Contrary to slogan of PPP leaders and many others, Pakistan’s judiciary is acting very prudently as it carefully makes its steps in the continuously evolving situation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, seems to understand the evolutionary process that Pakistan is going through. As a matter of fact, the judiciary is mindful of the way the judicial power has been invoked by courts in the US and Europe throughout the 19th century. Therefore, at the end of the day, Pakistan’s judiciary will have the last laugh if it sticks to the path it has taken.

The Supreme Court passed a judgement to reappoint an official, Sohail Ahmed, who was heading the inquiry about the Hajj scandal. The rumour and some published reports indicate that Mr Ahmed was transferred to newly formed province of Gilgit-Baltistan because he asked Prime Minister Gilani’s son to appear before the investigating authorities. Whatever the reason may be, his removal seemed to be retribution against Mr Ahmed. The said official was abiding by the orders of the court that aggravated some top leaders in the executive branch. The problem for the court is that if the officials abiding by the decision of the highest court are going to be punished by the executive branch, no one will follow the Supreme Court and anarchy and lawlessness will proliferate. Another legal point for the court: if the law abiding officials are harassed wrongfully, does the constitution protect them?

The Supreme Court decided that wrongfully treated officials have constitutionally protected rights that can be enforced by the highest court of the land. The court did not challenge the executive branch’s authority over the federal agencies; rather, they asserted that government officials have protection by the constitution. The court did not insist on bringing back Mr Ahmed to the same position, only asking the executive branch to appoint him to bring him back to a befitting position in the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) from where he was transferred. The court stunned the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) by extending the period to implement its decision. Therefore, one cannot claim that the Supreme Court was making decisions in haste and vengeance.

It seems that the Chaudhry Court is following the pattern that was adopted by their counterparts in the west and the US. In the US, Marbury vs Madison is the milestone case in which the US Supreme Court, headed by John Marshall, adopted a reconciliatory approach while establishing the constitutional right of the highest judicial body to examine the acts of the executive branch.

In this case the aggrieved person, William Marbury was appointed by the US President John Adams to become a justice of peace in the District of Columbia, commonly known as Washington DC. However, before Mr Marbury took the oath, President Thomas Jefferson won the presidential election and refused Mr Marbury to take the seat. The court decided that it would not ask the executive branch to honour the appointment of a previous president but it asserted that in future the elected government will have to implement all decisions of the Supreme Court in such cases. It is considered as a landmark decision in the history of US judiciary.

Before this decision, the US judiciary was considered as a place for failed politicians; however, the composition of this branch of the state was changed forever. Afterwards, the best legal minds were attracted. Before this, the judiciary was a co-opted bunch of the government like it has been in Pakistan. At that time the US ruling still had feudalistic/slave-owning mentality similar to Pakistan. In fact, President James Madison expressed similar concerns that President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani are expressing. In Mr Ahmed’s, case Chief Justice Chaudhry knows that the Gilani government may resist the reappointment of the aggrieved official but it tried to find a middle way.

In Pakistan, like the US, the judiciary was always considered subservient to the governments whether headed by the civilians or by the military. No one, before Chief Justice Chaudhry, had the guts to stand up to a head of the state and say no to illegal demands. In the movement for the restoration of the judiciary, Chief Justice Chaudhry earned an unprecedented status. Though not a necessary condition for this post, he was put back to this position by a popular movement, which means that he represented the will of the people that the present elected government is trying to claim. As a matter of fact, it was the movement led by Chief Justice Chaudhry that forced General Musharraf to flee and paved the way for the restoration of democracy and returning of Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif.

In the ongoing tussle between the judiciary and the executive, it is apparent that our governing elite led by Asif Ali Zardari and Gilani represent the feudal and/or their mindset just the way President Jefferson did in 1803. The PPP did not support the judiciary during the election at the cost of alienating central Punjab. Later on, the PPP government refused to reinstate the judiciary: It was mass pressure that forced them to do so. The judiciary represents the middle class aspirations, which is deep in central Punjab and enlightened sections of other provinces. If our reading of the historical process is valid, in the course of evolution the judiciary is going to prevail like elsewhere in the developed nations.

The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.com
Source-Daily Times

Balochistan’s contribution to the country is Himalayan. However, Balochistan’s immeasurable natural wealth and strategic significance turned into a curse rather than a blessing for the Baloch people.

The gravity of Baloch tribulations is deep-rooted, extending behind the minds of the political parties and educated youths to the masses that are experiencing discrimination, oppression and injustices in their everyday life.

Each region, town and village has its own story of neglect, underdevelopment and exploitation. Start from the Baloch coast that hosts Pakistan’s three modern but devoid of the Baloch naval facilities including Jinnah Naval base at Ormara. Chaghai and Kharan, strategically significant regions, where the nuclear test was conducted and copper and gold are being mined, to Lasbela, an industrial town (for Karachiites) and where Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO) facilities are located, to Dera Bugti known for its high quality gas production since 1953, to Quetta and Bolan where coal is being mined — and you will be confronted with a miserable social and economic state of affairs.

However, all these areas have sophisticated military, paramilitary and naval facilities but none of them have modern education, health, electricity, gas or opportunities of livelihood.

Fuelling the national economy for years and helping save billions of dollars worth of foreign exchange in terms of energy import, Balochistan’s 97 percent population lives without gas facility, 78 percent without electricity, and 62 percent without safe drinking water. Balochistan has just 3.4 percent of gas consumers, as compared to 64 percent of Punjab alone, which produces only 4.75 percent of natural gas.

Balochistan being the major coal producing province is deprived of its benefits. During the 1960s, when Lahore was in West Pakistan, 98 percent coalmines of the province were allotted to people having no affiliation with the province. Today the local labourers in these ‘black-gold’ regions live without water, electricity, education and a health system. However, Sheikhs and Parachas are immensely benefitting from the wealth generated by the Baloch coal.

The MoU signed by Islamabad with a Chinese company regarding Saindak Copper-Gold Project is a classic confirmation of the abuse of Baloch wealth and discrimination. Islamabad and the Chinese company are taking 50 and 48 percent respectively and leaving only two percent profit for Balochistan. Besides this mega exploitation, the Saindak project is a no-man’s land for local Baloch youth and guarded by non-Baloch Frontier Corps (FC). Chaghai, the gold producing region, is the poorest of the poor.

Countless MoUs of such exploitative nature are inked with foreign and local companies to insistently exploit Baloch resources. These include the Duddar Lead-Zinc Project and the Reko Diq copper-gold project. Oil and gas exploration licenses are given without taking account of Baloch needs and demands.

Islamabad’s desire to entirely control and effusively exploit Balochistan’s strategic land, energy resources, and economic benefits without Baloch will, desire and legitimate participation are the raison d’être behind mounting tension and mistrust between the Baloch and Islamabad

Unfortunately, Islamabad’s dirty policies are not just confined to exploiting Baloch wealth but the establishment is also in constant efforts to marginalise and upset the very liberal and social fabric of Baloch society by supporting religious parties and co-opting gluttonous tribal and drug barons, which is part of the policy to retain its unquestioning control on Balochistan’s affairs.

Lacking political vision and a democratic culture, Islamabad’s super-establishment is governing Balochistan through a system known as ‘control’. Control, a suppressive system, is a set of mechanisms used in multi-ethnic states by the dominant ethnic groups to contain and keep its control on dissident ethnic minorities, plunder their wealth, destroying their culture and creating mass fear through disappearances, kill and dump policies and strapping presence of military and paramilitary forces.

