18th amendment: Pros and Cons, Criticism and Applause
 

It is said and believed by some of the experts that keeping in view the distorted political and constitutional history of Pakistan, 18th amendment was an extra ordinary step towards democracy, prosperity and nationalism. It is also argued that nothing more could be achieved and what is there in the amendment, all of that is imperative for a nation.

I want to generate a good debate with criticism and applause wherever due. So to be precise; [FONT="Arial Black"]What more could have been accomplished through 18th amendment and what should have not been amended? (Pros & Cons)[/FONT]

You can check this for better understanding of [FONT="Arial Black"][URL="http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-compulsory-subjects/current-affairs/current-affairs-notes/36677-18th-amendment-notes.html"]18th amendment[/URL][/FONT].




.

dictatorship
 

:waitingTime will make us understand tht this amendment leads the nation frm the military dictatorship to the civilian dictatoship:unsure:.The much-celebrated 18th amendment does not stipulate internal party elections constitutionally.Fundamentally speaking, internal party elections should be binding on political parties in a democratic set-up. The absence of such a provision is an alarming malfeasant development in the so-called refinement process of the democratic structure of Pakistan by the present-day legislative body.There is no such thing as a “Political Parties Act” anywhere in Pakistan’s legal manuals. What we have, in fact, is a “Political Parties Order” enacted by Gen. Pervez Musharraf that now stands null and void in view of the annulment of all of the ordinances passed by the previous regime. The important question here is: Is there a legal process and a constitutional prescription available as a remedy to un-seat or dislodge an incumbent party boss from his/her position of party leadership?
The deleting of the political parties internal elections clause is a carefully planned move. In essence, it lays down the ultimate foundations of a “civilian dictatorship” super-imposed on the nation by an autocratic hereditary leadership. A Zardari followed by another Zardari (made obvious by naming his son Bilawal Bhutto instead of Bilawal Zardari) and at some point in time a peacefully dying Nawaz Sharif (we are all mortals – no offense to Mian Sahib) nominating another Sharif to lead the party. From the Zardari-Sharif point of view, that ought to be the destiny of this nation. How ironic!:angry: