Navigation - link to other main sections from here
Filed Under Meray Mutabiq
April 21, 2008
April 21, 2008
Meray Mutabiq - 21 April 2008
Hamid Mir and Ansar Abbasi with Dr. Shahid Masood in fresh episode of Meray Mutabiq.
Free Version:
You must be a Premium Member to view this content or wait 48 hours to watch this free.
Email This Article - News - Video
Comments
172 Responses to “Meray Mutabiq - 21 April 2008”
Outstanding Program ……… Now this is what we call “Core-Trio” !
the program restarts after playing for 10-15 mins
Admin,
can you please take a look at it?
thanks
So Finally … Ansar Abbassi brought the voice of people on the Media !
Justice Iftikhar should be life-time Judge of Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Doctor buzz a lot during the discussion.He is losing the ground.
i am fully agreed with hamid mir and doctor sahib that parliament is soverign
i hate roidad khan yeah establishment ka pakka banda hain is nay aub ,zia aur musharif sub ka saath diya hain ub kis munh say yeah democracy kyee baat kar raha hain ,
oooh… SM called Roe-dad khan “a pillar of establishment” hehe…
A perfect illustration of why we’re screwed.. these guys were so confused today.. Hamid Mir and Shahid Masood just overtook the conversation and just yelled louder.. Why is HM taking it out on the lawyers today?
And.. And.. Roedad or Ansar Abbasi could barely get a word in edgewise today..
Admin: Its not working for me.
Every 10 seconds I’m screaming at “DOCTOR” Shahid Masood .. saying STFU! because he is being annoying as hell and not letting Ansar Abbasi even finish a sentece! JTFC!
Man Musharuf should be hanged! really I’m serious, we need to hang this guy and about 50 other fvkers who are pi$$ing around right now trying to do this conspiracy sh!t.. Roedad khan got me all pissed off now (I think he should be hanged too btw.. hehehe)
@JKS,
Please go to speedtest.net and tell me your speed.
Admin
“# TK
Every 10 seconds I’m screaming at “DOCTOR” Shahid Masood .. saying STFU! because he is being annoying as hell and not letting Ansar Abbasi even finish a sentece! JTFC!”
TK,
If you remember one of my post in yesterday’s program, I said that Shahid Masood is not good in doing program with people sitting in the show, he is better off with his own research and talk to the people on phone. He has become an arrogant and rude anchor and interrupt people several times in the past as well. If people can go back and look his show with Mian Nawaz Sharif vs Benazir and Altaf Hussain, you can seen the difference. He was literally acting like ” beghee billee” in front of BB and Altaf and with Mian Nawaz Sharif, he was ” batameez” and rude.
After all he is a PPP supporter ( Ex president of ( PSF) people student federation in his medical college) and also has connections with the agencies.
What a choon choon ka maraba was this programme? CJ should be restored without any condition and Mush should be kicked out.
This debate of parliment is above judiciary or judiciary is above parliment is meaningless.
It was obvious that in the past 8 years parliment was dummy and even judicairy was dummy till 9 March 2007 so what is the point of quoting examples. CJ was the first person to challenge this status quo on March 9th 07 and he should be restored as CJ. Culprit Mush should be thrown out of the country.
@ TK,sic5770
I havent watched this episode yet so I cant comment on SM attitude in this show. But if you guys can, than you should watch his interview of Maulana Fazlur rehman. The maulana erupted!!!! He went all nuts and started accusing SM of ‘”trying to break his party”. Funny as hell. SM does give attitude to some guests.
“SM does give attitude to some guests.”
That is why he is not a good anchor and should not host the show with people sitting face to face. He is a biased and has all the sympathies towards PPP and to some extent for agencies.
@sic 5770
dr is best anchor after talat .he was right to ask roedad khan shut up as he is establishment person.and hamid mir and shahid masood were right on that point kay agar mush kyee parliament 1975 ka parliament act change kar kay cj ka tenure change kar saktyee hain tu yeah ju logo kyee elected parliament hain yeah 17 ammendment ko remove kiyooon nahi kar saktyee .
jub nawaz aur benazir nay cod sign kiya thay they said kay they will remove 17 ammendment from constitution ,and remove all powers of miltary and give all these powers to parliament as instructed by quaid-e-azam .(army had no role in politics)
as all people of pakistan wants parliamentary democracy so we have to follow british house of commons where parliament can do anything .
yeah half presidental, half parliamentary system nahi chal sakta
adha titar adha batair
Worst program ever by Shahid Masood. He, along with Hamid Mir, did not let any of the other three guests complete a thought and kept butting in with the same point: (”Since Parliament can amend the constitution it is thus supreme”) again and again.
Since everyone was giving the example of the US constitution, was surprised no one mentioned the US Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. I certainly do endorse Ansar Abbasi’s suggestion of appointing the deposed justices for life. The country will be better for it.
I would like to make some points for me fellow Pakistanis’ consideration.
1: Parliament is the supreme body not the constitution. It is another thing that all parliamentarians individually and collectively are bound by the constitution they create just like the general public is bound by it. And thus ‘no one is above the law’. Clearly if a Parliament can redraft the whole constitution then it has to be supreme.
2: Whether Pakistan’s Parliament in the past was a constitution creating (statutory) Parliament or not, this new Parliament should be considered as one and the system should be reconfigured to accommodate this. This is the only way we can stop America and ‘it’s Generals’.
3: The idea that what if the Parliament appointed a president for life or if it passed a law requiring men to wear dresses and women to wear means’ clothing is the most childish thing even a child could say, never mind intellectuals like these. (I know that was just a hypothetical example).
If the Parliament passed such a law that was against public will then it (parliament) would be overthrown in the coming elections.
4: If the parliament became rigid and assertive and introduced laws that gave it a dictatorial grip on its public, there would be an uprising against such a parliament just like the one in the case of the dictator Musharraf.
5: There is only one constitution that is supreme above those that abide by it and that is in a book called the Quran. Only this institution cannot be amended nor can any of its sections be repealed. This constitution is protected by its creator because He says ‘La Tabdeela Li kalimaatillah’.
6: Throughout history, from times of Babylonian absolute rulers to the dawn of Islamic democracy of Khilafte Rashida and to the Modern day Parliament, appointment of administrative authority in a state including judiciary has been carried out by the ruler of the day. In today’s case the Parliament should have the right to appoint COS and CJ etc. Whether, it is a direct right or through a watchdog body or committee.
7: Pakistan has struggled until today, in my view because, after its creation many people became part of the administration who did not have the same agenda as the creators of Pakistan such as remnants of British Raj etc. Pakistan has had a rebirth on the 18th of March. 14th of August has dawned on us once again but this time we must seize and treasure the individuals that helped to bring about this day that so many of us did not envisage to break for many decades yet. CJ Iftikhar and party are the judges that this nation can rely on and they should stay for life until a new force can be groomed and so that black sheep can be minimised.
It takes a life time of experience and exceptional capabilities to become a worthy Judge of the High court of any country. So when you have a judge who has passed the most important and difficult test, the test of character then he should not be disposed of after a few years unless misconduct is proved upon investigation. This country needs CJ Iftikhar and party for at least a decade. So I don’t know what Hamid Meer’s problem is with CJ Iftikhar and what Abbasi’s problem is with the supremacy of the Parliament.
8: Although technically what Hamid Meer is saying about 17th amendment and CJ Iftikhar is correct but the new Parliament does not have to repeal all the clauses or sections of the 17th amendment. It can abolish or amend it as it sees fit to Pakistan’s favour.
Even if it does abolish the 17th Amd, It can draft new procedures and rules for appointing judges and the length of their tenure.
8: What Abbasi said about British Law is not true. The British Judges and Judges of other western nations ARE allowed to interpret the laws created by the parliament so that the intention of the Parliament can be enforced.
10: When a parliament passes a law, does that not become part of a written constitution?
11: Why do we need to compare Pakistan with Britain or America any way? Can’t we decide things for ourselves?
12: Why didn’t Dr Shahid organise a proper debate? These were all educated intellectuals not opposing politicians yet they were quarrelling like children. This topic requires a scientific debate where people take turns to give their views on a question and then a rebuttal and a counter argument and so on.
It seemed as if chaos was deliberately introduced by not giving the guest enough time systematically, to alarm and confuse the Public. It makes me wonder what Geo’s real agenda is!