Control is based on a rogue approach that one ethnic group takes over the state, imposes its culture on society, allocates to itself the lion’s share of resources and takes various measures, including violent means (military operations) to prevent the non-dominant group from organising politically.

Control works through three interrelated mechanisms: a) Divide and rule: internally creating rifts and division among the non-dominant groups; b) economic dependence: making them permanently dependent for their livelihood on the dominant group and central government; c) Co-option: involving sections of the non-dominant elite like greedy tribal chiefs, feudal, drug tycoons, corrupt intellectuals and politicians through partial dispensation of benefits and favours.

The military’s fresh, unwarranted and indiscriminate crackdown against moderate Baloch nationalists, intellectuals, students, poets, anti-establishment tribal elders, businessman and civilians is a reflection of the ‘zero tolerance’ policy against the ethnic Baloch people.

All glitzy mega-projects and control developments launched in Balochistan, including those for gas development, coalmining, Gwadar Port, Mirani Dam, coastal highway, cantonments, and the extraction of copper and gold deposits do not envisage any participation or direct benefit to the people and the province.

An unemployed Baloch feels more depressed and exploited when an unskilled soldier on their soil is brought and employed from another province to fill the position that is legally, naturally and constitutionally the right of a local Baloch youth.

The province is of strategic importance and shares long borders with Iran and Afghanistan and a 1,700-kilometre-long coastline. But border and coastal security is 100 percent controlled by non-Baloch paramilitary forces. Around 70,000 jobs in the FC, Coast Guard, police, maritime security and the Anti-Narcotics Force are occupied by non-locals, which leave thousands of qualified Baloch youths unemployed.

Baloch bitterness by all means is genuine and the continued plunder of Balochistan’s natural resources and its economic and political marginalisation and militarisation are the major causes of mounting tension between the Baloch and Islamabad. Political instability is on the rise.

Islamabad’s reliance on brute force may help the central government to create short-term cosmetic calm but unrest and frustration will further lead to growing mistrust between the Baloch and Islamabad.

Though physically superior, Islamabad has mock control over Balochistan, but emotionally and morally Islamabad seems terribly defeated in Balochistan. The gruesome policy of kill and dump of Baloch political activists has resulted in a permanent fracture in Baloch-Islamabad relations.

No doubt, Balochistan’s attractive and rich landscape, strategic coastline, sizeable territory and its location is very central to the establishment’s strategic vision; however, in the rapidly changing geo-political scenario, overlooking the genuine concerns of the Baloch and the feelings of the people of the province will result in irreparable loss to the establishment.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Ever since the emergence of the nation-state, the world has experienced many forms of political systems ranging from monarchies to republics; from aristocracies to oligarchies and from tyranny to democracy. The explanation and appraisal of democracy has been a favourite theme of ever-ongoing discussion since the earliest times of political speculation. After centuries of trial and error, democracy has emerged as the preferred choice. It is now considered universally applicable and is also the most prevalent model of government in our era.

The modern version of democracy is a representative system in which the problem is how to secure a system of voting that ensures the election of representatives who reflect as completely as possible the varieties of opinion of the electorate. The question of representation is thus the most fundamental problem of today’s democracy. “Pure” democracy, in which the politically qualified members of the community meet together for the discussion and decision of public questions, is universally regarded as suitable only for small communities with simple collective needs. It has never widely existed and has now generally disappeared, even from societies that claim to be democratic to their core.

There may be no ideal state but in his Social Contract, Rousseau had visualised his own ideal of a state with a democratic system in which the sovereign power rests with the people, for they alone are in possession of an inalienable ‘general will’. In his view, only a popularly elected government can implement the general will. Hegel, a 19th-century philosopher, glorified the state power beyond limits but also recognised people’s general will.

Government by ‘popular majorities’ means rule by the average man, who is generally less intelligent, controlled in his opinions and conduct more by emotion than by reason, of limited knowledge, lacking the means of leisure necessary for the acquisition of information, knowledge and understanding, and suspicious of any superior ability in others. What political virtue, it is asked, is there in mere superiority in numbers? Our own philosopher poet Allama Iqbal acknowledged this by saying that “democracy is a form of government in which heads are counted, not weighed.”

In practice, therefore, democracy is the most difficult and risky of all forms of government since it requires the widest spread of intelligence and education. In the words of a cynic, “you must not enthrone ignorance just because there is so much of it.” But all this notwithstanding, in today’s civilised world, there is no alternative to a democratic form of government. This, however, necessitates a state and methods of its governance to be based on a “social contract” to provide for the security and protection of its citizens and their property by utilising the whole force of the community.

No doubt, on their emergence as two independent states on the map of the world as a result of a democratic political process, both India and Pakistan inherited a parliamentary tradition and began their independent statehood with a democratic path clearly charted out for them. To start with, however, there was no level playing field for the state of Pakistan which had to build an entire government from the scratch in 1947 under a state of emergency whereas India was born with an intact bureaucratic apparatus in Delhi. In India, on the other hand, the Congress emerged after independence as virtually a mini-parliament, with habits of debate, argument and negotiation. India managed to forge a democratic constitution by 1950, and despite its huge size and socio-economic challenges, has been holding elections every five years.

In Pakistan, the vision of a democratic and progressive future was unambiguously articulated in a resolution adopted at the first meeting of the Council of the Pakistan Muslim League in December 1947, when it pledged “to work for an ideal democratic state based on social justice, as an upholder of human freedom and world peace, in which all citizens will enjoy equal rights and be free from fear, want and ignorance.” This vision, however, remains unfulfilled. With its founder’s early demise in September 1948, the new State of Pakistan lost the promise of healthy political growth with acute systemic deficiencies and frequent leadership miscarriages, restricting its transition to democracy.

After the Quaid, it was left without any sense of direction, and came to be possessed by a corrupt political hierarchy of no more than a bunch of self-serving, feudalist and opportunistic politicians who were to manage the newly independent Pakistan in collusion with civil and military bureaucracy. In the process, we saw a continuing cycle of governmental changes by non-political means. Machiavelli’s political philosophy based on the “doctrine of necessity,” became an integral part of our body politic. Democracy was never allowed to flourish in the country. Pakistan experienced frequent political breakdowns, long spells of military rule, institutional paralysis, endemic corruption, and general aversion to the rule of law.

Given the common history of the twin neighbours, one wonders why India is democratic and Pakistan is not. What after all is wrong with Pakistan? For us, it is not sufficient only to attribute Pakistan’s failure in democracy to its leadership miscarriages and military take-overs. There are in fact deep-rooted historical, socio-cultural and geo-political factors that have been conditioning the post-independence democratic tradition in Pakistan. Since independence, the politics and governments in Pakistan have also remained hostage to the elite classes which have been inimical to any political liberalisation in the country.

Historically, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the British had been gradually devolving power to local authorities in several provinces across India but those reforms were never extended to the North-West Frontier Province and Punjab, the territories that later made up the bulk of Pakistan after the 1947 partition. Thus several of the provinces India inherited from the Raj already had some experience in democracy, Pakistan inherited two highly militarised provinces with no such tradition. This unpalatable colonial legacy in conjunction with the country’s feudalised political parties, social conservatism, and outside influences provided a fertile ground for Pakistan’s army to grow in size and scale and gain an increasingly strong influence over the state.

