy means those who are legitimately elected should wield it, not people who act in their own interests or in their own defined National interests.

From my point of view, two things would have made me believe in the LFO (minus the parts against the Judiciary, provincial autonomy and the refernedum), one if Musharraf had shown some amazing performance in cleaning up the country ( he did show some positive results but nothing too amazing considering he had absolute power), and if he had formed an alliance of support from political leaders and parties, rather then creating his own party out of thin air. When the greatest defenders of the LFO and Musharraf in the Assembly are lota's and chor's I do think ten times before supporting Mush or the LFO. After all those people would probably demand Mush hanged if suddenly Nawaz or Benazir were made President or PM.

In the end those clauses which the ARD, MMA object too are generally NOT good for the country. I don't see how anyone can defend them.

10

you’re absolutely rite!!!:k:

11

Once again you try to make a “principled” statement but you end up contradicting yourself. You call the defenders of the LFO “corrupt” i.e. obviously lacking principle? But are the opponents of the LFO also not corrupt and unprincipled? After all you said earlier *** I also don’t agree with the PML(N)'s stance or for the PPP who would probably validate the LFO in total if Nawaz and BB were let of the hook.***Now don’t tell us that the PPP-P and PML-N are upholding “national interests” when opposing sections of the LFO, because you cannot castisgate the “corrupt” on the one hand, and praise them on the other hand. Be honest and defend your principles on their own merit, instead of holding up the corrupt PPP-P and PML-N as principled role models.

As for the MMA, I have a few questions.

  1. What were the MMA leaders and parties doing during the 11 years of the Zia era? Were many of them not supporting that COAS-President, and the extra-constitutional rule at the time?

  2. What was the reaction of the MMA leaders to the military coup of 12 October 1999? Did they not welcome the military coup and the overthrow of Nawaz Sharif?

  3. Why are the MMA now on record saying they accept 27 of the 29 clauses of the LFO (95% of it), and would help elect President Musharraf for another five years?

Here is a nice picture of the Prime Minister and his ‘Deputy’? if agreement is reached on the LFO with the MMA…

Govt, MMA inching towards LFO accord](http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-5-2003_pg1_1)

12

1) What were the MMA leaders and parties doing during the 11 years of the Zia era? Were many of them not supporting that COAS-President, and the extra-constitutional rule at the time?

Well let's see, the JUI in fact joined the Zia cabinet as much of the PNA did; believing Zia would keep his promises of accountability and elections in 90 days. Mufti Mehmood subsequently joined the MRD and regretted trusting Zia. I am not sure about the JUP, but Zia beliefs were more in tune with the JI I don't think he would have appreciated a Barelvi religo political party. That leaves the JI, to be fair Qazi Hussain was not the amir at that time. Those who were, were people who would have preferred anyone over the PPP because of the brutal way ZAB treated them. The JI regretted their support for Zia as well, some of the details are mentioned in the links I pasted in the beginning, they asked Zia to quit the COAS post, which he refused. In fact Junejo also asked zia to quit the COAS, because since he found it strange that he could give orders to the COAS but not to the president!

2) What was the reaction of the MMA leaders to the military coup of 12 October 1999? Did they not welcome the military coup and the overthrow of Nawaz Sharif?

I think most people welcomed Musharraf especially after his first speech, pretty much everyone did, after all the PML(N) government was out of control. Surely you don't condemn people for putting their hope or trust in someone? Democracy is about putting your trust in a candidate or person.

3) Why are the MMA now on record saying they accept 27 of the 29 clauses of the LFO (95% of it), and would help elect President Musharraf for another five years?

Most politicians (minus those who are trying to setlle a personal grievance with Mush i.e., PML(N) ) accept that in Pakistan's chequered history to allow for a peaceful transition of power from Army to Civilian rule you need to allow a peaceful exit strategy. That was what was done with Ayub Khan and Zia, the passge of indemnity bills so the Armed forces could withdraw without feeling worried they'd be charged for treason.

The principle why most people oppose the LFO more stridently, the mdoerates believe you can either have Military or civilan rule, you can't have both. That simply doesn't work operating two sets of control in one system only creates a lot of confusion ( hence the ISI
s and Corp commanders interference isd angerous). While the hardliners who oppose it in totality believe ratifying any agreement with the Armed foces is legitimising their involvement in areas which are totally outside their role.

My beliefs with regard to the LFO are somewhere closer to what the MMA's (even as I said I don't like their politics) but since they are saying what I think I support them on that issue. I don't support them any further then that.