13: Another thing to think about, how free should the media be? Should there be no guidelines and restraints at all? After all these are money making corporations whose services can be bought at the right price. We all know that most of the American media is steered by certain forces that are not friendly to Pakistan or any Muslim country. Lately, I’ve been wondering about the advertisement banners on Jang’s web page.
The Kind of culture Geo is promoting cannot be branded as our national heritage. There is a hadith that says a person’s Imaan is on his company. America has understood that and that’s why they are exporting their culture across the globe. Corporate reasons are obvious. For those people who find it difficult to believe that the Quraan, hadith and Arabic is scientifically being examined by the west in order to find ways to put out the light of Islam, the following link is of Sahi Bukhari on web by University of Southern California.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/
14: Finally, is there any Pakistani on this web site who is as upset as I am with what is happening to Urdu on Geo and other Pakistani channels? These channels claim to educate the masses yet 50% of the words uttered on them are in English yet literacy in Pakistan is about 54% and that probably includes a good proportion of those who can only write their name.
In this era of Musharraf a lot of wrongs have been done to Pakistan. Most of them get mentioned but the one least mentioned is his policy of modern enlightenment and the massacre of Urdu (I’m Punjabi by the way). At the heart of all this evil was to grow a generation of Pakistanis that had no concern with religion and lived life to the “max”. I’m not advocating lashes, compulsory burqas and beards but we certainly need to reacquaint ourselves to Islam the least and develop a national Islamic agenda on the lines of Malaysia may be. Because, at the heart of this import of American culture is the battle of civilisations with the purpose of extracting the imaan of the Muslims. This has always been the aim of Kufar thus Allah says in the Quran that they seek to put out the light of Allah by blowing with their mouths but Allah’s noor will grow stronger and stronger despite their desires.
15: If Hamid Mir is reading this, plural for nuktaha with chota kaaf is Nikaat not Nuqaat. Nuqaat is plaural of Nuqtah meaning dot. Although, I do respect Hamid Meer for limited English vocabulary in his Urdu and for wearing Shalwar Qamees ocaisionally.
Jab ik qaum hone ke naate say ham apnay tashakhuss ke bare me khud hi ihsaase kamtari ka shikaar ho jayen gay to dusreay haemin kiya kaak izzat dein gay.
Salare Kaarwaan Hay Meer-e-Hijaaz Apna
Is Naam Say Baaqi Hay Araam-e-Jaan Hamaara
Iqbal
Waa-aye mataa-e-kaarwaan jaata raha
Dil se Ihsaase sudo zayaan jaata raha
Free version added.
Admin
first roti kapada makan,then islam,then moderation ,then good governence and now parlimentery democracy
bashiraaa who was a mochi in 1960 lived a horrible life with extreme poverty …died of poverty and his grand son is still a mochi..in 2008……with infinite problems………..
these slogans …are good for elite(army,politicians,20%rich of our country)………let them enjoy……….this country is for them..
imran malik…va ..usa
take care
imran malik
va usa
well this Hamid mir is the most dangerous journalist ..he is black sheep and claims to be champ. of free media…..
he is man of agencies and speak their language..i hate to listen to him
ok my question to Dr. SM and HM..if PML (N) do not support this zaradri package for kicking some honest judges out then how PPP will do it from Parliamnent……its chilidish what they are talking about…
i hope lawyers, civil society and PML (N) force this dacoit zaradri to restore or kick him out ….we cant bear another 30 billion dollar corruption from PPP dakus
1-bloody revolution…..2-economic problems hurt ELITE too
unless and until these two scenerio happens………nothing will change except the faces ……………………………………the same elite will rule………………..
generals ,legharis ,cheema ,chattas,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Worst ever show conducted by SM
why SM is so annoying in this show, he do not the guest to complete his turn and always give his inputs.
or May the time for that many guests are very short.
All of these guests are quite wel known.
if ansar abbasi thinks that SC is more supreme than parliament, then he is saying that action of 3rd nov were legal(bc most supreme body which is SC( according to ansar abbasi) has approved the actions of 3rd nov).
if we explore his point more then we find that muree declaration is nothing but publicity, and judiciary issue doesnt exist………….
mr ansar abbasi pehle tolo phir bolo
i guess Justice Iftikhar is indispensable.
However the point which MiR is making is also valid. The 2 Parties of coalition agreed on implementing COD which means they shall abolish 17th ammendment; so if CJ chaudhry is its benificiary then whos fault is this????????????
main “capital talk ” dehk reha hoon ya “meray mutabic” kuch samhg naih aa rehy
shahid masood and hamid mir prove themselves to be complete idiots in this episode….they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about
gr8 choice of topic though
Never seen Hamid Mir in such a way. I guess on his own show he cannot give too much of his opinion.
Too much finger wagging by HM. Crazy show. The ending sums up the show well.
Was HM in with a hidden agenda? Any thoughts?
No hidden agenda. The argument Abassi was making is a subtle one. The vast majority of people would tend to misinterpret the notion of parliamentary sovereignty. The unfortunate part is that any sophomore political science, government or law student would get the argument. I expected better of Hamid Mir and Shahid Masood.
Worst program ever by SM, I fully agree.
It was a great topic, but SM ruined it with his pathetic handling. SM’s problem is that he is not a good listener.
yeah…i guess his monologue format suits him best
This is the best program where Hamid Mir for the first time told the whole truth. For many people I know the truth is not to their liking but this is exactly what I wrote in “Battle is On… Political forces are on the offensive”. I am so delighted to see that their is at lease one person who got the courage to speak the whole truth, Nusrat Javed on the other hand stopped short of telling the whole truth today.
Let me quote few of the important points from Hamid Mir discussion.
1. General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf is sitting in Army house and he is supreme commander of Army and the real battle (Toofan in words of HM) will come from establishment (read army).
(My Comments: Several people naively believe that army has gone back , and several others (army’s agent in media) does this propaganda that army is no more behind the mad dictator , this is simply a childlike thinking. The battle is simply between Army and Political forces , Mad dictator is as much a symbol of army’s strength and weakness as he was before 9th March 2007, those who have knowledge about the working of army mafia they know that family circles of upper echelon of army generals play the most important role in this mafia , and let me say that Sehba Musharraf and Musharraf himself are the most welcome guest in that circles still. )
2. The establishment is not afraid of “restoration of judiciary” , the are afraid of “charter of democracy” .
(My Comments: The charter of democracy is the death warrant of establishment , it is a nightmare for army , it is not for nothing that they murdered BB, just imagine if BB were alive at this time and she were in the shoes of Asif Zardari , that would have been truly disastrous for army. They are still not finding the situation out of control in the absence of BB, however BB was such a shrewd politician that with the help of NS , US and people of Pakistan (lawyers judiciary) , she would have given the hardest time to Pakistan’s establishment. And it was to implement charter of democracy.
3. Only thing perhaps Hamid Mir not pointed it is UN’s investigation into the murder of BB, not because he was afraid (I hope), but to be prudent enought to make his point without causing himself the problem.
I am not really sure of the other participants in the program , however I have high doubts about the now retired agent of establishment Roedad Khan (whoever I hope at this age he is just sincere and not paid)
Ansar Abbasi and Athar Minallah are simple innocent , they have no idea of the real game how it is played and who plays it. I won’t blame them as they always calculate the things twice twos four. I wish however they keep quite when they don’t know about something. And they just focus on their current job (Ansar Abbasi keep doing the investigation against the establishment) and Athar Minallah keep fighting establishment for the restoration of CJ. It will be good if they leave the political forces on their own for sometime and don’t try to half cook the stories.
SM was irritating in this episode…
@ pejamistri
i don’t get it….the conspiracy theory was just discussed in passing at the start of the show…the program was basically an academic debate on the limits of parliamentary sovereignty….the realpolitik component was limited
@sr
Well that was only an attempt to deflect the attention of people from the real topic , and I believe Shahid Masood and Roedad Khan may have done that deliberately and Ansar Abbasi and Athar Minallah did it because of their studentlike immaturaty.
I am of the opinion that Hamid Mir today surprised Shahid Masood and others by coming up so agressive in the start , in the fist few minutes it was hard for SM to deflect the focus from the real point as he raised that point himself , however later on after the first break he was able to route the discussion towards “sovergnity of the parliament” as that was the best way to keep the program going.