The overbearing feudal power structure in Pakistan is also the cause of our political decay. It has always resisted land reforms in the country which it sees will strike at its own roots. Unlike India’s Congress Party, the Muslim League, Pakistan’s founding party was almost wholly dominated by a few feudal families, which the British had patronised before partition and were powerful enough to retain control over national affairs through the bureaucracy and the armed forces. Even after the Muslim League’s disintegration, the same feudalised oligarchy consisting of different men at different times under different political flags remained in power with or without military collaboration.

The most important factor circumscribing democracy’s growth in Pakistan has been its geopolitical location which not only shaped its personality as a state but also conditioned its domestic as well as external behaviour. In that intensely bipolar world, the young state of Pakistan, faced with the stark reality of its geo-political environment, gravitated naturally to the pole that it thought stood for freedom and democracy. The West, however, looked at Pakistan solely as a strategic asset in its “containment” policy against Soviet expansionism. The ensuing sequence of history speaks for itself in determining what really happened to democracy in Pakistan.

For us, the concepts of a good society and a good state or for that matter ‘good methods of government’ remain merely philosophical expressions with no practical relevance. With an ingrained culture of political opportunism and greed, we have yet to discover a theory of state and methods of government which will suit the genius of our nation.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Dear and respected sir, you have been one of my most favourite member of this forum. I always restlessly wait for your posts. Thank you soooo much. I salute you. May your efforts n this forum last forever.

Women’s protection law: a good first step
By
Syed Mohammad Ali

After much hesitation, the National Assembly has finally passed the Prevention of Anti-Women Practices Bill, 2011. Once the Senate passes it and the president signs it, a minimum legal benchmark will be available to penalise those who deny a woman her right to inheritance or those who engage in practices like wani, swara or badla-i-salah, all of which force women and girls into marriage to settle personal, family or tribal disputes.

This passage of the legislation has been rightly lauded as a show of parliament’s collective resolve to prevent longstanding gender injustices in Pakistan. Some legal experts are however pointing out that not much consideration has gone into drafting the legislation. They are troubled by the bill’s prescriptions of making inheritance and marriage disputes, till now a civil matter, into a criminal offence. At the procedural level, it has been further pointed out that making inheritance-related offences effective from the date of the death of the deceased is unrealistic since this does not take into account delays which usually occur during the process by, which an inheritance is divided.

Similarly, it has been questioned how the proposed law will distinguish between forced marriages and arranged marriages gone wrong, if women unsatisfied in the latter situation file criminal complaints claiming coercion and seek to initiate criminal proceedings against their families or in-laws.

Conversely, it has been pointed out that, in its present form, the bill is not comprehensive. For instance, sung-chati, which is another form of child marriage, has not been mentioned in the bill as a punishable offence. Other critics also consider the overall legislation as being too narrowly focused on punitive aspects, without taking into account the reason why many women are still unable to report offences against them in the first place. Their criticism is based on their opinion that the bill does not propose an adequate mechanism to ensure more effective reporting of such crimes to ensure that offences against women reach a court of law.

Ideally the draft of this important bill should have been shared with a broader range of relevant stakeholders working on gender equity issues, and even with lawyers from the lower courts who have practical experience of dealing with these cases. Had this been done, the above-mentioned flaws and loopholes could have been removed.

The passage of the bill in the National Assembly, after two failed attempts, itself marks a positive step towards recognising the fact that women in Pakistani society need legal protection to safeguard their rights. Furthermore, it takes tangible steps towards addressing gender-based disparities due to which so many Pakistani women continue to suffer.

Subsequent to overcoming the final drafting and legislative hurdles, it will be even more important to ensure that the sanctions laid down in the law are put into effect. Doing so will, in turn, require contending with a range of inadequacies within our justice system, especially in the lower courts. Moreover, the police and patwaris, who are the most relevant officials when it comes to dealing with forced marriages and inheritance issues, must be made aware of the contents of the bill so that they can play a more proactive role in ensuring that the available provisions are enforced to improve the situation of women in Pakistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 25th, 2011

.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Sardar Ataullah Mengal, Balochistan’s first chief minister, recently said after a meeting with PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif that the situation in Balochistan had reached a “point of no return”, adding that he had “no control” over the disillusioned Baloch youths who had taken to the hills to wage a war of liberation. The Baloch are angry with Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan and the Jamaat-e-Islami. The above three, they complain, organise marches against US foreign policy or in support of Palestine but they do not stage similar long marches in major cities like Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi to condemn the military’s violation of human rights in Balochistan.

The Baloch feel betrayed by the judiciary’s silence over the ‘kill and dump’ operations going on in the province. Although the Chief Justice of Pakistan is a native of Balochistan, the apex court seems to have abstained from playing a proactive role in halting the killing and dumping of those who disappear in the province. Perhaps, the army chief should sanction an independent inquiry into the cases of the missing persons.

The federal government should undertake a comprehensive list of confidence-building measures to bring Balochistan back from the ‘point of no return’. These should include economic and constitutional packages and will have to be implemented over a long period of time.

For instance, the federal government should make sure that no Baloch activist is arrested or killed for at least one year. This may look difficult at this point but it is extremely important for both sides to prove their commitment to a durable peace within a specified time frame. Another possible breakthrough can come forward if the military announces a unilateral end to its operations in the province.

Here are some responsibilities the Baloch nationalists should also own. They should remain assured that they have a genuine and convincing case of being subjected to oppression, therefore, they do not need to exaggerate these injustices. Exaggeration can hinder the resolution of political disputes through peaceful negotiations. The Baloch could have presented a strong case on any forum without foolishly resorting to killing unarmed Punjabi settlers in Balochistan. These killings have tremendously undermined the legitimacy of their struggle. A lot of Baloch leaders and activists justify these killings by terming them as a ‘reaction’ to the military’s brutalities.

Anti-Punjabi rhetoric can serve as a catalyst to garner support from disgruntled political activists but it cannot serve any long-term interest for a political movement. National movements need more sophisticated philosophical and ideological foundations. An intrinsic element of the Baloch culture is the centuries-old concept of bahot (protection) which means to protect the life of a ‘settler’ or an ‘outsider’ who comes to a Baloch area. Throughout Baloch history, we have not seen such brazen attacks on ‘outsiders’ on Baloch land as witnessed after the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti. These attacks clearly contradict the Baloch code of conduct, known as Balochiat¸ and they also alienate supporters of Balochistan who live outside the province and the country. Will the real progressive Baloch leaders stand up and apologise to the families of Punjabi settlers who were unjustly killed?

Today, criticising certain Baloch leaders is considered almost blasphemous and this closed the doors for dissenting ideas. The young Baloch believes his leader can’t err. Yet, in my judgment, the very leaders who galvanised the middle class Baloch youths, lack the political acumen and the vision to provide their followers and the rest of the world a clear roadmap for maximum autonomy or an independent Balochistan. When leaders are caught up in a situation where they have maximalist demands but no vision of how to achieve their goals, they end up getting all their soldiers arrested or killed.

Lastly, the Baloch and the centre need constant and long-term engagement. They must, at least, be clear about what they stand for instead of eternally and fatally fighting without making an inch of progress toward their desired destinations.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Parliamentary History of Pakistan

The Muslims of India had, since the middle of the last century, begun the struggle for a seperate homeland on the basis of the Two Nation Theory. Despite their long association and interactions at various levels, the Hindus and Muslims of India remained two seperate and distinct socio-cultural entities. Their social segregation persisted due to their homeland. Keeping in view the situation, at that time, the British rulers were left with no option but to eventually accept the demands of the Muslims of India.