13

Originally posted by Zakk:

The JI supported Zia for most of his 11 year term including when he held his referendum in 1984 - ‘Major political and religious leaders support referendum’?](http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23276)

Basically the major components of the present MMA, and some of it’s leading lights supported the 1977 military coup, the overthrow of the 1973 constitution, and served in the government of COAS-President General Zia Ul-Haq for many many years. These hypocrites did not part with Zia or make statements of regret many many years later because of any love for the Pakistani constitution, but because Zia was not ‘Islamic’ enough for them i.e. In imposing their version(s) of Sharia law. Even now some members of the MMA wants more emphasis on the ‘Sharia Bill’ LFO tearing MMA apart](http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-5-2003_pg7_29)

Do you think for a moment that the MMA would not accept anything Musharraf proposed if he accepted their ‘Sharia Bill’?

Of course I don’t condemn people for supporting General Musharraf’s military coup against Nawaz Sharif but I condemn hypocrisy. But let us not forget that the those who are standing up for the “constitution” and the “supremacy of the parliament” now i.e. The MMA, PPP-P and many others in the opposition camp, supported an extra-constitututional and extra parliamentary action by the same person they are now opposing (President Musharraf). At that time they failed to propose a constitutional and parliamentary remedy for dealing with the likes of Nawaz Sharif, and the LFO is addressing that very point.

When making such sweeping statements please provide proof to back up this assertion. I have yet to see one major demonstration by the people of Pakistan against the LFO, only some small set demonstrations by interested parties. Most people in Pakistan are almost entirely unconcerned with the goings on over the LFO, and want the politicians they elected on 10 October 2002 to start legislating and working inside parliament for the betterment of the country.

Apparantely one of the main MMA leaders does not agree with that - MMA, ISI contact not objectionable, says Sami-ul-Haq](http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-5-2003_pg7_58)

So like the MMA you support 27 of the 29 clauses of the LFO i.e. 95% of it?

14

Malik: I am aware of the Zia referendum, Mian Tufail was a supporter of it precisely as I said, because Zia was anti PPP. The JI leader had suffered terribly at the hands of ZAB’s FSF ( if I remember right he was placed on an ice block naked for several hours). Zafarul Haq (Zia’s opening batsman) has undergone many transformations since the days Zia’s days, he was offered considerable “carrots” for switching against Nawaz Sharif to the Hum Khyal’ies since 1999. I am sure if NAB could have found something against the man; they would have used far worse pressure. The reason I accept his stance in favour of democratisation now, is that he refused to be bought over despite all the offers and threats.

I accept the fact that the LFO has attempted to tackle those issues, but it is for Parliament to make them law. And issues like the curtailment of Judicial independance and ratifying the referendum do NOT deal with the likes of Nawaz Sharif. The reason Musharraf’s fighting for the referendum is because he wants legitimacy and indemnity.

Actually it was the Legal community which started the agitation against the LFO and not the Politicians, Several Supreme Court Bar Association Presidents have come out against it and many of the most respected Lawyers in Pakistan consider the LFO potentially very damaging for the country. The average Pakistani would not understand an issue like the LFO, because it has little to do with their lives. Just because something does not cause massive unrest doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be opposed if you believe it is fundamentally wrong. In any case would you prefer strikes on the streets and massive demonstrations? The LFO should be resolved poeacfully by comrpomise from both sides within Parliament.

With reference to the Referendum and LFOhere is one link

and another
These are both by well respected legal experts (one a former judge) and not by politicians.

15

Originally posted by Zakk:

[quote]
Malik: I am aware of the Zia referendum, Mian Tufail was a supporter of it precisely as I said, because Zia was anti PPP. The JI leader had suffered terribly at the hands of ZAB's FSF ( if I remember right he was placed on an ice block naked for several hours).
[/quote]

Whatever the reasons, the clear fact remains that the major parties of the MMA supported General Zia's military coup against ZAB, the overthrow of the 1973 constitution, became ministers in the the COAS-President's regime, and supported his referendum in 1984. Now you failed to address my earlier question on the later parting of some of these people from Zia and "regrets" many, many years later. Did it not also have to do with the fact that Zia was not 'Islamic' enough for them i.e. in imposing their version(s) of Sharia law, rather than them championing "democracy"?

Is is not true that these same MMA leaders would accept anything Musharraf says if he backed their "Shariat Bill"?