@pejamistri
are you kidding? because it sure was funny. are you living in fantasy world where you are bending th real world to fit your stupid theories and then defend them or even feel proud on them ( i am sorry but u did a sheikhoo thing)
if PPP say they want to limit the term for 5 yr then i would not like it but i would accept it as it is part of 17 amendment and surely 17 amendment has to go but why pick just one clause, why not repel all of it.
but if it is 3 yr then i think clearly dishonesty is written all over it, then even the loyal PPP supporters like u , should not support PPP on that.
@alifnoon
:) …. what happened to Allan , has he left you ? My dear innocent soul keep doing what you do the best 
let me laugh as I used to laugh when I watched alifnoon.
For your theory of 3 yrs
i did not give any theory at all.
i just said if PPP want to limit for 5 yr then i would accept the limit but not like it.
but three year limit is dishonesty.
and 3 yrs limit news is reported in media
and 5 yr was before 17 amendment.
so i dont see any theory in what i said
Hamid Mir was THE most reasonable man on the show. Shahid Masood is quite disappointing as a debate mediator.
Hamid Mir is well versed with the constitution, and equally criticized Musharraf and irregular stances taken by the Lawyers side.
Ansar Abbasi allowed himself to look weak, intellectually retarded even.
agree that if CJ term is reduced to certain number of years ONLY because 17th amendment is abolished thatn its fair enough
but if they want to carry on with rest of the the amendment and are going the change his term only, then of course its dishonest
if this happen PPP will fill in the shoes of muslim league Q
which is a pitty
I have defended Asif Zardari at the start of all this drams, thinking he may just be sincere but now things look really really fishy
look at the people who have gathered around him, carrying files attending meetings with him
Surely PPP has heavy weight sincere, and intelligent leadres, but they have disappeared in the background
and now certain individuals with very doubtful past ( and present) is gathering around zardari
i think all of them were stupid , arguing what is superior or sovereign
parliament / supreme court or constitution.
first there was no need for this discussion and second no body was qualified to do that discussion.
there was one lawyer in that and even he was not prepared to talk on that subject. so to me it was stupid discussion
@alifnoon
, Nannah keeps laughing whole heartedly …
All of my theories are based on news reports too
But I can not help remembering alifnoon my favorite program , I remember one episode which was about “Selling antiques” and customer comes and picks up the tea-cattle which Nannah has just got from the tea-boy, and the customer asks how old the tea-cattle is
I am laughing like Nannah.
well one of today’s main news is
“SC strikes down graduation bar”
Now it is strange that they had all this discussion and nobody mentioned that news because it was exactly related to that topic.
graduation bar was protected by 2/3 majority and supreme court nullified it.
Pathetic moderation by SM. I lost count of the number of times he interrupted his guests after asking them questions. I tend to agree tith Pejamistri, army ai’nt out yet and they dread clauses of COD such as generals submitting their tax returns and military budget debated in the parliament. The myth forwarded by PML-N supporters that only they are anti-establishment and PPP is not is totally wrong. Everyone has a vested interest in this muddle, including Nawaz Sharif
@pejamistri
I just saw your site and you have a very pro ppp blog.
I think you are jiyala and you are seeing the whole thing with “jayala” eyes
second if you want to give these hi fi theories you better give your credentials too. we all know hamid mir and when he says something it carries weight but you too say something that big, is not justified given that you did not even mentioned your name or profession in your blog( i am assuming it is your blog)
@alifnoon
… don’t worry I am Allan 
but may be not.
hahaha ……….. I am Hamid Mir .. just kidding
I am laughing
Remember Allan he was shrewd , cunning and clever
I would though love to be Nannah … he was my favorite
My credentials are very weak though , you can think I am as good an artist as was Nannah in one episode , he will take bicycle and create abstract art.
So I do the same thing , I take a bicycle keep circling all day in my home (I am off these days) and then come up with the above abstract theories.
On the serious note, I wished you had declared my “indian agent” because that is what most people call me after visiting my blog.
@alifnoon
I know your comment was meant for PM but can I budge in to. I have been visiting this site for quite some time but have only posted comments recently. I have noticed that majority of contributors have a pro-PML_N bias. Before the general elections, pkpolitics kept predicting repeatedly that PML-N would emerge as the biggest party. There is also a tendency of PML-N supporters to sneer at PPP. Call everyone who disagrees with them a jayala etc. I regard myself as neutral, I voted for PML-N but in the recent election but also have respect for PPP for the sacrifices they have made which are far in excess of what Nawaz S and associates have gone through. I am amazed how some of PML-N supporters on this site are so extreme and display a total lack of maturity. You and some others seem to think Mian Nawaz Sharif is the only major anti-establishment leader. Well, this is not the case. Nawaz Sharif himself is fortunately far more mature and sensible then his supporters on this site. He made some silly miscalculations in the months of Dec and Jan such as boyccoting elctions before and after BB’s death. But he was sensible enough to allow BB first and AZ later to convince him to participate. You and some other ‘extreme’ supporters keep urging him to pull the rug below PPP after a few months, call new elections and sweep them. Well, he knows it ai’nt as simple as that. I have all respect for what he is doing and I am glad he is not listening to people like you.
@pejamistri
when you are finished with all your laughs then you could talk some sense.
you give big theories and then do the ” i said so ” thing which is a totally sheikh rashid think and yet you can not talk straight when some body question your theories.
anyhow, i am independent and what i said about 5 yr, 3 yr thing was with all honesty without having bias towards any party.
@aayjay
Thanks aayjay , I am in complete agreement with you. But I usually don’t take these remarks very seriously.
Completly out of control program where guests and host were arguing on chicken or egg like situation.No doubt discussion started with good topic but after 15 minutes hotch potch had started.Seeing this situation one could imagine what is going on between asif and sharif these days.We people are so afraid of accepting the supremacy of army mafia and US interference in our national matters and keep nation busy in whirlpool of problems.The summary of last disussion is that, in past both judiciary and parliment were abused and still roughing by army mafia so that they couldnt loose control on state affairs.No parliment or judiciary had ever dare to open the worst crimes of army in front of people and that is bitter reality of history of Pakistan.So in short as we support independence of judicary we should support parliment on national issues thats all and try to stand against US and army’s presence in govt matters.
@aayjay
@pejamistri
I did not say any thing which is Pro PMLN or anti PPP. I am not a very hi fi intellectual or claim to have deep knowledge about pakistan politics. I am just an ordinary voter and unfortunately for PPP most of the voters in pakistan are like me ( in terms of knowledge)
in the streets the perception is PPP is not much happy with judges reinstatement (this is almost a fact, talk to the ordinary ppl around you and you will know)
in democracy it does not matter what is right or wrong, what matters is what ppl think is right or wrong. so even if ppp is right as you guys are saying and the common man is not buying it then to me they are doing a very poor case of making their case to public
and if PPP or jiyalas are going to dismiss rational questions just because it is critical to PPP then my dear you guys will see its result in next election.
I did not like the way Dr shahid Masood was doing this programme,Very strange he called the guests to spaek and do not allow them to speak…..Why Dr Shahid interreupt too much…Dr Shahid asked questions and he himself answered…ha ha ha …what a joke.
Another thing I want t o point out, Why Mush is staying in the army House? Our army do not have balls to throw him out ? or Mush is very sincere with his army mate? or again International policy of BUSH and Arab countries?
Why and How MUSH became so powerful? Who made him so powerful?
This is the main question?
any body wants to answer?????
@aayjay
i have enermous respect for PPP is being the biggest party in Pak politics and if you look back, all the elections in pak heve been contested between PPP and Anti PPP forces, who most of the times come in ITEHAD backed by army and agencies
having said that
PPP is not playing a good role after the ecletions and its so obvious
they are not clear on the issues of working wih a dictator, judges, MQM, Army etc
i am afraid they are becoming the choice of establishment now and turning into what Naawaz sharif ws in the past
Nawaz sharif on the other hand is more focused, and appears sincere on the issues of national importance
if u ask me he does seem like the ONLY leader with a national agenda at the moment
@kurkosmici
Musharraf is the face of army, they are not two different things , he will just go away when army wishes. But considering Musharraf and Army as two different entities is a fallacy. Musharraf is there not because he is so powerful , but because army needs him to be there. I must say however that he still has his say in army affairs , consider him like a retired/old DON , whom mafia people respect but will not necessarily obey him always.