On June 3, 1947, Lord Louis Mountbatten,the last Viceroy of India, called the conference of all the leaders of the sub-continent and communicated to thes His Majesty's Government's Plan for the transfer of power. At that time, a notification was issued in the Gazette of India, published on July 26, 1947, in which the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was given shape with sixty six Members including one female Member.

The state of Pakistan was created under the Independence act of 1947. The act made the existing Constituent Assemblies the dominion Legislatures. These Assemblies were to exercise all the powers which were formerly exercised by the Central Legislature in addition to the powers regarding the framing of a new Constitution, prior to which all the teritories were to be governed in accordance with the Government of India Act, 1935.

The first session of the firt Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was held on August 10, 1947, at Sind Assembly Building, Karachi. On 10 & 11 August, 58 Members took oath. On August 11, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was elected unanimously as the President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, and the National Flag wasformally approved by the Assembly.

On August 12, 1947, a resolution was approved regarding officially addressing Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah as "Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah". On the same day, a special Committee called the "Committee on Fundamental Rights of Citizens and Minorities of Pakistan", was also appointed to look into and advise the Assembly on matters relating to fundamental rights of the citizens, particularly the minorities, with the aim to legislate on these issues approopriately. In this way due importance was given to the minorities and fundamental rightd of the citizens at large, from day one.

On August 14, 1947, the transfer of power took place. Lord Louis Mountbatten, Governer General of India, addressed the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. The Quaid gave a reply to the address, in the House, on which the principles of the State of Pakistan are laid. On August 15, 1947, Quaid-i-Azam was sworn in as the first Governer General of Pakistan and Mian Sir Abdur Rashid, Chief Justice of Pakistan, took oath of office from him. The Quaid remained in this postion till his death on September 11, 1948.

Given the foremost task before the First Constituent Assembly of framing the Constitution for the Nation, work on it started from the very beginning. On March 7, 1949, the Objectives Resolution, which now serves as the grund norm was introduced by the first Prime Minister Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan, and later adopted by the Constituent Assembly on March 12, 1949. The Objectives Resolution affirmed that sovereignty over the entire universe belonged to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He had delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people, was a sacred trust.

After the passage of the Objectives resolution, on the same day, a Basic Principles Committee comprising 24 members was formed to prepare a draft Constitution on the basis of the Objectives Resolution. On October 16, 1951, Prime Minister Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated and Khwaja Nazimuddin took over as the Prime Minister on October 17, 1951.

The final draft of the constitution was prepared in 1954. By that time Muhammad Ali Bogra had taken over as the Prime Minister. However, before the draft could be placed in the House for approval, the Assembly was dissolved by the the Governer General Ghulam Muhammad on October 24,1954. The Prime Minister, however, was not dismissed and was asked to run the administration, with a reconstituted Cabinet, until such time as the elections were held.

The second Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was created on May 28 under Governer General's Order No. 12 of 1955. The electoral college of this Assembly were the provincial Assemblies of respective Provinces. The strength of this Assembly was 80 members, half each from East & West Pakistan. One of the major achivements of this Assembly was the establishment of West Pakistan, with the aim to create parity between the two wings. The second achievement of this Assembly was to give the first Constitution to the nation.

The draft of this Constitution was introduced in the Assembly on January 9, 1956, and it was passed by the Assembly on February 29, 1956.The assent to the Governer General was given on March 2, 1956. This Constitution was enforced with effect from March 23, 1956. Under this Constitution Pakistan became an Islamic Republic.

On March 5, 1956, Major Gen. Iskander Mirza became the first elected President of Pakistan. According to the Constitutionof 1956, the President was the Executive Head of the Federation and was to be elected by all the members of the National and Provincial Assemblies. He was to hold office for five years. The President was to act on the advice of the Cabinet escept where he was empowered to act in his discretion, which was limited to a few cases only. Thus the link factor between the President and the Cabinet was the Prime Minister.

Under the Constitution of 1956, the Parliament of Paakistan was unicameral. Legislative ppowers vested in the Paliament which consisted of the President and the National Assembly comprising 300 members divided in to half between East and West Pakistan. In addition to those 300 seats, five seats for women were reserved for each of the two wings for a period of ten years.

Although the first elections were scheduled for early 1959, President Iskander Mirza was compelled to abrogate the constitution, dissolve the National And PRovincial Assemblies, and declare Martial Law on October 7, 1958. He Appointed General Muhammad Ayub Khan, Commander-inChief of the Army as the Chief Martial Law Administrator.

On October 27, 1958, General Muhammad Ayub Khan, took over as the second President of Pakistan. A new constitution was framed and given to the nation on March 1, 1962. General elections under the new constitution were held on March 28, 1962, and elections to the speacial seats reserved for women were held on May 29, 1962. The first session of the third National Assembly was held on June 8, 1962. The Constitution of 1962, envisaged a federal state with presidential system of government, with National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies. All executive authority of the Republic of Pakistan, under the Constitution, vested in the office of the President.

On March 25, 1969, the second Martial Law was imposed and General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan took over as the President of Pakistan and Chief Martial Law Administrator. He, issued a Legal Framework Order, under which the first ever general elections were held on December 7, 1970, and the composition of the Assembly was based for the first time, consisting of 169 from East and 144 from West Pakistan. Soon after the elections the province of East Pakistan seceded from West Pakistan and became Bangladesh. On December 20, 1971,Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took over as the President of Pakistan as well as the first civil Chief Martial Law Administrator.

The first civilian session of the National Assembly , due to the delay caused by the separation of East Pakistan, was held on 14th April 1972 at the State bank building in Islamabad, in which all 144 Members from west Pakistan and two from former East Pakistan (Mr. Nurul Amin & Raja Tridev Roy) who had chosen to join Pakistan, participated. 17 April , 1972 an Interim Contitution was adopted by the National Assembly.

A Contitutional Commitee was formed to prepare the first draft for the purpose of framing a permanent Constitution. The report of the Commitee was presented with a draft Constitution on 31 Dec'1972. It was passed by the Assembly on its session of 10 April, 1973, unanimously, and was authenticated by the President of Assembly on 12 April , 1973. The Constitution called Contitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, was enforced on August 14 , 1973. On the same day Zulfiqar Ali Bhtto took oath as the Prime Minister while Mr. Fazal Elahi Choudri took oath as the President of Pakistan.

The Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, provides for a parliamentary form of government where the Executive Authorityof the State vests in the Prime Minister. The President according to the original Constitution of 1973, was at the apex, with only a titulat role representing the unity of the Republic.

Under the Constitution of 1973, the term limit of the National Assembly is five years unless sooner dissolved. The strength of the National Assembly membership is now 217, as the Constitutional provision of 20 special seats for women lapsed in 1990. The elections to the minority seats are held on seperate electorate basis consisting of non-Muslim population of the country under the same general procedures as those for the Muslim seats and at the same time.

Despite the tenure of the Assembly being five years, as prescribed in the Constitution, Mr. Z. A. Bhutto, on January 7, 1977, announced the holding of elections before time. Which resulted in a severe political crisis and Martial Law was imposed by General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the Army Chief, on July 5, 1977. After four years, on December 24, 1981 under the Presidential Order, a Feral Council was constituted. The members were nominated by the President. General Elections were later held on February 25, 1985 on non-party basis.

