Challenges for new leaders

THE macro-economic reforms introduced by the military government following the demand of the IMF and the World Bank have become an issue again after the general elections. In fact, the issue is over their continuity under the elected leaders who have promised the people a great deal more than what the reforms offer.

Undoubtedly the reforms have stabilised the macro-economy in large areas and produced some good results, particularly in the external sector. On that basis, the IMF and the World Bank want the reforms to continue and be expanded. The government has promised to do that.

The IMF on its part is not all praise for the performance of the government. In its latest report on Pakistan it has stressed that development needs more allocations, particularly on the infrastructure, poverty alleviation needs a lot more attention and the social sector, particularly education and public health far larger outlay. When the United Development Programme (UNDP) places Pakistan at the bottom of the global ladder for human development - 138 in a table of 173 nations have to stress the urgency for larger allocation and greater attention to this crucial sector.

The issue is how can the new leaders deliver far more than what the reforms promise? It is said the reforms take care of the official or officially-managed economy and not the people’s economy in which almost 40 per cent of the people live below the poverty line.

This is not a problem peculiar to Pakistan. The more affluent but equally troubled Latin American countries with similar problems except Venezuela, had followed the IMF programme faithfully for ten years in the 1990s but today find themselves in serious economic trouble. And they are electing leftist governments in the manner Brazil has just done by electing Lula, a steel worker, as the next president with his commitment to the masses 50 millions of whom live below the poverty line. After his election he is speaking in moderate terms about his remedies, but he has to remove the distress of the poor, which is not an easy task.

The IMF on its part has suggested reducing the non-development expenditure of the Pakistan government, including that of defence. It wants the heavy debt burden to be reduced instead of spending Rs 290 billion this year on debt-servicing. It wants waste and corruption in government services to be reduced and the CBR reformed quick so as to collect larger revenues.

None of the IMF suggestions are new. And they are voiced by other international agencies, like the World Bank and the Asian Development Ban, which has promised far more aid if more would be spent effectively on social sector development. The question is: will the new leaders be able to do what is needed, quick, and in full measure?

If we were to have a strong single party government committed to the welfare of people that would have been able to act on the IMF suggestions to mobilise larger resources as well as make better use of the already available resources. But we are to have a coalition government with several big and small parties working together. And there is already talk of patronage to be offered to the supporters of the coalition parties. And that may make the task of reducing the non-productive or non-developmental expenditure too tough.

Can President Musharraf influence the new leaders to make their public expenditure frugal? The unemployed and hungry in Pakistan would not like to see their rulers and bureaucrats living it up at the expense of the poor nation in deep debt with its banks saddled with Rs 257 billion of non-performing loans.

In fact, if the new rulers violate the reforms and embark on any kind of spending spree to win popular kudos the assistance of the three international agencies can dry up and create a host of problems for the country.

The IMF report has not touched on the problem of massive unemployment in the country and its dangerous consequences.

If today the weak among the prolonged unemployed commit suicide, leaving behind too many dependents at the mercy of an unkind world, the younger and stronger elements are taking to crime, including kidnapping for ransom. In recent times even women have been seen as partners in such kidnapping for large sums like a crore of rupees for a child.

And while the IMF talks of the defence outlay of the government, the security cost of companies, factories, homes and affluent individuals as they move around has been increasing. Even guards hired to protect them have been found indulging in crimes because of the vast disparity in the incomes of various groups. This is the sign of a sick society, not a healthy one on the way to rapid economic recovery or social equilibrium.

The solution may lie in what China has been doing. Its economic output has increased eight times within 23 years. And now President Jiang Zemin has called for a four-fold increase in GDP by 2020. Clearly the old leap-frogging increase in economic output is no longer possible as the economy has become far larger than before. Hence he is being realistic in setting the new target for GDP growth.

Such growth is possible after China has received foreign direct investment of 6000 billion dollars and will this year receive 50 billion dollars,exceeding even what the US will get this year as FDI. It may be said of China that it could achieve so much as that has been under communist rule but as for as we are concerned we have been more than half that time under military rule, and we are told what we had during the rest of the time was a sham democracy. And yet our per capita income has come down to 425 dollars while china’s is 1,020 dollars.

The people of Pakistan are no longer content with breezy economic slogans and welfarist rhetoric. They want a better life. But now apart from feudalism which still rules the roost in the rural areas, as the electoral success of the rich families demonstrate, the economy is facing the severe challenges of globalization which means cheaper imports in plenty that is a threat to our high cost and highly taxed industry. The result can be more unemployment unless protective measures are taken quick and adequately.

The cost of electricity has to be reduced to lower the cost of production; but after four years of military control of WAPDA and KESC there has been no significant fall in the massive power theft. The elected leaders may not be able to do better. The solution is seen in privatization which is to begin with KESC. The process is underway.

There had been a great deal of talk about downsizing the government. Various moves to do that have ended with token results. Some number of employees were put into the reserved pool and the expenditure on them cut nominally. Not much more. And the ability of any coalition government to do more is negative.

People can’t be thrown out of jobs in the government when it does not have enough funds to give a generous golden hand shake, and the private sector is not able to absorb them. Hence despite the de-regulation and privatization the total number of persons employed by the federal, provincial and local governments exceeds 3 million, which is too large a number for what the government has been able to deliver in Pakistan.

The IMF hence wants the debt burden on which the larger part of the tax revenue is spent to be reduced. Even after the reduction of external debt burden, the government will be spending Rs 90 billion on debt servicing this year. The domestic debt keeps on increasing because of the 6.6 per cent budget deficit of last year and the projected 4 per cent this year. Which, in fact, may be far more if the politicians have their way.

Can the CBR reforms lead to a large increase in revenues? Shahid Husain, former vice-president of the World Bank who headed the task force on CBR reforms, had said the reforms could yield 40 to 50 per cent revenues which now goes into the pockets of the tax collectors. But CBR officials say the increase in revenues may not be 10 per cent. Anyway the CBR has to be reformed and corruption from its ranks eradicated as much as possible through systematic efforts.

Meanwhile the large increase in the salaries and perquisites of the top people announced even before the elections is disturbing. Now far more is to be paid to members of the assemblies and parliamentary secretaries who may be large in number under a multi-party government. Will not the contrast between the high paid officials, including higher court judges and the mass of the unemployed and poorly paid workers be too much? The rich and the powerful are isolating themselves more and more from their poor people, with the argument higher pay means less corruption, which is often not the case in a free for all official set up.

If in the process, the government will not have much to spend on job-creation, in addition to continuing the current moderate measures, the rulers will have to go all out to promote private investment, real employment promoting investment. The investors would want incentives, and the new government should be ready to come up with such offers.

Such incentives could mean more liberal bank loans with due guarantees, lower tax rates and reduction in the multiplicity of taxes, which is exasperating to the investors. Without the help of the private sector the problem of employment cannot be solved. And how much the new leaders can lobby with the private sector investors remains to be seen.

In due course, the Habib Bank too will be privatized following the UBL which has been. They can be far more alert than public sector banks in giving large investment loans and also in verifying the security offered and protecting it thereafter instead of ignoring that as public sector banks tended to do.

Anyway we need a five-year period of austerity, if not for ten years, to cut down the high level of consumption among higher echelons of the government and society, raise the level of exports and reduce the disparities in income. Besides, the high living of the new rich class which has come up through dubious means should be socially resented by the government.

If the new government cannot offer more to the people it should consume less and be far less ostentatious. Otherwise they will be provoking the poor and adding to our social tensions and political unrest in a highly fragmented society.

Next target: Iran?

PRESIDENT George Bush wrapped himself in the American flag and won a major victory as American voters gave control of both houses of Congress to the Republican Party. In mid-term elections, the party in power almost always fares badly, but this year an electorate, gripped by fear of terrorism, and whipped into war fever by high-voltage propaganda, voted Republican. Thank you Osama and Saddam.

One poignant photo said it all: Georgia’s defeated Democratic Senator, Max Cleland, sitting in a wheelchair, missing both legs and an arm lost in combat in Vietnam. This highly decorated hero was defeated by a Vietnam war draft-dodger who had the audacity to accuse Cleland of being ‘unpatriotic’ after the Senator courageously voted against giving Bush unlimited war powers. I do not recall a more shameful moment in American politics.

Bush’s victory is clearly a mandate to proceed with his crusade against Iraq. Preparations for war are in an advanced stage. The US has been quietly moving heavy armour and mechanized units from Europe to the Mideast. Three division equivalents and a Marine heavy brigade are now in theatre. An armada of US warplanes is assembling around Iraq, which is bombed almost daily. US special forces are operating in northern Iraq, and, along with Israeli scout units, in Iraq’s western desert near the important H2 airbase. The war could begin as early as mid-December if there is no coup against Saddam Hussein.

But for all the propaganda about wicked Saddam Hussein, Iraq is not the main objective for the small but powerful coterie of Pentagon hardliners driving the Bush administration’s national security policy. Nor is it for their intellectual and emotional mentors in Israel’s right-wing Likud Party. The real target of the coming war is Iran, which Israel views as its principal and most dangerous enemy. Iraq merely serves as a pretext to whip the Americans into a war frenzy and to justify insertion of large numbers of US troops into Mesopotamia.

Israeli defence officials have long dismissed demolished Iraq as a minor threat, even though it likely has 6-18 old Scud missiles hidden away. Saddam Hussein did not use chemical weapons in 1991 for fear of Israeli nuclear retaliation. Israel now has the world’s most advanced anti-missile system, Arrow, with two batteries operational, and numerous batteries of the latest US Patriot missiles. The prevailing view in the Israeli military is that Iraq will be quickly defeated by US forces, and then likely split into two or three cantons. Israel’s North American supporters, however, are still being given the party line that Israel is in mortal danger from Iraq.

Iran is a different story. Iran is expected to produce a few nuclear weapons within five years to counter Israel’s large nuclear arsenal, and is developing a medium-range missile, Shahab 3, that can easily reach Israel.

With 68 million people and a growing industrial base, Iran is seen by Israel as a serious threat and major Mideast geopolitical rival. Both nations have their eye on Iraq’s vast oil reserves.

Israel’s newly appointed hardline defence minister, former air force chief Shaul Mofaz, who was born in Iran, has previously threatened to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Thanks to long-ranged F-15Is supplied by the US, plus cruise and ballistic missiles, Israel can strike targets all over Iran. Some days, ago Israel’s grand strategy was clearly revealed for the first time, though barely noticed by North American media, as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called for an invasion of Iran “the day after” Iraq is crushed.

Elections in Israel at the end of January will probably return Sharon’s Likud Party and its extreme rightist allies to power, this time with a strengthened position. Ferocious competition for party leadership between the iron-fisted Sharon and the even more hardline Benjamin Netanyahu suggests a further move to the far right, zero chances for peace with Palestinians, and a more aggressive policy towards Israel’s unloving neighbours.

In the US, Pentagon hardliners are drawing up plans to invade Iran once Iraq and its oil are ‘liberated.’ They hope civil war will erupt in Iran, which is riven by bitterly hostile factions, after which a pro-US regime will take power. If this does not occur, then Iraq-based US forces will be ideally positioned to attack Iran. Or, they could just as well move west and invade Syria, another of Israel’s most bitter enemies.

Israel’s Likudniks thirst for revenge against Syria — and also Iran — for supporting Lebanon’s Hizbollah movement, which drove Israeli forces from Lebanon. The unofficial leader of what some call ‘the American Likud Party,’ Pentagon superhawk, Richard Perle, told our TV programme, ‘Diplomatic Immunity,’ that the US was prepared to attack Syria, Iran, and Lebanon.

By February or March, the US media will likely be flooded with dire warnings about the threat to the world from Iran. Israel’s American lobby will turn its guns from Iraq to Iran. ‘Links’ will surely be ‘discovered’ between Iran and Al Qaeda. The cookie-cutter pattern that worked for whipping up war psychosis against Iraq should work just as well against Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia — and win the next national election. —Copyright: Eric S. Margolis - 2002

Western media & the Afghan war

EXACTLY one year and one day ago, that is on November 13, some American bombs destroyed the Kabul offices of Al-Jazeera network. The bombs, unleashed during the height of the latest Afghan war, besides razing the TV network’s offices, brought to the fore certain vital questions relating to war coverage.

These questions were dealt with only briefly by the British and American media. It is true that some western journalists did make the right noises. But, it was soon quiet again.

Among the very few western journalists who did the right thing was Matt Wells of The Guardian. In his piece — aptly titled “How smart was this bomb?” — Mr Wells said the bombing might well have been deliberate. “The US had scored a direct hit on the offices of the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera, leading to speculation that the channel had been targeted deliberately because of its contacts with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.”

He went on to talk of possible targeting of media organizations during future crises. “If true, this opens up a worrying development for news organizations covering wars and conflicts: NOW they could be targeted simply for reporting a side of the story that one party wants suppressed.”

However, the British dailies, both tabloids and broadsheets, seemingly did not agree with what Mr Wells had said. That is probably why they proceeded to drop this issue from their agendas.

Once the Afghan war had effectively been won, the British and American media could have returned to the issue, not just to voice their displeasure over the episode but also to prepare a blueprint that could be followed in case present and future governments again resorted to strong-arm tactics to cow the media down. But even one year on from that fateful day for media coverage of war, there are no signs of this happening.

This only makes one wonder whether or not the western media considers the Middle Eastern media an integral part of the world press. They should have viewed the bombing of Al-Jazeera’s offices as an attack on all media, regardless of nationalities, cultures and religions.

The said episode spotlights just one in a long list of disappointing failures on the part of the western media during the Afghan war. It seemed they got caught up in the war hysteria whipped up in the aftermath of 9/11.

That can be the only reason why they did not protest much against the silencing, by Islamabad, on November 6 of the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. He was asked to stop holding press conferences because these “gave tendentious accounts of civilian casualties and triumphs over Americans”. This piece of information was broken by The Guardian with a rather brief item entitled “Move to silence Taliban’s man in Pakistan”.

Meanwhile, a spectacular example of the blurring of boundaries between healthy news presentation and comments, on the one hand, and propaganda, on the other, was provided by almost all western media — including the ones that opposed the war option on humanitarian grounds — splashed one of President Bush’s statements as it reflected their own conviction too. The reference here is to the American president’s statement in which he said, the “Allies are going to wage a war on terrorism”. So, for several months the newspaper readers and television viewers got pages upon pages, and also footage, which had the words “War on Terrorism” emblazoned in bold. This is not to suggest that what the allies were waging was anything other than a war against who they saw as “terrorists”. The point here is that the statement was too sweeping in its connotation and to that extent, reflected an odd synthesis of fact and fiction of war on Afghanistan.

This is not to say, however, that the western media’s performance during the war was utterly disappointing. Far from it. They did provide some priceless information, especially when Robert Fisk was attacked by some Afghan refugees in Pakistan and also when the Americans flattened a village only to say later that nothing had happened in the hamlet.

The Independent carried an item, on its front page, which tore to shreds the US claim that nothing had happened at the village. This was made possible by the presence in Afghanistan of The Independent’s correspondent, who had actually visited the village.

Similarly, The Guardian carried several stories describing the massacre of Taliban prisoners at Qila-i-Jhangi, near Mazar-i- Sharif, at the hands of the US and Northern Alliance forces. The Mirror and The Independent also covered this episode more than adequately. These newspapers displayed these reports prominently because they related to human rights violations. The fact that the allies had by then effectively won the war, no doubt, helped the cause.

Let us now turn to a rather surprising development which took place after the allies had effectively sealed the war’s fate. After the Taliban and Al-Qaeda men had lost both Kabul and Jalalabad The Sun published an editorial that slammed the newspapers of the liberal left. These newspapers had subtly opposed the war option and were only guilty of providing some space to columnists and commentators who opposed the war on humanitarian grounds.

The Sun’s editorial, titled “Shame of the traitors”, heaped scorn on the left-leaning dailies even though what they were doing was exercising their right to disseminate news and views. It lambasted the left’s papers for thinking too much, it seemed.

So while people like Robert Fisk give us hope that the western media may one day become fully independent of the governments, people like The Sun’s editor make it crystal clear that the mass-circulated tabloids are just in the media industry to make money. Disagreement to them is treason, nothing less.

If we continue to have people like David Yelland, the editor of The Sun, at important positions in the western media, they can never be expected to be objective during crises. However, some glowing examples in the Afghan war show that given a will the British and American media can deliver the goods even during the worst of times.

Why global parliament?

WE live at a critical moment in world history. There are two distinct options: to regress into a Hobbsian world of war, of all against all or to build a truly new world order of law based on the achievements of the past.

It took World War-I to have the League of Nations. The League failed in part as a result of the US refusal to join it. We had World War-II to establish the United Nations with the US this time as its chief architect. Does it have to take another world war to establish more democratic global governance?

The Bush administration’s unilateralism has inadvertently focused world attention on this question. At a recent conference organized by the Montreal International Forum hundreds of participants from all over the world fervently searched for answers. Co-sponsored by the Commonwealth, Ford, Rockefeller, and Aga Khan Foundations, the conference covered a vast range of topics. among them, the most exciting and controversial was the proposal to establish a global parliament.

At a workshop organized by the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research, the participants explored many options for greater democratic representation in global decision-making. Emerging out of three volumes of studies, the proposals are as rich and diverse as the global civil society voices.

For the past 30 years, the World Federalist Movement has been proposing a world parliament elected by universal suffrage to bring about coherence in the inchoate voices of over six billion people on earth. More recently, the Toda Institute in collaboration with Focus on the Global South and University of Melbourne has proposed a People’s Assembly to add to the UN General Assembly’s effort to represent the people’s voice directly rather than through their governments.

The General Assembly consists of some 190 state delegations, most of whom representing the interests of dictatorships rather than democracies. Professors Richard Falk and Andy Straus have come up with an intriguing new idea. The world need not wait for a fully universal and representative global parliament. The movement for a global parliament can begin immediately to organize elections on a partial basis in those countries that allow it in order to provide a counter-veiling power to the jingoist voices. That movement also can pave the way for a truly universal and representative Global Parliament.

Thanks to US unilateralism, the global democracy movement is thriving on a wave of enthusiasm. The World Forum of civil Society Networks, America Speaks, and Computer Professors for Social Responsibility can be numbered among them. Former Indonesian president Abdul-Rahman Wahid is organizing a Bandung II to unite the first and the Third world civil societies in their efforts to struggle for peace and justice.

In his annual peace proposals, for years Buddhist leader Daisaku Ikeda also has proposed a plan for global assembly. Taking advantage of the new Network Civilization, computer professionals have established an electronic forum for the discussion of proposals for a global parliament. The idea will not die.

The writer is a professor, University of Hawai’i and director, Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research, Tokyo and Honolulu.

Issue of parliamentary ratification

THE federal law minister while talking to journalists and his ministry in an official handout have refuted the reports appearing in the press that the minister is proposing yet an other amendment to the Constitution to delete its Article 63A, so that “floor-crossing” by members of the parliament is allowed. Both emphasized that the Constitution, including its Article 63A, was in abeyance, hence the question of its amendment did not arise and that the Article 63A would come into operation once the Chief Executive passed an order for the revival of the Constitution.

This opinion of the law minister is supported by the Legal Framework Order, August 2002 (LFO). The preamble as well as Section 4 of the LFO, clearly confirms that certain parts of the Constitution are in abeyance. The minister deserves thanks for this clarification. His opinion helps in resolving the prevailing ambiguities and controversies relating to the effects, consequences and validity of the LFO. The opinion about Article 63A, being one of the Articles in abeyance, would equally apply to all other provisions of the Constitution which are also in abeyance. It can be, therefore, be fairly construed, without fear of contradiction, that the proposed amendments to the Constitution sought to be made through the LFO could only be treated as proposed amendments as they seek to amend such parts of the Constitution which admittedly are in abeyance.

It may be noted that through the LFO new disqualifications for members of the parliament have also been sought to be added to Article 63, including the disqualification of a candidate convicted as an absconder. Since Article 63 is also in abeyance, the amendments sought to be made therein are therefore inoperative and unenforceable. The candidates to a seat in the Parliament, who may be affected by the new disqualifications imposed by the LFO, could therefore, successfully challenge their disqualification in the superior courts.

It is necessary to clarify that the fact that certain parts of the Constitution are regarded in abeyance does not mean that the original qualifications or disqualifications prescribed in the 1973 Constitution or the electoral laws are unenforceable or inapplicable simply because: (a) the Provisional Constitution Order 1999 (PCO) in its Section 2 clearly provides that notwithstanding the abeyance of the provisions of the Constitution, Pakistan shall be governed “as nearly as may be in accordance with the Constitution” and (b) the Supreme Court has already held that “.... the 1973 Constitution still remains the supreme law of the land.....”. This clearly means that such provisions of the Constitution shall have to be followed and abided by, irrespective of abeyance. However, the provisions of the Constitution in abeyance cannot be amended, as admitted by the law minister.

It may be noted that the LFO has been issued by the Chief Executive in exercise of his powers under the Proclamation of Emergency, Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) both dated October 14, 1999, and the May 12, 2000, judgment of the Supreme Court in the famous case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah (PLD-2000 SC 869). A perusal of the said Proclamation of Emergency and the PCO reveal that none of the two proclamations authorize or empower the Chief of Army Staff or the Chief Executive to amend the Constitution. On the contrary, Section 2 of the PCO provides that notwithstanding the abeyance of the Constitution, Pakistan shall be governed as nearly as possible in accordance with the Constitution.

It was the Supreme Court that had, while validating the assumption of power by General Musharraf, through a coup, conferred very limited powers on General Musharraf to amend the Constitution. Whether the court could confer such power on any person, which it does not possess, is a separate issue to be debated and determined by the jurists. The apex court, however, to our relief, circumscribed the power of the Chief Executive to amend the Constitution by prescribing several vital preconditions, such as “.... only if the Constitution fails to provide a solution for attainment of his declared objectives .....” and that “no amendment shall be made in the salient features of the Constitution i.e. Independence of [the] judiciary; federalism; parliamentary form of government blended with Islamic provisions”.

In its judgment the Supreme Court rightly stressed that “..... 1973 Constitution still remains [the] supreme law of the land subject to the condition that certain parts thereof have been held in abeyance on account of state necessity....”. The court also held that fundamental rights under the Constitution shall remain enforceable but the state will be authorized to make any law or take any executive action in deviation of Article 15, 16, 17 18, 19 and 24 as contemplated under Article 233(1) of the Constitution, keeping in view the language of Article 10 (safeguards as to arrest and detention); Article 23 (protection of right to property); and Article 25 (prohibition against discrimination).

The apex court in its several judgments has repeatedly emphasized that it will continue to have the power of judicial review to judge the validity of any act or action of the armed forces and that the legislative measures taken by the present government must satisfy the conditions prescribed by the Supreme Court for that purpose. The judiciary has thereby left some open windows to enable the people to question any of the constitutional amendments or laws made or now intended to be made by General Musharraf, which do not satisfy the preconditions and parameters prescribed by the Supreme Court or militate against the basic scheme and spirit of the Constitution.

As and when the 1973 Constitution is fully restored, one is inclined to believe that the amendments recently made may form part of the Constitution only if the procedure prescribed by the Constitution itself in its Articles 238 and 239 is followed both in letter and spirit. If this is not done, logically all such amendments to the Constitution made by the present government in the past three years would be void and of no legal effect. A constitution is an embodiment of the will of the people and not wishes or ambitions of an individual or a coterie with vested interests. The Basic Law of every state is a social contract voluntarily entered into by the people (of the federating units, in case of a federation).

Any arbitrary or unilateral amendment made in it by any person or agency is a violation of that contract and hence null and void. This is a universally accepted principle. The preamble of the 1973 Constitution too has incorporated and highlighted this principle in these words: “ .... Now therefore, we the people of Pakistan ...... do hereby through our representatives in the National Assembly adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution”. Consequently, after the restoration of the 1973 Constitution, the amendments made or sought to be made in it by the Chief Executive shall require the approval and adoption of these by at least a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament to remain in force and the ordinances promulgated by this government would require ratification by the parliament just elected.

The precedent of 1985 also supports this view. It may be recalled that General Zia had also chosen to put the 1973 Constitution in abeyance instead of repealing it. Just before the general elections of 1985, General Zia too had issued a Revival of the Constitution Order, known as Presidential Order No. 14 in March 1985, which also contained innumerable amendments to the Constitution.

However, better sense prevailed and acting on the advice of the then attorney-general, General Zia agreed to present before the parliament his P.O. 14 of 1985, for validation and approval. It was debated in depth in both houses of the parliament and after prolonged negotiations and discarding of some of the undesirable and undemocratic provisions, the parliament adopted a radically amended version of the same and the Constitution (8th Amendment) Act was passed almost unanimously in November 1985. It was after the passage of this amendment in the parliament, that the 1973 Constitution was restored on December 30, 1985.

In view of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution, several judgments of the Supreme Court and the past precedent of 1985, General Musharraf has no option but to change his stance that the amendments to the Constitution made by him do not need the support of a two-thirds majority in the parliament for ratification. The interest of the country will be best served, political deadlock and polarization on this most burning issue will be removed and the supremacy of the parliament as well as the will of the people will be vindicated if General Musharraf agrees to present all his constitutional amendments in the new parliament for approval by at least a two-thirds majority, as was done in 1985.

The writer is a former Senator and federal law and parliamentary affairs minister.