[quote]
I accept the fact that the LFO has attempted to tackle those issues, but it is for Parliament to make them law.
[/quote]

Not necassarily, it is for all the constitutional pillars of the state i.e. the Excecutive, Judiciary and the Legislature to decide, as well as directly interested parties i.e. the armed forces to decide. For as we saw in October 1999 the parliament alone did not have a remedy to deal with the Nawaz government and it's excesses, and so the military had to step in and assume control of the executive, and the Judiciary had to indemnify and mandate the new order. So why should the other pillars of state only trust the very body that failed in October 1999 to deal with the Nawaz government? Where parliament failed the other pillars of the state stepped in and saved the nation, and it is only logical that all of them devise the right mechanisms to avoid a pre-Oct 1999 situation and any future military rule.

[quote]
The average Pakistani would not understand an issue like the LFO, because it has little to do with their lives
[/quote]

So you are saying that 150 million Pakistani's cannot hope to understand what a couple of hundred members of the National Assembly and Senate can? I think the over 32 million people who voted in the election on October 10 2002 did not vote for their parliamentarians to spend their entire time thumping tables, shouting at each other without any manners, and generally making a show of themselves in front of the whole world. They elected them to legislate for the the good of the nation, and nobody is stopping the parliamentarians from making laws to better the lives of our people except the parliamentarians themselves. You tell us, LFO or no LFO what is stopping the members of parliament performing the job i.e. legislate, that the people elected them for? Remember these "champions of parliamentary democracy" have not even been able elect an opposition leader in the last six months.

You also forgot to answer my last question. In your post you stated that My beliefs with regard to the LFO are somewhere closer to what the MMA's. Does that mean that you support 27 of the 29 clauses of the LFO i.e. 95% of it like the MMA now does in it's public statements?

16

whatever the issue.....the bottom line is tha the parliament should be supreme and should be given the right to amend the constitution not any fard-e-wahid!

17

[QUOTE]
Did it not also have to do with the fact that Zia was not 'Islamic' enough for them i.e. in imposing their version(s) of Sharia law, rather than them championing "democracy"?
[/QUOTE]

Well Malik, I don't know if you agree with me, but I think every party,w hether "secular" or "religious" had seen through Zia by the early 1980's and understood he would do anything for a political ally to co-opt till he formed his own political party (which he did the PML).

In fact I am sure Malik your comments here would be appreciated. but are you are aware that Pakistani Military Dictators have a history of co-opting political parties till they form their new and updated version of the PML each time. In Ayubs it was the Convention Muslim League, in zia's it was the Junejo League and now it's the like Minded League. Each time the dictator offers positions to some politicians and later on discards most of them because their usefulness in providing legitimacy has ended.

[QUOTE]
it is for all the constitutional pillars of the state i.e. the Excecutive, Judiciary and the Legislature to decide, as well as directly interested parties i.e. the armed forces to decide. For as we saw in October 1999 the parliament alone did not have a remedy to deal with the Nawaz government and it's excesses
[/QUOTE]

I am sorry Malik, I must disagree, the Army did NOT intervene because of Nawaz Sharifs corruption, that is a myth, it intervened ONLY and ONLY because it's command structure was being subverted by Nawaz Sharif, by the appointment of Ziauddin as COAS. In fact Musharraf would not have acted against Nawaz at all if Nawaz had kept his word (which NS was not capable off). If the Army had intervened for the sake of Pakistan it would have intervened when Nawaz attacked the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had asked for protection and intervention to enforce it's ruling.

[QUOTE]
You tell us, LFO or no LFO what is stopping the members of parliament performing the job i.e. legislate, that the people elected them for? Remember these "champions of parliamentary democracy" have not even been able elect an opposition leader in the last six months.
[/QUOTE]

Please clarify is your solution to the present crisis, to ignore the LFO and simply accept it? So am I to assume you believe, the subversion of the Supreme Court (again), the erosion of Provincial autonomy, the use of Intelligence agencies to bribe and threaten members of Parliament is in the National interest of Pakistan?