On March 2, 1985, revival of Constitution Order was issued in which a large number of ammendments were made in the Constitution of 1973. The first session of the 1985 Assembly was held on March 20, 1985. Mr. Muhammad Khan Junejo was nominated, under the Constitution, as the Prime Minister of Pakistan by the President, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq.

The Parliamentary history of Pakistan, though chequered and crisis ridden, one has managed to come through to the point where presently we have held five general electios in last twelve years. The Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Ammendments have reinforeced the stability by prevention of political defections.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The impact of Privatization on Sustainable Development is difficult to measure as it involves several complex and little understood transmission channels. To start with, successful privatization, if implemented properly, leads to efficiency in allocation of resources, higher productivity and innovation and entrepreneurship. These outcomes then impinge upon a country’s growth nexus and help accelerate the rate of economic growth. If the pattern of economic growth is such that it conserves depletable natural resources and preserves the environment then we are on path to sustainable development.

It must be pointed out that none of these links are automatic or can be taken for granted. There may be breakdowns or congestion or leakages in these channels and the results may be quite different from what we expect them to be.

What is the connection between growth and privatization then? Growth takes place only when productivity from the existing resources – Labour and Capital – or and technology keep on rising. We have to therefore see what economic theory and empirical evidence tell us about this.

In Economic theory, welfare theorem suggests that private ownership of the means of production in a competitive equilibrium is optimal. Government can, however, intervene to regulate natural monopolies or other monopolies, or tackle externalities or provide public goods. But under competitive market structure, the rationale for state owned enterprises is very weak. Private ownership leads to higher rates of productivity growth and declining costs in the long run.

Empirical experience from all parts of the developing and emerging countries has clearly demonstrated that State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) exhibit a significant lower productive efficiency in comparison with privately owned companies. The global experience shows that by and large, productivity actually declines or remains stagnant when the businesses are managed and operated by the government thus slowing down or hurting the pace of growth. On the other hand, the record of privatization in the last three decades has been quite successful in raising productivity particularly in countries which have put in place strong regulatory mechanism and sound corporate governance. Despite this strong empirical evidence, the popular perception prevails that privatization is unfair, hurts the poor, the disenfranchised and the workers and benefits the already rich. Regulatory capture also remains a serious problem that puts the privatization process to risk. It must be conceded that privatization is not a panacea for all economic ills and under certain strategic considerations it is neither advisable nor desirable to resort to privatization.

The hangover of the past in general and the lingering fascination for the socialist model among some of our intellectuals in particular continue to have a dominant influence on our thinking. Some of the resentment against private profit making is also quite legitimate and understandable. In the past, private entrepreneurs in Pakistan did not make ‘profits’ in the real economic sense of the word by earning a return on their investment in a competitive world. On the contrary, they earned ‘rents’ through the maze of permits, licences, preferred credit by the banks, subsidies, privileges, concessions and specific SROs granted to the favored few. Naturally when one sees people becoming rich not through the dint of their hard work and enterprise but by manipulation, back door entry, connections, reciprocity, paying bribes, adopting extra legal means, bypassing the established rules and laws, getting scarce foreign exchange quotas, evading taxes, defaulting on bank loans and rigging the markets etc., we should not be surprised to see the venom against the so called ‘private profits’. Therefore the role of the government policy and regulation in keeping these malpractices in check becomes critical.

The Global Financial crisis of 2008 has been interpreted by many commentators as the resurgence of nationalization and ascendancy of State ownership. The fact remains that the state had to step in with capital injection to avert the systemic risk when the private markets had failed to provide the required resources. Market failure had to be resolved through Government intervention. After four years the shares of Government in most of these banks have been by and large divested.

Privatization has, therefore, to be seen in the overall context of the respective roles of the state and markets in a particular country. Although this relationship varies a lot ranging from the majority state ownership in socialist countries to Nordic model and finally to a largely private owned economy the state has to play a critical role in all instances. The State has to be strong to combat the excesses of the market and cope with market failures. It is not that the state should play a lesser or reduced role but a different role in so far as it has to provide an enabling environment through security of life and property, protection of property rights and rule of law and create necessary conditions for growth through investment in human development and infrastructure. The government has to play an effective role in regulating and monitoring the market to promote healthy competition and avoid the rigging of the market by a few. Competitive Markets are the best known vehicle for efficient allocation and utilization of resources and thus the decisions as to what goods and services to produce, how much to produce, distribute and trade can be done well only by the private sector and not by the bureaucrats. This division and redefinition is also essential to reduce corruption and provide a level playing field for all economic actors in the growth process that is equitable and sustainable. Market-based competition, privatization of public banks and a strong regulator have successfully reformed the banking sector in Pakistan during the last several years and this model should be replicated elsewhere in the economy. It is not ideology but pragmatism and learning from the past mistakes that should drive our economic policies and strategies.

The basic reason for privatizing these enterprises is that the government should not be in the business of running businesses but regulating businesses. The role of the government should be that of a neutral umpire, who lays down the ground rules for businesses to operate and compete, to monitor and enforce these rules, to penalize those found guilty of contraventions and to adjudicate disputes between the competing business firms. If the government owned firm itself is one of the players in the market, there is a strong conflict of interest and the other market players lose confidence in the neutrality of the umpire. Under these circumstances, the market becomes chaotic, disorderly and unruly as there is no neutral ‘person’ to monitor and enforce the rules. The economy thus pays a heavy price for this loss of the market mechanism in the production, sale and distribution of goods and services. The controversy between the PIA and private airlines is a manifestation of this tendency. If the ‘umpire’ favors its owned enterprise i.e. PIA and discriminates against the rival private airlines, the ultimate result would be the winding up of these airlines. The growth of aviation industry can take place only if competition is able to cut down the prices and stimulate demand for air travel in the country. In absence of such competition, the PIA would have preferential access to traffic rights, airports and infrastructure and the planes would fly with empty seats as the ticket prices would not be market based but arbitrarily high. The consumers of airline industry – existing and potential – will be the loser in this bargain.

Privatization Experience in Pakistan

In Pakistan, the privatization process was initiated in the early 1990s, as part of the larger economic reforms program. The Privatization Commission was set up in 1991, in order to provide an institutional framework for the privatization process in the country. The Privatization Commission (PC) was entrusted with selling federal government property — such as its share in banks, industrial units, public utilities, oil and gas companies, transport companies, and infrastructure service providers — in an open and transparent manner. The following objectives were sought to be achieved by privatization:

1. Reduction in fiscal deficit
Towards the end of the eighties, the mounting losses of public sector enterprises were becoming a burden on the national exchequer. The fiscal deficit reached a high of 8.5 percent of GDP in 1987-88, which severely constrained the fiscal space available to the government.

2. Increase in the efficiency levels
Efficiency levels of public sector enterprises were low in Pakistan. Production costs of public enterprises were high as a result of political interference. While private producers could be forced to reduce their cost to a minimum for their survival, public firms were not under pressure to reduce costs as they were under no compulsion to ensure an acceptable return to their equity holders. Private firms’ managers had more flexibility in taking decisions but this was not so in public sector firms as their accountability for results was almost non-existent. Moreover, public sector firm’s investment decisions were largely influenced by political considerations, thus adversely affecting efficiencies in the allocation of resources.

3. To foster competition
It was believed that when public sector units were sold to a large number of private parties, this would result in healthy competition in different sectors of the economy. The creation of an autonomous Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) in recent years is an attempt to avert collusion, cartelization and other anti-competition practices by private economic actors.

4. Broad basing of equity capital
Broad-basing the ownership of equity capital was necessary for achieving distributive justice. Privatization could help achieve that. Moreover, privatization would result in strengthening and deepening of the capital market when a percentage of shares of public enterprises were sold to the public through the stock exchange.

5. Releasing resources for physical and social infrastructure
Privatization of loss making public enterprises would make more funds available for public sector development projects aimed at upgrading physical infrastructure and improving social services.

I would now like to assess this experience by selecting three examples of privatization in Pakistan – Banking, telecommunications and power. I would also argue that the decision to cancel privatization of Steel Mills has been harmful to the larger economic interests of the country.

Until 2001 the banking system was incurring losses and Rs. 41 billion was injected by the Government from the taxpayers’ money into HBL and UBL for repairing their balance sheets. By 2007, the three banks that were privatized – Allied Bank Limited (ABL), Habib Bank Limited (HBL) and United Bank Limited (UBL) – were making profits before tax of Rs. 32 billion that rose to Rs. 73 billion by 2011. Corporate taxes paid by these three banks alone amounted to approximately Rs. 25 billion annually. In addition, the government as a shareholder in these banks has earned huge dividends every year since privatization. The residual equity holding of the Government in these three banks has multiplied several fold and the market value of the shares held by the government in these banks today must be a multiple of the amount they received at the time of privatization. It is speculative to construct counterfactuals but my guess is that if the government had held on to these banks and not divested the shares along with the management to the private owners the net losses suffered by the exchequer would have been close to Rs. 50 billion annually taking a highly conservative view. Imagine the effect of these losses on an already stressed fiscal balances and the widening fiscal deficit.

It is not the fiscal aspects of privatization but the other financial soundness indicators which have all improved since 2002. Gross Non-Performing loans had declined from 25 percent to 7 percent by 2008 before rising to 15 percent in 2011 due to the stagnation in economic activity. Net NPLs were down to 3 percent – an international norm but have gone up to 6 percent in the last four years. Had the NPLs remained at pre-privatization levels interest rates would have been much higher than what we have witnessed. Credit to private sector would have been further stifled. Capital strength of the banking sector has improved significantly. In 2002, capital adequacy ratio was 8.8 percent and capital to assets ratio 4.8 percent. By 2008, capital adequacy ratio had improved to 13.4 percent and further to 15.1 by March 2012.

The story of privatization of the banks in Pakistan is an exemplary illustration of what good the economy can reap if there is a broad political consensus. The privatization was started by Nawaz Sharif Government in 1991 but was pursued by all successive governments – Democratic and Military. MCB and Allied Bank were privatized in the early 1990s (Allied Bank Limited had to be reprivatized in 2004). Professional bankers were appointed as Chief Executives of HBL and UBL and persons from private sector enjoying reputation of competence and integrity appointed on the Board of Directors in 1997.

The Government, besides injecting fresh equity to strengthen the capital base of the nationalized commercial banks did away with the undue interference of labour unions in decision making process of the banks, abolished the Pakistan Banking Council and gave autonomy to the State Bank of Pakistan.

All the nationalized commercial banks, except one, have been privatized. As a consequence their domination of the banking sector has been reduced from almost 100 percent in 1991 to about 20 percent by June 2004. Even in the case of National Bank of Pakistan 23.5 percent shares were floated through Stock Market mainly aimed at small retail investors.

There is a need for further reforms in the banking sector particularly fostering competition, broadening access to financial services, lowering the cost of intermediation and eliminating weak banks through mergers and consolidation. But it would be fair to conclude that the banking system has become more efficient in the post-privatization period compared to the two decades when NCBs dominated the scene. The system was able to withstand the shock of Global financial crisis quite well.

I would also like to allay some fears and explode the myths about privatization. The most common myth against privatization is loss of employment. This fear is largely unfounded. The example of privatization in banking sector controverts those who make such claims. In 1997 when the restructuring, downsizing and privatization picked up speed there were 105,000 employees working in the sector. After privatization was completed, the work force had expanded to 114,000 indirect employment in form of outsourcing of services and contractual employment have created many more additional jobs. It is true that the pattern of employment has changed and more productive and skilled workers have been taken up at the expense of low skilled or unskilled workers. These unskilled workers now work for outsourcing services providers. But this is the essence of economic development i.e. the shift from low productivity to high productivity by skill up-gradation. The profits of the banks have risen since privatization not only due to better management but because of this shift from low skill to high skill manpower.

The other fear is that workers will no longer be protected as the power to fire them is much easier under private ownership. The process of hiring and firing of employees in a public sector company is highly convoluted, complex and cumbersome. Those found guilty of infractions or negligence of duties or even corruption can only be dispensed with after a protracted process of disciplinary proceedings that sometimes take several years to complete. In the meanwhile, the employee continues to stay put in service and receives all the emoluments and perks. In a rare case, a departmental inquiry comes up with a guilty verdict, the employee can appeal to the Federal Services Tribunal and if he is unsuccessful, then all the way to the Supreme Court. Why will any right minded boss choose to go through such an ordeal? Privatization enables the managers to distinguish the hard working and productive workers from the lazy and incompetent. The former are rewarded for their performance while the latter are the target of firing. But this is the essence of an efficient economy. Unions can, of course, still act as the watchdogs to protect the genuine interest of the workers even under private owners. The most powerful union in the US is the United Auto Workers despite the fact that all three big auto companies are privately owned.

Next we come to the PTCL, I need not remind this august gathering about the revolution in Telecom sector that has affected the lives of the majority of Pakistani citizens since the historic decision to break the monopoly of the state owned PTCL, privatize it and open up the sector to the private sector. Had the PTCL remained a state monopoly with its control on the infrastructure and the backbone the private sector operators would not have come forward to participate in the auction for 2G spectrum, the sector would not have opened up for fierce competition, the penetration ratios would not be anywhere close to what we have achieved and the consumers would not have benefitted in price, services and convenience as much as it has.

It is true that PTCL under new owner has not come up to our expectations as it has not paid the balance amount of $800 million that is outstanding for several years. But it must be conceded that unlike state owned enterprises they have quickly responded and adapted to the changed market conditions. They realized that the fixed line voice segment business has no future in light of the mobile telephony and shifted to the Data Services segment, wireless local loop, broad band, corporate services solutions, carrier services, and international telephony business. PTCL with its spectrum, networks and infrastructure can do even better but had it remained a state owned company the changes we are observing in the business model by adopting innovative opportunities would not have been forthcoming. The decline in revenues earned by the PTCL prior to privatization were in fact ‘monopoly rents’ because of the market power enjoyed by them. The efficiency and customer services of the state owned PTCL could can be gauged by the fact that getting a land line telephone connection before 2005 was an ordeal. Either you needed a political leader to intercede on your behalf or you had to pay a hefty bribe to the PTCL officials.

I now turn to the KESC. During the difficult period when the new private owners were struggling with a myriad of problems inherited from the old company I was taunted many time by my journalist friends about my interview in the Herald. I had told the interviewer that it would be a great service to the country if KESC was sold for even one paisa. I stood by that statement then and I still stand by it. Thank God that I got vindicated by the fact that the company made a profit for the first time in years and also the media compared the uninterrupted supply of electricity to industry in Karachi and Punjab and the extent of load-shedding in Karachi and Lahore.