@alifnoon
apologies for being sarcastic. But I am not really interested in PPP/PML-N discussion. I always see all the political forces as one monolithic entity , they keep fighting battle against the establishment sometimes they gain some edge other times they loose , however whenever they have people power behind them they always stand up against the establishment. I consider NS , BB , IK even Junejo and all people who have struggled against establishment as sincere. They at times have resigned to the fate and helped establishment not because they wanted to do so , but because they were weak.
As for being pro-PPP or being pro-PML(N) or pro-IK , I take them as a great honor for me. I hope you would never declare me anti-PML(N) or anti-IK or anti-ABCD political party.
I hope I had made my point pretty clear. I usually avoid discussions about parties and always prefer discussions about dictatorship and democracy.
So apologies in advance if sometimes I am non-serious.
I feel urge to clarify few things. I do get disappointed by the political forces sometimes and there were several such instances in the past. For example:
1. I was extermely disappointed by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto when he ensured release of few hundered army officers above the rank of brigadier (who were PoWs in india). India wanted to have war crimes case against them but ZAB somehow got them released along with 90,000 other PoWs if he had left them at the mercy of Indian I would have though Pak Army would how now been much better force and a proud army of a nation.
2. I was extermely disappointed by BB when she accepted the premiership in 1988 and awarded “Tamgha-e-Jamhooriat” to Aslam Beg.
3. I was extermely disappointed by Nawaz Sharif when he could have stayed in Pakistan in 2001 , causing greate bit of trouble to establishment but he choosed to go in exile.
But in the end all of them paid the price, ZAB executed by the same army, BB murdered and NS could not come to Pakistan with his father’s dead body.
I would be disappointed if Asif Zardari for whatever reason gets tamed.
lol@tea-”cattle”
@arbabkhan
good pick
@ goshi
Zardari has an opinion on some judges which I do not necessarily agree with but I can understand where he is coming from. He sees a lot of things from the perspective of a much wronged and victimised person. He feels the judges should have come to his rescue. Again, I do feel that he should rise above these matters and behave like a statesman. Here I feel he has done well so far in the overall context, taking sensible decisions such as forging the alliance with NS and ANP but then he lacks the acumen of BB. He is however, NOT supporting establishment. Whenever he has spoken, he has used harsh language for these people. Just saw the latest press conference with him and NS. He attacked the army directly by referring to the morning bugle, batman bringing tea and when asked if the attorney general should go, he said everyone from the old order should go. He also said it was the army, not NS which arrested him.
Although restoration of judges is very important symbolically.
Can I ask something that after all this what happened, doesnt that make our judiciary controvertial? would they be able to do “impartial justice” after all this?
Any thoughts?
Dr. Shahid has no manners to organize a discussuon as he keeps interrupt his guests.
I wonder if this is what Americans have taught him in his doctoral. Plus he is paid agent. I remember him doing same in Nawaz Sharif interview where NS was forced to ask him to wait for the next question before he answers his previous question.
What a pathatic person and calling himself a champion of Free Press
What a mess. After 60 years of creation we are still discussing what system do we follow in Pakistan.??
Dr Shahid one of the best media person and undoubtedly THE WORST anchor…super annoying and disrespectful to his guests…;he should do his normal program without inviting anybody…
maybe he’s getting a bit proud and arrogant or maybe not but as an anchor he’s worst….
@aayjay
no doubt that Zardari doesnt have good memories of the judges and they didnt help him and many more like him
Also as we all know that judges dont have such a glorious past history in pak,
but as u said Zardari will prove himself a better leader if he forgets about his personal problems with the judges
if he can go and give MAAFI to MQM for things he doesnt even have a right to forgive them, why cant he forget about what judges did to him?
if he can forget killings for hundreds of people, forgetting a few years behind the bars is comparatively a small thing to do
another important thing to remember is that many people may not be able to see his point of view the way u do
and its damaging for PPP.
Genaral impression is that he is not happy about he judges issue and in doing so, he is helping Mush indirectly or maybe directly
this impression is getting stronger by the day
Nawaz sharif on the other hand is establishing himself as someone who doesnt care about being in the Gov and is standing firm to support the wishes of pak people
TOO many Crooks spoil the food………..
@hasskhan:
“Justice Iftikhar should be life-time Judge of Supreme Court of Pakistan.”
Plz… plz…. don’t get too carried away!!!
Please visit this page ;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/country_profiles/1157960.stm#leaders
This page still shows President Musharaf as sole leader of Pakistan, Whilst if look at indian page, it gives equal coverage to prime minister and President.Following is india\’s page;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/country_profiles/1154019.stm#leaders
I have ring BBC and lodged my complain. Please contact BBC and log ur complains as well and tell this to as many pakistanis as possible.
Please look at following page on bbc website to make a complain;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
@pejamistry
i fully agree with you we should stand by political forces and whole 17th ammendment should be removed not only one clause ,this is going to be fair deal
WELL DONE HAMID MIR THAT YOU TOLD TRUTH TO NATION ESTABLISHMENT VS POLITICAL FORCES MATCH
IF THEY CAN IMPLEMENT COD IT WILL BE THE BIGGEST WIN OF POLITICAL PARTIES
@GOSHI
ZARDARI WILL FORGET PERSONAL BAD MEMORIES AND HE WILL RESTORE THE JUDGES BECAUSE HE ACTED VERY MATURELY TILL NOW
HE CONVINCED UK GOVT THAT DIALOUGE IS BEST OPTION IN TRIBAL AREA
@maik123
thast what we all hope for, dont we?
but apparently they have agreed on yet ANOTHER COMMITTEE who will look into the matter
for God sake how many more committees about the judges?
also, Zardari has mentioned Sahala Rest House again in todays news conference , and how noone ( i-e judges )came to his rescue
he is not forgetting it , to me he looks like a a ziddi child now, who is going on and on about his personal conflicts with the judges
and this doesnt look good
@pejamistri: I just read your first post and agreed that it is the army and not moshe which is the establishment, and I’m also of the opinion that the so called “establishment” is in the background for now…
however I think SM and HM have NO IDEA what they’re talking about vis-a-vis the constitution. The point Ansar Abbasi tried to make was that the parliament is a creature of the constitution (which itself is a consensus born child of a constitutent assembly). I’m no constitutional expert but there is a subtle but critical difference. I think @sr described it well yesterday.
From a systems programming perspective, A constitutent assembly is like the boot sector/process in the life cycle of a democracy.
It is like the boot sector booting the OS, then it’s job is done and it is the OS which takes over.. (except that there is a hacker, let’s call him Zaleeludin-Haramzada, who keeps fvcking patching the binaries while the OS is trying to run )
So, the constitution (the kernel) is the one that the running system refers to for rights/privileges/security/execution/startup/shutdown .. the Kernel is the constitution, Boot sector is the constituent assembly (and a kernel recompile is the “amendment” process)
So, Nov 3rd, we had the hacker (lets call him Zaleeluddin-Haramzada again) make some real fvcked up changes to the kernel source (the constitution text)… and his dimwit friend (Moshe Kutyan) rebooted the system.. but forgot to recompile the kernel.. so the system is still running under nov2 compiled kernel.. but these n00bs think it is running with the changes..
It is only a matter of time before this system crashes.. and kicks both these hackers out (hopefully they’ll get caught and punished for illegal acts).
anyway.. this was a lazy analogy/metaphor (simile?).. so don’t expect it to actually work.
Very disappointed.
This was an important day when leaders of two parties were meeting to sort out their differences and restoration of judiciary should be the topic of the day. But Dr. Shahid started useless discussion of who is superior, he never let speak any one except Hamid Mir. Mostly SH style of conducting the discussion is annoying. If he dont like the speakers then they should not be invited in the first place and if he asks a question then as a good host he should listen to their opinion. Three guests in this episode were not allowed to speak their mind for any single question. Too annoying.
Would you guys believe, i got headache after watching this programme. I dont know, why Dr. SM has changed himself from a very decent, down to earth anchor to an idiot and stupid anchor.
Think for a while, would Talat let it happen in his programme?
@safshan
that exectly they did, if u understand. why Hamid Mir and others were so depressed and afraid of the near future(the forces working behind, ARMY).
@drmohsan
better to hear what they say, not to compare people them.
