That one dubious dismissal could cause so much trouble?
Re: Who would’ve thought?
least of all Musharraf and his counsel 
Re: Who would've thought?
Its nice to see the Judicial institution fighting for its independance...
Re: Who would've thought?
^Oh believe me it's everything but that...
Re: Who would've thought?
I think its nice to see judiciary being purified of corruption even if it means shaking the uppermost echelons of the institution. You can't eliminate it at the lower levels if the upper levels are not done first.
Though its been a sad eye opener to see the jahil awam not let justice take its own course.
Re: Who would've thought?
I think its nice to see judiciary being purified of corruption even if it means shaking the uppermost echelons of the institution. You can't eliminate it at the lower levels if the upper levels are not done first.
Though its been a sad eye opener to see the jahil awam not let justice take its own course.
You mean sh!t rolls down the hill?
Re: Who would've thought?
You mean sh!t rolls down the hill?
Everything does to be politically correct.
Re: Who would've thought?
interesting to see the goofy govt ministers humiliated on almost all TV talk shows trying to defend the blunders of their master who now is claiming innocence by saying that he is a simple fauji and doesn't know the intricacies of law.
How can he charge the CJ on misuse of power if majority of his lota cabinet is afflicted by NAB and the same cabinet has approved the reference it sounds very funny
Re: Who would've thought?
Sorry guys you all seem to have misunderstood, I was talking about Musharrafs dubious dismissal from office in 1999 ..:D were both wrong or both right?
Re: Who would've thought?
^Oh believe me it's everything but that...
Why do yousay that?
Re: Who would've thought?
Sorry guys you all seem to have misunderstood, I was talking about Musharrafs dubious dismissal from office in 1999 ..:D were both wrong or both right?
Ofcourse that was wrong.. In a true democracy, Nawaz Sharif would have been brought to court, and if found guilty, the next political figure in line would have filled his shoes while Musharaf continues as Army chief until he retires.
Re: Who would've thought?
agreed
Re: Who would've thought?
What I know, in proper democracy (like in UK), prime minister would not dare (or not even have the power) to sack any public servant or military officers other then politicians from his own party in office. If there is reason, the best Prime minister would do is to send their name for enquiry.
Re: Who would've thought?
sa1eem bhai, but in real democracies and real democratic parties, leaders and top post candidates change as well. how many ppl have come and gone in the leadership of the tories after maggie, major, hesseltine..etc before now. same for labour, I mean do we see Neil Kinnock still hanging around as the life chair of the labour party. No.
here in US, bob dole ran for elections with jack kemp, they lost, he bowed out, he did not insist to run again and again and again. Al Gore or John Kerry did not sit around and were not awarded life chairmanship of their parties.
how can anyone trust our larry moe and curly to bring anything like democracy to our country. simply getting in power via votes does not mean that the country is democratic.
Re: Who would've thought?
Can anyone point out where in the constituion of Pakistan it makes it unconstitutional for the President to make the CJ non-functional? Thats the what the public uproar has been about (really maybe just a few but everyone is onboard for the corruption halla gulla). I would like to see that, I was scouring the constitution and couldn't find it at first glance.
Re: Who would've thought?
Fraudia bhai, you are absolutely right.
In proper democracy, people like NS and BB could not have won seat for even councillor, leave having support of Party for Prime Minister post. But then, democracy is never a system for people where most are illiterates, corrupts, or retards (like most Pakistani voters). Democracy works when people want progress and not only know the facts and figures but they understand that too. They want to take control of their own life and future, do not rely for progress on their father position (like get post because father is CJ).
Democracy need environment where media is respectable, free, and honest. They could inform anything still could not spread misinformation with impunity, as spreading misinformation means getting punished and fined heavily (not just from Law but from people too).
Just look at the way Pakistani media after getting freedom started spreading misinformation. Believe me, if you want to and willing to spend money, even some reputable journalist would be there ready to write article on you claiming that you are Republicans candidate for presidency in next US Presidential election. :) .....
Actually, Pakistani media is full of journalists that would sell their soul for few pence and many are on the payroll of corrupt. In free press environment, their demands and value have increased ten folds and many Journalists believe that it is time to earn money, who knows how long this opportunity would last? :). Now, many in media are becoming mega rich just because they are willing to spread misinformation for money.
Re: Who would've thought?
Fraudia bhai, you are absolutely right.
In proper democracy, people like NS and BB could not have won seat for even councillor, leave having support of Party for Prime Minister post.
I have some small disagreement about this. In my opinion there is no such thing as proper democracy, if you say 'proper' means the people elect only the best people, the bext people only make the best decisions and nobody ever makes any mistakes.
that's why somewhere I have read - whatever majority of people chose is deemed the correct decision. You build some checks and balances into constitutions and make it very very difficult to mess with that.
That is why I am very upset with Musharaf. he messed with constitution as well as the judiciary big time. Thus I think he (was not but has become) worse than NS and BB because he has caused real long term problems
Re: Who would've thought?
^You very well know what they are talking about...
Pakistani Democracy=Zamindara ,Wadera,Khan/Malik nizam with few puppets controlling the huge populations & lands.
Re: Who would've thought?
I have some small disagreement about this. In my opinion there is no such thing as proper democracy, if you say 'proper' means the people elect only the best people, the bext people only make the best decisions and nobody ever makes any mistakes.
that's why somewhere I have read - whatever majority of people chose is deemed the correct decision. You build some checks and balances into constitutions and make it very very difficult to mess with that.
That is why I am very upset with Musharaf. he messed with constitution as well as the judiciary big time. Thus I think he (was not but has become) worse than NS and BB because he has caused real long term problems
You do not know proper democracy and still want to comment on democracy? How funny :). I am living in UK most of my life and have seen proper democracy very closely. Though democracy in UK is not perfect, still it is very much proper democracy.
Well, to your surprise,** Proper democracy is not just ‘majority rule’ but it is based on many other basics and principles. ‘Live and let Live’, ‘Justice’, ‘Laws’, ‘human rights’, 'free meida (freedom of speach)' and ‘using public office honestly and within law’ is part of democracy. Democracy has many rules and principles. **It is possible that democracy may not be perfect (most countries where there is democracy, may not have perfect democracy), still democracy could be sham or proper. Pakistan never had proper democracy and always had sham democracy.
A person that contest election in proper democracy, contest on promises that they would follow democratic values and principle and should try to keep those promise when in office. People that get elected do not become superior to laws nor can break the laws of the country. They could not become dictator in behaviour after election.
If democracy meant, rule of parliament and elected members, then Hitler also came to power through democracy, still Hitler is considered fascist, not democrat, WHY? Because, once Hitler came in power, he stopped following basic rules of democracy and became dictator (just like Z A Bhutto).
In proper democracy, minority are safe as much as majority. In democracy, no country could force minority to live life similar to majority or have values similar to majority (it means that Muslims of India should be safe in proper democracy and should find themselves equal to others in every way). No democratic country could bring discriminatory laws even if majority wants to, could interfere with religion or personal life and believes of people, or could have two laws for two different people in the country. etc etc.
*In proper democracy, those that do corruption in public office, even if that person is Prime Minister, ordinary policeman can arrest that person, investigation and send him to jail. In proper democracy, people may decide whom to elect, but people do not decide who is criminal and corrupt amongst politicians, nor they decide who could contest election, but it is police and judiciary that decides that if a person is corrupt or criminal, and that if they are, Judiciary can put them in prison and can bar them from any election contest, as people not fit to hold public office *
[Note: Police and Judiciary are law enforcement agencies and are government servants. If they do no do their duty, then if army sees that laws are getting violated, as they are also government servants and can act, to save the country from corrupts and criminals, they can step in too.]
Now let come in to the BB and NS cases. These two goons are world famous corrupts.
Who decides that they are corrupts? It is not the duty of people (voters) to decide who is corrupt or who is honest, it is duty of police and Judiciary. These two goons could not contest election in proper democracy when they are alleged of corruption, until they clear their name from those allegations, they should be barred from taking part in any election or occupy public office of any sort.
Well, since their (BB and NS) names has been declared corrupt in media all over the world (including UK), to clear themselves, they should sue the media too. Actually, as for BB, American senate has also referred her as corrupt, so she should sue American senate too.
Well, well, since Swiss court, British court and also Pakistani court has convicted her of corruption, in proper democracy, she becomes ineligible to contest election or hold any public office, anyhow. Same is true about NS, as he is convict from Pakistani court.