I am the first one who keeps telling the KESC senior management that they have a long way to go and there are many milestones they have to reach. But at least the direction is set. A competent and dedicated management team is in place. Shareholders are continuously monitoring and keeping a vigilant eye over their performance. Investment plans in generation, transmission and distribution are at various stages of execution some of them having been partially achieved. Systems and procedures are being put in place. Intelligent use is being made of technology to manage load distribution and peak demand allocations. Customer services units with their staff trained and retooled have been empowered to solve problems facing the complainants. Voluntary separation scheme, despite lingering difficulties for a prolonged period, is beginning to align manpower supply with the demand. Financial controls have been strengthened and recovery of dues had been stepped up. Theft and T&D losses, still high and in unacceptable range, are being vigorously tackled.

The citizens of Karachi would feel satisfied when they get uninterrupted supply of electricity at affordable rates. This would require efforts of fuel switching, innovative and creative solutions to minimize theft and T&D losses, greater efficiency in generation and addition of new capacity.

But I am sanguine that had KESC faced the kind of problems it had during the last few years as a public sector entity the heads of many Chief Executives would have rolled by now. The lack of continuity in the top leadership brings to halt the execution of the plans and strategy that yield results after a time lag. As the management team becomes demotivated and anxious about their own job security they spend most of their time and energies in lobbying the political leaders rather than doing the work they are assigned. A vicious cycle sets in. As the Chief Executive is unable to achieve the desired targets given to him by the Minister he is removed from the job. His removal creates further uncertainty among the managers who accelerate their efforts to save their jobs or jockey for top position. I do not have the data but it would be interesting to see as to how many CEOs have served at DISCOs in the last three years.

Steel Mills is a typical example of what is wrong with public ownership. It has antiquated machinery, is highly overstaffed, is poorly managed with weak governance and almost no oversight and accountability. It suffers from huge under investment, leakages and discriminatory pricing that favors selected few at the cost of the tax payers. Contracts are awarded on considerations other than lowest competitive bid. Frequent changes in key management positions, arbitrary and whimsical decision making and discontinuity in policies make the matter worse. How can one expect under these circumstances that it can be a source of profits to the government or a low cost supplier of raw materials to the industry? Newspaper reports based on Public Accounts Committee indicate that had the Mill been privatized in 2007, the tax payers would have saved Rs. 100 billion in losses incurred and several hundred million dollars of foreign exchange by averting imports of steel. Capacity utilization had plunged so low that it cannot meet the market demand and imports have to meet domestic demand.

There are many risks to privatization which have to be managed and minimized by the Government. Private ownership and efficient functioning of market mechanism require certain legal and regulatory safeguards. In absence of these safeguards, private monopolies or oligopolies can surface, market distortions can accentuate and markets can be rigged for the benefit of the few. Strong legal and regulatory institutions with competent staff of unimpeachable integrity would be able to counter these evils forcefully and provide a level playing field for all market participants. We have to strengthen these legal and regulatory institutions before privatization takes place. The recent financial crisis in the US shows that exclusive reliance upon self-regulated markets and neglect of regulation are unwise and have proved catastrophic. Pakistan escaped the wrath of this gigantic crisis because of the stringent regulatory framework that did not allow the private banks owners and managers to take excessive risk with depositors’ money.

Public policy should also be geared at removing preferential treatment or granting of concessions or privileges to particular segment or group based on political loyalty, affiliation or similar considerations. The Government has to create a level playing field and act in an even handed manner. No firm specific SROs should be issued to favor a particular enterprise at the expense of the other. Under these circumstances, private owners will earn true profits through competition and not earn rents and the justified grudge against the private sector and privatization can be minimized. The collusion between the government officials and the political leaders and unscrupulous wheelers dealers among the private sector has brought bad name to privatization in many countries including Pakistan. Any semblance of favoritism would wreck the whole privatization process. Transparency will lead to success.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Pakistan - Politics

The present National Assembly completes its tenure on 16 March 2013, so the general elections might be held 26 April 2013. By 31 October 2012, Pakistan had drawn up a preliminary road-map under which the National Assembly will be dissolved in January 2013, a caretaker government installed, followed by general elections. President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf would, however, take a final decision on the installation of a caretaker set-up, dissolution of the assemblies and general elections after consulting their coalition partners soon. In case the National Assembly is dissolved in January 2013, the constitutional limit for holding elections would be 90 days while the Constitution demands elections within 60 days after the completion of the constitutional tenure of the assembly. It would be a historic landmark in the country that a democratic government would complete its constitutional tenure for the first time. On the other hand, as the 2013 general elections get closer, the political wheeling and dealing in the country has gathered pace and new political alliances are going to be forged before the next elections. The process will gain momentum as talks for new political alliances start.

Pakistan's political system is broken: its political parties are ineffective, functioning for decades as instruments of two families, the Bhuttos and the Sharifs, two clans, both corrupt. The Bhutto-Zardari axis may be considered "left leaning," while the Sharif brothers may be considered "right leaning." The Sharifs are much closer to Pakistan's military, and to Pakistan's Muslim fundamentalists. Punjabi, the Sharifs represent Pakistan's major ethnic bloc, and the devout Sunni Sharif has an advantage over the Bhuttos, who have Shiite ties.

Pakistan held successful elections in February 2008 and has a coalition government. Voting in Pakistan is intensely personal, with parties gathering votes primarily through allegiance to an individual candidate who is either a feudal or has a proven ability to deliver services. Pakistan is a developing country with some modern facilities in major cities but limited in outlying areas. The infrastructure of areas of Pakistan-administered Kashmir and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) regions were devastated by an October 8, 2005, earthquake and have not yet been fully rebuilt. Massive flooding in 2010 destroyed infrastructure throughout the Indus River valley.

Pakistan continues to face extraordinary challenges on the security and law enforcement front. The country has suffered greater military, law enforcement, and civilian casualties in fighting extremism and terrorism than almost any other country. In the midst of this difficult security situation, Pakistan's civilian government remains weak, ineffectual, and corrupt.

Yousuf Raza Gilani was appointed Prime Minister on 22 March and sworn in on 25 March 2008. On 29 March 2008 Gillani received a unanimous vote of confidence from the Parliament; this gave the new government six months to move forward and tackle significant economic and terrorism challenges. Gillani then outlined the coalition government's "First 100 Days" plan. After weeks of difficult negotiations, the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and its coalition partners came to an agreement on the first tranche of cabinet ministers.

On September 6, 2008, Asif Ali Zardari, widower of assassinated Pakistan People�s Party (PPP) leader Benazir Bhutto, was elected president and head of state. Domestic politics was initially dominated by uncertainty about the fate of President Zardari. He enjoyed approval ratings in the 20 percent range and repeatedly clashed with key power centers, including the military, politically ambitious Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif.

Pakistan's long term stability depends more and more upon the government's willingness to confront difficult economic policy choices it has long sought to avoid. Pakistan must begin to address a breadth of economic challenges that would overwhelm many emerging economies: overhauling the tax infrastructure, eliminating over $4 billion in circular debt in its energy sector, altering revenue sharing agreements among the provinces and the Federal Government, reversing a contraction in consumer credit and expanding financial access, removing price controls in commodity markets, preventing a crisis in water distribution, and breaking Pakistan's dependence on external financial support.