Wassalam
I am enjoying the bashing HM is getting from some people just because he said thing that do not reflect their feeling…these people who have rated him one of the best…..etc..in their posts…and now saying he is hypocrat, work for agencies….just because they do not agree with his point of view…..
pure joy to see this……poor HM…now he will pay the price for saying the right thing as babar awan in one of HM’s program said “Baat to such hai magar baat a ruswai ki”…..HM did the same and getting bashed…..poor HM…..
Roedad Khan: I do not know why spent cartridges like him are invited to such talks. People like him have served their military masters very well, and now retired they write and talk as if they have sacrificed for the sake of democracy all their lifetime. These nincompoops are well beyond their sell by date, and should be discarded.
Ansar: As usual emotional, and like a spoiled brat insisting that he should be heard. Quite disappointing really. He probably had some input to make, that was lost in his childish tantrums.
Minallah: What struck me was his lack of knowledge. HM corrected him on few occasions, re the 5th amendment etc. Would have thought, being a barrister of Supreme Court, he would be well versed with the constitution at least.
Hamid Mir: Purely incredible. I have immense respect for this man. He has knowledge, flare, and acumen. Knows when to talk, what to say, and how to express himself. Above all his depth of knowledge is astonishing to say the least. He spoke about the US constitution, and the way the US judiciary is appointed through the 1789 regulations of the constitution, shows the range of his learning. He is an asset.
SM: Excellent. Should have given HM more time to talk. He knows how to switch from one topic to another, does it flawlessly.
some one can help me .
is 17th amendment is the part of the constitution ?? if no then what parliment thinks better they are allowed to do it
if yes… then they must need two-third majority to change or remove it.. right but as far frm the talk show i get to know . ppp . pml n and ANP dont have two-third majority so how they will do it ???
or if they have two-third majority they first task it to throw out MUSharraf like all we do . first throw out the thing that creating problems then we solve those problems that had been created by him
@nota
I completely agree with you that none of them mentioned that the CJ of US Supreme Court is for lifetime. I was kinda waiting for that argument to come but it never popped up.
PMs statement that he can restore judges by exec order…….if his party leadership instructs him to do so
since the unexpected/expected ups and downs since yesterday i dont know if this is encouraging news or not so!
http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=44019
@ IamGullible, Part123, salmanZafar
The reason a few people have been critical of SM and HM is that failed to understand a subtle yet very elementary argument that is cornerstone of parliamentary democracies and rule of law states.
What SM and HM are misreading is the definition of parliamentary sovereignty. Here are the two possible definitions.
A. Parliamentary sovereignty entails that the parliament can promulgate any legislation.
B. Parliamentary sovereignty entails that only the parliament can legislate or extend the right to legislate.
Most people are not able to differentiate between A and B, whereas there is a world of difference. I was critical of SM and HM since being news anchors they should have studied enough Govt. and Law to know the difference. Turns out that the vast majority of academics have accepted B as the definition.
It is one of the really intriguing premises of a rule-of-law state. I would be happy to have a discussion about this if you are interested.
Hamid Mir and shahid crying about parliament bla bla bla…if this parlaiment pass a resolution with 2/3 rd majority that Geo should be banned and hamid mir and shahid should not appear on media life time then same black sheeps will cry …this is against human rights, this is illegal , this is unfair etc etc..and they are insisting that daku zaradri should not restore honest judges and parlaiment can send them home……..absolutely idiot…every human right is for these idiots to misguide people.. anyone who provide justice should go home….what a shame
Mr.Hamid Mir you are so arrogant but its nice that people are recognising you as black sheep with some hidden agenda
if PML (N) withdraw its support then see how biggest dacoit of pakistan zaradri pass this “chor package”
@ sr
Being critical and analyzing any argument shouldn’t be frowned upon.
It is, nonetheless, interesting that you have produced two forms of theses, A & B, asserting that the vast majority of academics have accepted B as the definition. I assume that what you are trying to convey is that “the vast majority of academics have accepted B as opposed to A”. In the absence of any evidence substantiating your assertion, I am, however, skeptical of the existence of such a body of academics, who have specifically argued on just these two very finely conflicting points, and arrived at point B.
My interest in extending this argument any further is, however, extremely minuscule, as the argument put forward by SM was whether the Parliament was superior to the judiciary or vice versa.
@pejamistri: I just read your first post and agreed that it is the army and not moshe which is the establishment, and I’m also of the opinion that the so called “establishment” is in the background for now…
however I think SM and HM have NO IDEA what they’re talking about vis-a-vis the constitution. The point Ansar Abbasi tried to make was that the parliament is a creature of the constitution (which itself is a consensus born child of a constitutent assembly). I’m no constitutional expert but there is a subtle but critical difference. I think @sr described it well yesterday.
From a systems programming perspective, A constitutent assembly is like the boot sector/process in the life cycle of a democracy.
It is like the boot sector booting the OS, then it’s job is done and it is the OS which takes over.. (except that there is a hacker, let’s call him Zaalaeeludin-Haaramzada, who keeps frigging patching the binaries while the Operating System is trying to run )
So, the constitution (the kernel) is the one that the running system refers to for rights/privileges/security/execution/startup/shutdown .. the Kernel is the constitution, Boot sector is the constituent assembly (and a kernel recompile is the “amendment” process)
So, Nov 3rd, we had the hacker (lets call him Zaleeeluddin-Haraamzada again) make some real FIGGED up changes to the kernel source (the constitution text)… and his dimwit friend (Moshe Kutyan) rebooted the system.. but forgot to recompile the kernel.. so the system is still running under nov2 compiled kernel.. but these n00bs think it is running with the changes..
It is only a matter of time before this system crashes.. and kicks both these haackers out (hopefully they’ll get caught and punished for illegal acts).
anyway.. this was a lazy analogy/metaphor (simile?).. so don’t expect it to actually work.
(had to repost this as it has been in moderation for hours)
@ IamGullible
The reason I didn’t put forth any evidence is because I was merely setting up the discussion. As I said I would be interested in extending the argument if you desire. Another reason I left out the evidences is that this is a subject on which loads and loads of stuff has been written, and a great many parameters exist in any final assessment. I have on another thread posted a reference to the following case which is a great starting point to find out about judicial review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Food for thought: The parliament is sovereign and has legislative powers. Yet, parliament does not have the right to abdicate its sovereignty.
Your assertion that SM was simply trying to establish ordinal superiority between the judiciary and the legislature, is a mis-characterization of the debate. Everyone agrees that the parliament is sovereign. The debate was whether this sovereignty is absolute in that are there no limits to what the parliament can legislate. So for instance Abassi was saying it isn’t as simple as one trumping the other. The trichotomy of power defines mutually exclusive domains of each organ, and organ therefore exercise its authority in its domain. That was the part that SM and HM failed to get.
I think Shahid Masood and Hamid Mir have got it wrong. With written constitution the parliament is a creation of constitution and cannot totally redraft the constitution. It can amend the constitution (and therefore it will be within its right to repeal the 17th amendment) but it cannot restructure the fundamentals of the constitution. This is a well known position in constitutional law. To draft the constitution we need a constituent assembly (like the one elected through 1945 elections) which is mandated with this task. The constituent assembly of 1945 used to work as legislative assembly (aka parliament) as well but they took pains to mention which session is meant for which purpose.
It is exactly for this reason that superior judiciary in Pakistan is vested with powers of judicial review of any legislation (or even constitutional amendment). It can strike down any law or amendment if it is contrary to the basic structure of the constitution. However, this does not give powers to the judiciary to enact laws.
The basic structure of the constitution which cannot be touched is defined in the constitution and it includes, inter alia, fundamental rights, parliamentary form of democracy, independence of judiciary etc. I am surprised why Hamid and Shahid were unable to get a handle on this simple concept.
A system of Govt. will be effective not by making the parliment supreme but by distributing powers between three branches of the Govt.–Executive, Legeslative and Judicial in a fashion so that Any two branches check the power of the third for a balanced approach to govt.
To answer the questions of the panel: Yes, Parliment can amend the constitution; however, such amendment must remain within a framework that provides for absolute protection for the fundamental rights of independent entities residing within pakistan.
Entities include People of Pakistan as well as any legal entities.
@
inaam
you raised excellent point..why hM and shahid cant get this point coz they do not wanna get…….its easy to see understand ones arguments on certain issues just to observe his activities in the past..if you look at HM after elections he is constyntly propmoting MQM and speaking the langauge of PPP in his programmes and also in his columns so for me i am not surprised by this…i m bit surprised by SM but he has to match HM and kamran Khan in supporting corrupt elite to remain in Geo……these guys get about one million per month and they have to save their jobs by fulfilling Geo policy of promoting MQM and speaking against N league and other democratic forces
@ sr
Interesting… My take on constitution law has been relatively little of late, than I’d liked to have desired. “The trichotomy of power” in your post has, however, tickled my memory, as I seem to recall a few write ups that I’d come across but skipped for an opportune moment. IA Rehman for one did write something I think. Would be quite interesting read.
@sleepingnation
I’d be inclined to give benefit of doubt to Shahid and Hamid. I think that either they were unaware of this concept (which is disappointing) or the real question question they were trying to posit was “is parliament empowered to undo 17th amendment?” (which I think it is).
In any case, it is frustrating to see poor handling of the debate by Shahid as the question would have been resolved easily had he given chance to the guests to speak through.
Even if parliament does repeal the amendment, it can still be subjected to the judicial review and if mala fide is manifestly clear the repeal or a part of it thereof can be struck down by the supreme court. At least, that is how I look at it.
@
inaam
i just wanna add one point , during SC hearing of the case regarding eligibility of the perevez Musharraf to contest presedential election. AG Qayum raise the same point of parliament supermacy and in reply to that Aitzaz said exactly that
“If this parliament elect some mentally abnormal guy as president of pakistan or a guy which is non muslim then what this court will do?
apart from this legal debate if we take things in a simple way …parliament represnts will of people and needs two third majority for such a package ..if N league and ANP do not support such a zardari package then how ppp will pass that ….will they invite HM and shahid to vote…….lol
@ sleepingnation
“If this parliament elect some mentally abnormal guy as president of pakistan or a guy which is non muslim then what this court will do?”
this argument is different…what aitzaz was saying is that the parliament itself has enacted law that prevents it from electing a non-muslim..in this particular case, the parliament first has to amend the constitution with two thirds in both the houses, and then it can go ahead with the election
this debate was about judicial review….so lets say that even with a unanimous vote in both the houses the parliament CAN NOT extend its term to a hundred years….the supreme court will shoot this legislation down….no argument about parliament representing popular will could be made….it is simply not entitled to do so
@ IamGullible
would you happen to have a link to Rehman’s article
This is one of the worst discussions I ever watched in a so called great TV programme. SM was a horrible anchor. Why he invited so many people when he can’t handle them?
Why SM and HM saying that parliament is supreme. Yes its superior to an individual but not the supreme. I personally believe that Ansar Abassi was right that “constitution” is supreme. Constitution gives the fundamental rights to every person and institution. And judiciary is the protector of the constitution. Yes parliament can make constitution but they cant the basic rights. Even if the parliament is thrown out still one can go to the courts to seek justice, it makes the constitution and law above all. Any comments?
Why HM brought all these books? Does he know all the questions in advance?
I hope SM start hosting the programme without any guests.
i am currently watching todays mera mutabiq with imran khan…that looks soo good……i feel dr shahid and imran khan and good friends. they are just getting on in a really good manner. mqm will be pissing in their pants.
@
establishment
well apart from personalities..issues are important…Media should support restoration of all judges including Iftikhar Ch. if HM , shahid , kamran khan and other geo members keep on misguiding people then i am afraid it is not importang that they talk with Imran Khan in a good way or not…..
I think this debate between parliment and constitution is senseless. Both things are inter related. Parliment consists of people who make constitution and once constitution is there, they should all follow it. Now if you follow something it means that constitution is greater than parliment .But on the other hand parliment has an authority to change the constitution which makes them supreme. But now if you think back, whatever is the new constitution all members should not follow it, so once again constitution becomes supreme.
So I don’t know what is to gain from this discussion. Hamid Mir brought this issue up to prove his point that parliment has an authority to retire judges.
I am usually too much annoyed the way Dr. Shahid conducts this prgram. He never allows anybody to finish and this program is always feels like a fish market. Whenever something comes to his mind he starts speaking. He never cares if somebody is already speaking. Havev anybody else noticed it??
@Hardliner wrote:
“I think this debate between parliament and constitution is senseless”
————————————
I think you are wrong. You jest about what you suppose to be a triviality, in asking whether the parliament came first from a constitution or the constitution from a parliament. Verily I tell you, had the constitution come first, there would have been no parliament to sit on it for 21 days and keep it warm, so a live new parliament would never have hatched from it.
But I will solve your problem:
Upon careful examination of the entries and accompanying definitions in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, one can accurately assert that “constitution” is found on page 232, while “parliament” is not found until page 398. Therefore, according to this argument, constitution clearly comes before parliament.
I think I just wasted 1 hour because of no topic of discussion.
The only fact one can know from this programe is orginality of Hamid Mir. Before people often say that he is a man of establishment or one who can be bought and I never believed but in this program he proved it clearly.
You all must watch today ’s Bolta Pakistan in which a woman caller from Lahore slapped Hamid for his stand.
Let me jump into the discussion of sovergnity of the parliament vs supreme courte. It is so disappointing to see that even people like Athar Minallah can easily buy the argument of the cronies of dictator like Shareef ud din Peerzada. And it is more disappointing when you see that in a country where supreme court allows the dictator to make any amendments in the constitution and the dictator changes the whole face of the constitution. And here we are talking about the sovergnity of parliament and discussing whether parliament can make any laws, can amend the constitution and what is supreme constitution or the parliament.
However since it makes an interesting academic discussion, let me put my thoughts here.
Let us first define certain terms:
1. Soveriegn Parliament: A soveriegn parliament is a parliament that “represents the will of people” and has complete authority in making the laws that govern the country including the amendments in the constitution.
2. Structure of Constitution: The “basic structure of constitution” is a misnomer deliberately propagated by the cangroo courts during the era of different dictators , since these courts allowed these dictators to amend the constitution arbitrarily therefore in order to hide their guilt they invented the term “basic structure of the constitution” and said a dictator can not amend the “basic structure of the constitution” , and it is disgusting to note that when people forward the same argument against the parliament they are actually equating a dictator with the parliament. More disgusting is that these cangroo courts did never had the courage to really define in clear terms what the “basic structure of constitution” means. If you ask they would say it is related to the Islamic nature of the constitution and parliamentary system. And if you ask them which clauses can not be modified or represent the parliamentary system they will be dumb founded.
3. Judicial Review : Unfortunately sometimes the very noble and respectable terms becomes a mockery because of how our courts abused these terms. The judicial review process as described in the US constitution did never apply to constitution of Pakistan. Unlike US constitution , there is no clause in constitution of Pakistan that confers upon the supreme court of Pakistan to do a judicial review. In general Judicial review process is a well established procedure of law , however again our cangro courts used this process to always validate the dictator’s actions. Judicial review process was always abused by the Supreme Court of Pakistan by reviewing the amendments made by the dictators and then declare them valid.
Now let me say that although Hamid Mir is not the expert on constitution nor am I. However IMHO he is absolutely right about the notion of “soveregnity of the parliament”. The absurd arguments like “can the parliament extends its life to 100 years ” or “can parliament declare all men should wear women costumes” are logical fallacies at best and preposterous at worst. It is similar to ask the question “Since God can do EVERYTHING, Can God make a giant rock which HE himself can not lift?”
Continued……..
just two compares talking their minds… and they think they are right and dont let anybody talk…. I dont know y the analysts were invited if Dr Shahid and Hamid Mir was supposed to talk and dominate…. Dr should try to control himself he never let anyone finish…
anyway I agree that the constitution of Pakistan is supreme not the Parliament…
@linear chaos
Perhaps they were bribed to make a public opinion in favour of PPPP ’s point of view
or
maybe there were asked to measure the temperature on the issue of judiciary that how hot it is still by starting such a debate.
@ linear choas
don’t believe that this forum should debate this issues….but let me tell you one thing…..and believe am competent to make the statement
“Constitution is not supreme. It is the Parliament that is supreme”. If the parliament can amend a clause or for that matter create a new constitution how can constitution be supreme..simple point…..
Continued from above…
The sovereignity of the parliament is the basic principle of the parliamentary system. The parliament has full authority to enact any laws and amend any article of the constitution. The jurisdiction of supreme court is only limited to identify and rule if any law or amendment in the constition is in conflict with another article of the constition and this jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court by the parliament itself.
The argument of Parliament is a product of constition hence constition is Supreme is inherently flawed. Since constition grants the parliament right to amend itself hence constition itself becomes creature of the parliament, it is sort of CHICKEN-EGG problem. However just as I said above if we ignore the logically contradictory questions like this one Can God Make a Rock So Big He Can’t Lift It? , than it is pretty easy to understand the question of sovereignity of Parliament.
Dr Shahid is a good analyst.
He can manage one guest perfectly but not more than one.
@TK
“From a systems programming perspective, A constitutent assembly is like the boot sector/process in the life cycle of a democracy.”
Nice analogy. Allow me to carry it a little further.
I’d say constitution is like the Linux kernel as developed by the team of Linus (with the exception that constitution is drafted only once and we cannot have multiple versions of it).
Then there is a team of sys admins (federal govt.) that can use the knobs provided by the kernel to tune and run it (the executive authority).
Then we have user level applications (normal legislation by the parliament) that can be developed by the developers (the parliamentarians) and deployed by the sys admin (the executive).
Also, the developers can write the kernel modules (constitutional amendments) and deploy them (through executive decree).
Finally if the developers (the parliamentarians) try to tinker with the core of the kernel (the fundamental structure of the constitution) then they are inviting a system crash.
I have to say, it was one of the worst episode of Mere Mutabiq.
I would request this site to communicate to Dr Shahid that he has not only wasted our time but also the time of Advocate Athar Minallah and Ansar Abbasi.
There was no decorum in the program and Dr. Shahid intentionally stopped Athar Minallah and Ansar Abbasi and never interrupted Hamid Mir and Rouedad Khan.
@inaam
You are referring to the novice developers (parliament under the dictators umberella like in 2002) who don’t understand the source code (parliamentary system) of the kernel, whereas the expert developers (parliamentarians of sovereign parliament representing the will of people) with complete understanding of the source code as well as hardware platform (the country and its people) are competent enough to make any changes in the kernel and in fact they are required to do so as you can not keep running the x86 kernel on a quad core machine or super computer
Parliament is sovereign and its duty is to protect constitution.
Tests for our newly born parliament to prove its sovereinity are:
- restoration of judiciary.
- impeachment of mushy.
- debate on NRO to see its moral, ethical, constitutional base.
- to revise our pro-USA policies in parliament.
@inaam
BTW if my company buys your argument they will kick me out of the job as I have to tinker the kernel of OS all the time and if we get afraid of system crash then my company may still be selling the OS of 1973
@ sr
http://opf.overseaspakistanis.net/wp/1180/the-trichotomy-myth-by-i-a-rehman/
@pejamistri
I fully understand and share your frustration towards the dismal performance of our superior judiciary so far. Yes, they have buckled in front of dictators without exception. They have allowed dictators to trample the spirit of the constitution remorselessly. But we all agree that 9th March 2007 has brought about an organic change in the alignment of power vis a vis organs of state.
From a purely legal aspect I’d like the superior judiciary to hold the powers of striking down an ‘un-constitutional’ constitutional amendment. And it is not always a case of logical fallacies. Back in August 2007 the Pirzada was trying to push for repeal of Article 184(3) which is the clause that gives judiciary the power to take action in public interest (either suo moto or on petition).
I do agree that changing the tenure of judges is within the ambit of power of parliament. It is like making an x86_32 binary x86_64. But what judiciary must guard against is if someone tries to run x86 on opteron (changing parliamentary system to presidential by including 58-2B and other such crap.
@ pejamistri
Here’s what you said:
The absurd arguments like “can the parliament extends its life to 100 years ” or “can parliament declare all men should wear women costumes” are logical fallacies at best and preposterous at worst. It is similar to ask the question “Since God can do EVERYTHING, Can God make a giant rock which HE himself can not lift?”
What a stupid and light-weight dismissal of the argument. I was asking this MQM guy to show me evidence of a litany of allegation is was making and he retorted that now you’ll even ask me show you God.
Where is the logical fallacy? You claim: “The parliament has full authority to enact any laws and amend any article of the constitution.”. Can it eliminate the writ of heabeus corpus? Can it extend its term beyond reasonable measure? Can it dissolve the supreme court?
Dictators have used kangroo courts to forwards their agenda…that does not however undermine the principle of judicial authority…because if you give in the argument then the logical extension is that dictators have also used parliaments to forward their agenda…and then we can just dismiss the idea of parliamentary authority as well…try thinking about an argument before making one.
You are sounding off as if Shareefudddin Peerzada defines judicial review. If it has been misused it is because corrupt judges have misused powers. That does not mean that the powers are not legit.
@inam:
I’m starting get a strong feeling that had Mr. $&%-zada met a Bedford truck un-expectedly on the streets of Pindi or Islamabad in the 60’s, our wretched nation would have been much better off.
Where’s an assassin with a steady hand when you really really need one!
@inaam
I did not raise the question of change after 9th March 2007 and there is no question about the jurisdiction of the supreme court just read my above remarks about the jurisdiction of the supreme court.
However let me again humbly disagree with you that
Judiciary is not comptetent to decide if our country is a opteron or x86 , it is the parliament which decides what is the hardware platform in other words what is the “will of people” , Judiciary only need to have spine (which fortunately they are developing after 9th March 2007), to stand against an intruder (virus) and safeguard the will of people which is epitomized in the constitution.
@sr
Sorry my friend , you need a course in logic. (just kidding wanted to poison the well)
Just in the next paragraph after dismissing my argument, you said.
Can it eliminate the writ of heabeous corpus ? well this is exactly the same question as can God make giant rock? Why because the elimination of write heabeous corpus is self contradictory to the existence of constitution , a logical contradiction occurs when one part of the argument contradicts the other , the existence of constitution guarantees the existence of judiciary and judiciary has the writ of heapeous corpus.
And if you thought the I quoted the God’s argument as some religious reference than I am sorry you were again the fallacy I quoted is part of logic sylabus and word “God” is used in logic to signify something capable of doing anything. That is why I quoted the reference in my second part. There is no relation of my God with your God
I think there are different roles for different institutions in a democracy.Parliament makes the laws and the Judiciary ensures that these laws are not against the intent of the costitution. So this rhetoric by HM and SM, well who is supreme? is childish. And again two wrongs do not make a right, so if it was wrong at the time of 17th ammendment to extend the tenure of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, at this time if you try to reverse it just to get Iftikhar Chaudry out of the picture it would be very wrong too. Maybe not strictly wrong in a legal sense, but here is the message you send to all public servants:Stand up for justice-and you shall pay the price! and it does not matter if all of the nation stands behind you, we will find legal mumbo jumbo to punish you.
It is high time we start untying the stones and tying the dogs.
And is it just me or does anybody get the feeling that Hamid Mir is just trying to stir up things by arguing for both sides and then stepping back and smiling contently! Look how smart I am! Pathetic.
@ pejamistri
oh so you do believe that there are some inalienable powers and rights vested in the judiciary, and which the parliament can not deprive it of?
@pejamistri
I think we are getting bogged down in a legal groove. For a new constitution we need a constituent assembly. Such an assembly is elected on the mandate that it will decide how the govt. should be formed. The parties go to election not with manifestos talking about governance but they talk about the form of government in such elections. Once framed, the constitution becomes a sacred document that expresses the ’social contract’ signed between the people and the state. From that point on even Parliament cannot change its basic semantics without making an appeal to the people.
But again these are more like nuances of constitutional law. Lets agree to disagree on that
@Paf123
well me make me understand this… y do u need to elect a different parliament which can form a constitution? if parliament is supreme then y dont the current members honor the indemnification of Musharraf’s actions by the previous parliament?? y are the members talk about upholding the spirit of constitution?? y do we even discuss the constitution if it is such a volatile text?? the fact of the matter is that the constitution is a written document and not even the member of the parliament are allowed to change some clauses of the constitution.. if the constitution itself says that some clauses of the constitution cannot be changed then by the parliament then how come the parliament can be supreme??? if supreme court is the protector of the constitution and not even the parliament can mess with this apex court (according to the constitution) then how come parliament can be supreme
anyway i want to see the parliament to be supreme and if we want this we need to reconsider our philosophy about constitution…
@inaam
I am sorry I am unable make my point very clear. Our discussion will keep going in circles so let us leave it as it is.
@sr, @inaam
Can not help though to add the following.
If the parliament is sovereign and has the full authority to enact any law or amend constitution in anyway then can parliament make the following amendment in the constitution.
Article 248 (a) : From April 22nd 2008, notwithstanding anything in the constitution , the parliament will not be able to enact any law or make any amendment in the constitution. The right of the parliament to make any amendment or law has now been withdrawn completely from the parliament.
…….
I hope that makes it very clear , Can God make the rock so BIG that he can not lift it.
@pejamistri
exactly my point…check out my posts at 5:41pm and 6:42pm
@ Linear chaos
who said that you need another parliament to form a constitution…this is an argument which is put forth by some jurists but in my opinion any parliament has the power to create a new constituion……Second…you made couple of points about parliament following the constituion…once the constitution is in place the parliament has to act within the parameters of the constitution UNLESS they decide to amend it or for that matter make a new one…let me give you a simple example…it is like a body creating laws for its structure and functioning….that does not mean that the parliament has no power to change it…..where in the constitution it says that you cannot change the some of its provisions..parliament has power change any provision of the constitution…please do not confuse it with spirit of the constitution..sprit of the constitution is there as long as the corpus is there….if the parliament changes the corpus there will be no spirit……there is nothing in the consitutiion that says the parliament cannot mess with the SC..infact it is other way around..SC cannot mess the parliament…suppose tomorrow…parliament passes an amendment reducing the number of judges of SC…supreme court has no power to strike the amendment…I am giving crude examples…but this is an intricate issues that primarily revolves around the following:
1. Creator (parliament) — can make, amend a constitution.
2. Constituion — created by the pariliament which lays down the structure of the government and limitation on all the tiers of the government including parliament….
BUT
that does not mean the creator (parliament) by creating a working framework for the government has lost the power to change or amend the structure….hope it clarifies….if not good luck my firend because I have to log out now..;-)))
@pejamistri
“Article 248 (a) : From April 22nd 2008, notwithstanding anything in the constitution , the parliament will not be able to enact any law or make any amendment in the constitution. The right of the parliament to make any amendment or law has now been withdrawn completely from the parliament.”
Because we are not talking about metaphysics here, a normal constitutional system should be able to deal with such logical contradictions.
The above will be challenged in Supreme Court and the lawyer for the petitioner will project the inherent dichotomy in the court. Any reasonable judge will refuse to go into the merits of whether or not the above law gets enacted in the first place (as it contradicts itself) rather the judge will deliver that the above law is void ab initio being contradictory to the fundamentals of the constitution.
[I have taken the liberty to assume that the above system still allows Supreme Court to review the legal enactments of Parliament]
BTW: do you work for google? Your comment about tweaking OS kernel made me curious.
@Paf123
I think your arguments were better than mine. Can not agree with you more.
@sr
I quoted this in the context of logical fallacy. This is called self-contradictory premise. That is second part of the argument contradicts the first part. Such arguments are absurd and are rejected on the basis of logical fallacy. So I take the word “Sovereign” as in its true sense and attach no strings of limitation on that right.
BTW @Paf123 made good points and i would buy his argument rather than putting mine. I am Ahmed Raza Qasoori who usually buys the arguments of Malik Qayyum ( Sorry Paf123 no pun intended).
@pejamistri
i don’t get it….just answer a few questions
a) Suppose a parliament legislates to eliminate habeus corpus. Can it promulgate such legislation?
b) Who decides whether the parliament can promulgate a legislation or not?
Who is superior ? Constitution or Parliment ?
Who came first? Anda ya Murghi ?
I disagree with Hamid Mir.
If Parliment is superior to Constitution, then a Parliment can approve a resolution that current Government (whatsoever) will be in power for next 50 years.
Then what will happen ? Elections after every 50 years??
@ pejamistri
Thanks….you see I am not mistri (no pun intended) ;-))
@pejamistri: I’m reading these comments with interests as it is clearing up my own mind, but I tend to agree with the line of reasoning taken by @sr . I think you and paf123 might be mixing up the two types of assemblies (one is constituent, the other is a parliament which comes into being after the constitution is approved by the constituent — though we did have a hybrid from what I understand)…
In my understanding, this is how it goes:
1) the constituent assembly gets the mandate to formalize a ’social contract’ into a constitution (Habaeus Corpus is part of certain contracts [those descending from Magna Carta for example] — it is not in-alienable IMO)
2) Once the constitution is agreed upon, the constituent assembly is dissolved. The constitution is in effect and new elections are called to elect an assembly with the mandate to enact laws within the bounds of the formalized social contract.
3) The assembly thus elected can create laws, amend laws etc. but cannot (in my understanding) touch certain things (like rights considered ‘in-alienable’ .. that is civilization specific though.. in a maya parliment freedom to chew cocoa leaves maybe enshrined as ‘inalienable’ — I’m just giving an absurd example to explain my point)
4) Now, the Parliament is ’sovereign’ but with certain limits (Qarardad-e Maqasid anyone?) If someone feels there is an issue with any laws or amendments, they can challenge it in the Supreme Court which indeed is the guardian of the constitution along with the Parliament.
I think in an effort to establish which organ is supreme we are overlooking the importance of checks and balances that ought to exist between these organs of state. IMO all the organs are equally endowed with powers but ought also be able to check the others if need be.
Problem has been that we have monkeys like **#-zada who have been futzing with the constitution and have really killed the spirit of the parliamentary system that was intended (not to mention making person specific changes)
@sr
239.Constitution Amendment Bill
(5)No amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever.
(6) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution.]
if you go by exact words of constitution then parliament is allowed to do any thing
@alifnoon: makes me wish there was a constitution wiki where I could see exactly when a given clause was made part of the constitution (and some background)…
this sounds like Pirzada’s handiwork
Program format of Dr Shahid ,”Meray Mutabiq” is different from otherones , like Capital Talk.
Although it is most of the time ‘Meray Mutabiq’ of Dr Shahid (that is his views) ,however it is to be (and very rightly ) ‘Meray Mutabiq’ of some guest , that is guest’s own views.
Its more of analytical nature than a straightaway inconclusive discussion.
And it is generally true that reaching to a conclusion (may be right,partially right or wrong) gets to be more and more difficult, as the number of persons increase,hence the format of the program is disturbed.
@TK
my knowledge is that the article 239 was in original constitution and it is still untouched
and you know the funny part is just yesterday Supreme court nullified the graduation bar which was protected by 17 amendment
to me the more appropriate question is how and why Supreme court adopted the role of custodian of constitution. I believe their job is just to interpret the constitution
@TK
Sorry I don’t agree with the term of “constitutent assembly” , the term was initially used in 1946 by the British and was indirectly elected by the provincial lagislative assembly and it was set up to form the constitution of india however it never did so as on August 14/15 the India was divided and the constituent assembly became “Indian Parliament” which drafted the constitution in 1949 whereas in Pakistan the same partial assembly became to constituent assembly of Pakistan which again did not draft any constitution for Pakistan.
The term “constitutent assembly” was later misused or abused. British coined this term because India was being run under the British acts not constitution and as they decided to leave the country.
As far as matter of “in-alienable” rights are concerned again this myth was created by successive dictators and their cangroo courts. In constitution of Pakistan no in-alienable rights defined. The terms “basic structure” , or “certain things” are simply myths. (Please don’t forward the arguments like “Can assembly extend its life to 100 years” etc.. I have already discussed them)
Parliament has no strings attached to its lagislative power including but not limited to amending the constitution. BTW you will never find a single clause in constitution of Pakistan which says that another clause of the constitution can not be amended.
As far as checks and balance is concerned there is no check and balance on the Parliaments lagislative powers , the checks and balance always come into on the authority of the organ (like executive/judiciary/parliament) and is defined in the constitution as such.
So in a nutshell constituent assembly is a misnomer , a constituent assembly is no different than parliament in fact once the constituent assembly has drafted the constitution it does not get dissolved but becomes parliament (parliament is btw name given in constitution) , see the indian constitution history when constituent assembly became first indian Parliament, similarly 1973 assembly did not get dissolved after framing the 1973 constitution.
Morover a parliament is no different in powers than constituent assembly only that there is constitution which it amends.
@alifnoon: All these cases being “cleared” right and left should be an indication that our system cannot be fixed without a major (and I mean Major) purge of the rotten eggs that make up our ruling elites… There is still people in the judiciary etc who are for sale and are doing things on the behest of one person (or agencies or whatever).
I’m not sure regarding the role o