[QUOTE]
You also forgot to answer my last question. In your post you stated that My beliefs with regard to the LFO are somewhere closer to what the MMA's.
[/QUOTE]

I believe I have already answered this question when I said: *Much of the LFO is on the whole a good thing. The parts which I am 100% in favour of include those increasing women setas, and the local government scheme. Many of the rest are as a whole for the good of the country, what is NOT, includes clauses reducing the power of the senate, bribing Judges with an increase in retirement age to keep them on the governments right side, the National Security Council being a supra Parliamentry body, and validating Musharrafs "referendum". *

18

Looks like MMA wants to cut a rather slick deal - Sharia't for LFO. Now is there a better manifestation of the space between rock and a hard place? I hope Musharaf is able to do the right this at least now

19

Originally posted by Zakk:

Not quite factual on your part. Can you deny that the “PML (Nawaz)” supported General Zia’s military coup against ZAB, defended all his extra-constitutional actions i.e. suspending the constitution, disssolution of the elected assemblies and martial law etc etc, his victimisation of the Pakistan People’s Party, became cheerleaders for his referendum in 1984 (7 years after he seized power), became federal ministers, provincial ministers and chief ministers right upto Zia’s death? Remember these are the people who are now “fighting” for the constitution and the ‘supremacy of parliament’.

Can you deny that the main parties and/or leaderships that now make up the MMA adopted excatly the same position i.e. of support and collusion in all of Zia’s extra-constitutional actions, for most of the Zia i.e. well into the mid-1980’s? But that the reason that they parted ways with COAS-President General Zia in the closing years of his rule was because of the fact that they did not consider him “Islamic” enough i.e. that he was not implementing their vesion (s) of Islamic/Shariat laws fast enough etc? I have posed this question to you because it is direct correlation with the present “tussle” over the LFO, and I ask you (again) is is not true that these same MMA leaders would accept anything Musharraf says i.e. the LFO if he backed their “Shariat Bill” and their Islamic agenda? If you can’t answer that question then here are some very upto date links to help you:-

MMA’s cat is out of the bag](http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-6-2003_pg3_1)

MMA reiterates offer on letting Musharraf remain COAS for one more year if its demands regarding the LFO and 17-point Islamization programme are accepted](http://www.dawn.com/2003/06/01/top1.htm)

MMA ready to give more time to Musharraf to remain COAS](http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/June-2003/1/main/top1.asp)

Very interesting point and once again proving my point over the LFO, and undermining your whole argument that other non-military parties do not request the intervention of the military in constitutional affairs. Now you tell us why did one pillar of the (1973) constitutuion - the Supreme Court, request the protection of the Pakistani military for protection and intervention to enforce it’s ruling? Why was the superior judiciary so powerless to defend it’s actions and implement it’s rulings? Where was the elected parliament in all this,and those opposition parties? Why could the President (Leghari) not do anything to stop the events that led to one of the most shameful events in Pakistan’s constitutional history i.e. the invasion of the Supreme Court by the thugs of Nawaz Sharif?

Where was the 1973 constitution, and all the pillars of constitutional rule?

No you have not answered the question I put to you directly. In your post you stated that My beliefs with regard to the LFO are somewhere closer to what the MMA’s. Does that mean that you support 27 of the 29 clauses of the LFO i.e. 95% of it like the MMA now does in it’s public statements, and the continuation of Musharraf as a COAS-President for a determined timeframe?

20

[QUOTE]
Not quite factual on your part. Can you deny that the "PML (Nawaz)" supported General Zia's military coup against ZAB, defended all his extra-constitutional actions i.e. suspending the constitution, disssolution of the elected assemblies and martial law etc etc, his victimisation of the Pakistan People's Party, became cheerleaders for his referendum in 1984 (7 years after he seized power)
[/QUOTE]

Malik; there was no PML (N) at that time :), hence I can deny what you said:). Nawaz Sharif was a member of the Teheik-e-Istiqal till around 1982 or 84, so he was not in the picture. The Pakistan Muslim League was formed around 1993. And again, I repeat the JUI(the biggest Party in the MMA) opposed Zia as early as 1982, Mufti Mehmood was on record of regretting utting any trust in Zia. Malik; I agree some of the LFO opponents are only complaining because it's politically conveniant. Still some is better then almost all of the people defending the LFO.

[QUOTE]
Why was the superior judiciary so powerless to defend it's actions and implement it's rulings? Where was the elected parliament in all this,and those opposition parties? Why could the President (Leghari) not do anything to stop the events that led to one of the most shameful events in Pakistan's constitutional history i.e. the invasion of the Supreme Court by the thugs of Nawaz Sharif?
[/QUOTE]

Last I heard the Armed forces operate under Civilian Control, and when the Judiciary requested assistance, Jehangir Karamat chose to ignore it. Leghari also requested the COAS, and again the order was refused. Ardeshir Cowasjee wrote extensively on the subject when it happened.

[QUOTE]
No you have not answered the question I put to you directly
[/QUOTE]

I did Malik, I had elaborated on it extensively, it probably was not the answer you wanted but that's another story.