A number of extremist groups within Pakistan continue to target U.S. citizens and other Western interests and Pakistani officials. Terrorists have demonstrated a willingness and capability to attack targets where U.S. citizens are known to congregate or visit. Terrorist actions may include, but are not limited to, suicide operations, bombings -- including vehicle-borne explosives and improvised explosive devices -- assassinations, carjackings, assaults, and kidnappings. Pakistani military forces are currently engaged in a campaign against extremist elements across many areas of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and parts of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Province, formerly known as Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP). In response to this campaign, militants have increased attacks against both civilian and government targets in Pakistan�s cities and in late 2010 launched several coordinated attacks against Pakistani government and civilian targets, especially in Bajaur and Mohmand Agencies.

Over 2500 civilians and 670 law enforcement personnel died in terrorist-related incidents in 2011, and the presence of al-Qa�ida, Taliban, and indigenous militant sectarian groups continues to pose potential danger to foreigners throughout Pakistan. Terrorists targeted civilians in attacks on markets, clubs and restaurants, places of worship, schools, and outdoor recreation events in Pakistan. In addition, the summer and early fall of 2011 saw outbreaks of serious political violence in Karachi, with estimates of death tolls there in the hundreds. Embassies of most western countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand Embassies issued travel advisories recommending against non-essential travel to Pakistan. Even demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn confrontational and possibly escalate into violence. Rallies, demonstrations, and processions occur regularly throughout Pakistan on very short notice and have often taken on an anti-American or anti-Western character.

A judgment the Supreme Court delivered in late 2009 struck down a controversial amnesty that former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and her family had received in late 2007 and would allow a $60-million Swiss graft case against Bhutto�s widower, President Asif Ali Zardari to be reopened. However, the Pakistan government has refused to ask Switzerland to reopen the case, arguing that the president enjoys immunity from prosecution in and outside Pakistan while in office.

On April 19, 2010 president Asif Ali Zardari signed into law the 18th Amendment to the Pakistani Constitution. The amendment realigns executive powers by restoring the prime minister as the premier civilian official and returning the presidency to its original, more ceremonial role, largely eliminates the 17th amendment constitutional changes made by former President Musharraf to strengthen the presidency. Zardari thus gave up key presidential powers. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) had less interest in trying to force Zardari out once his presidential powers were reduced to that of a figurehead president, while Zardari would in any event remain a powerful political figure by virtue of his role co-chairing the PPP.

The reform package also reorganized center-province relations, empowering provincial assemblies to elect their own chief ministers. The constitutional reform package helped Zardari shrink the moral high ground Nawaz Sharif had gained on the 17th amendment issue, while also keeping the smaller nationalist parties that favor provincial autonomy, including ANP and MQM, on the PPP's side.

By late 2011 tension was growing between the government and the military over a probe into the government's role in a scandal centered on a memo that sought U.S. help in curbing the army's power. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's office said on 25 January 2012 that he was "dispelling" comments this month that accused top military officials of subverting government channels in supporting a court investigation of the scandal. Gilani said the country "cannot work in an atmosphere of confrontation" among institutions. The remarks followed talks with army chief of staff General Ashfaq Kayani and intelligence chief Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha.

Pakistan's beleaguered prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, made a rare appearance before the country's supreme court 19 January 2012, amid increased tensions between his government and the country�s fiercely independent judiciary. Gilani appeared before the supreme court in a bid to avoid being held in contempt for his failure to pursue corruption cases against President Asif Ali Zardari. Gilani told the court his government was unable to initiate legal proceedings against the president because he has immunity while in office.

By mid-2012 Zardari�s government was reeling from a combination of rolling power blackouts, rising unemployment, militant attacks and a tense relationship with the United States. There was a situation of crisis and feeling of uncertainty, and in this kind of situation government officials do not really take very bold steps because they don�t know who would be there ruling the country next week. And the whole thing goes in favor of those who challenge the state authority, who are criminals, who are creating problems because they get relatively free hand.

Pakistan's Supreme Court triggered a political crisis when it confirmed a ruling 19 June 20122 that Yousuf Raza Gilani was ineligible for office. The court had previously found him guilty of contempt for refusing a judicial order to ask Switzerland to investigate claims of corruption against President Asif Ali Zardari. The Supreme Court's action marked the first time a Pakistani prime minister was removed by the judiciary. Members of the opposition and others who support the court welcomed the ruling, which they see as a gesture against corrupt and ineffective government. The country's leading opposition PTI party declared the court's decision to disqualify Prime Minster Yousuf Raza Gilani from office a victory for justice Others felt the court overstepped its boundaries.

The Pakistan People's Party, which held a majority in parliament with its coalition partners, nominated the textiles minister, Makhdoom Shahabuddin, for the prime minister's post. But a Pakistani judge issued a non-bailable arrest warrant 21 June 2012 for Shahabuddin in connection with a scandal involving illegal imports of the drug ephedrine during his time as health minister.

RAJA PERVES ASHRAF: On 22 June 2012 Pakistani lawmakers elected a new prime minister to replace ousted Yousuf Raza Gilani, in a bid to end the country's political crisis. Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of former water and power minister Raja Pervez Ashraf, who had been hit with corruption allegations and was partly blamed for the country's electricity crisis. Ashraf won 211 votes in the 342-member national assembly. He is a member of the ruling Pakistan People's Party, which holds a majority in parliament with its coalition partners. Sardar Mehtab Abbasi of the opposition Pakistan Muslim League - N received 89 votes. Since Prime Minister Ashraf seemed likely to face the same pressure to investigate President Zardari, a number of analysts are doubtful that the switch at top levels of the government will end the country's political standoff.

Born on December 26, 1950 in Sanghar, Sindh, Raja Pervez Ashraf was the Federal Minister for Information Technology and earlier Minister for Water and Power in the present PPP-led government. Raja Pervez Ashraf has remained Chairman of Social Action from 1994-1996. He has been twice elected as a Member of the National Assembly from his constituency of Gujar Khan, Rawalpindi with the latest being of February 2008 elections. Before taking oath of the Prime Minister of Pakistan he was Secretary General of the PPPP. He is the graduate from University of Sindh (1970). He is a businessman. Married with two sons and two daughters, he has travelled to Saudi Arabia, U.K, France, Germany, Holland, Ireland, U.A.E, China, Belgium and North Korea.

On 08 August 2012 Pakistan's Supreme Court ordered Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf to appear before it to explain why he has not taken action to reopen corruption investigations against the president. The move was the latest episode in a long-running standoff between the government and the judiciary.

The only son of assassinated former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto told hundreds of thousands of supporters on December 27, 2012, the fifth anniversary of his mother's death, that he would carry forward her legacy, an appearance designed to anoint him as a political heir. "I am the heir to the martyr,'' Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, 24, told the crowd in the southern province of Sindh, referring to his mother and to his grandfather, the founder of the current ruling party who was hanged by a former military ruler. "If you kill one Bhutto, there will be a Bhutto in every house.'' Bhutto was joined by hundreds of high-ranking officials, including the current president, his father Asif Zardari, to commemorate his mother's killing in a gun and suicide attack during a 2007 political campaign rally. He is still not old enough to contest the elections scheduled for spring 2013 - the minimum age is 25. Bhutto, who has his mother's good looks, will only turn 25 in September 2013.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins