ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU BUT ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY

LIST OF NOTIFICATIONS REPRODUCED IN THE <!--[if gte mso 9]> ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU BUT ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY By Alia Ijaz, Advocate, First Law Company, Lahore On 12th October, 1999 a military coup was staged in Pakistan by General Pervaiz Musharraf. Though an un-Constitutional act but not so uncommon in country like Pakistan. The military is the most formidable and autonomous actor in Pakistan, capable of influencing the nature and direction of political change. During 56 years of its creation, Pakistan is under military rule for 25 years. The reason according to many civilian leaders is that Pakistan is a difficult country to govern in the given complexity of the issues facing the country coupled with the crippling economy. The political leaders in Pakistan failed to realize that democracy could not take its roots firmly until and unless the average persons attained their economic rights. Democracy must provide economic dividends to the people, otherwise democratic Governments do not mean anything to them. Now let's take a overview of our Constitutional history. Constitution is a sacred document but in Pakistan its sanctity is violated more than once. Why is it so? To answer this we need to go back in Constitutional history. Pakistan came into existence on 1947. And in that year our first Constituent Assembly was formed. According to the Independence Act of 1947, a Constituent Assembly was formed for the purpose of framing up a Constitution of Pakistan but from 1947-54, Constituent Assembly failed to give Constitution to the nation. In 1953 the country was facing serious problems food crisis, decline in value of exports, and anti-Qadiani Movement. On April 17, 1953 Governor-General, Ghulam Muhammad dismissed the Cabinet of Khwaja Nazimuddin, and installed Muhammad Ali Bogra's Cabinet. The new Prime Minister began his tenure of office but again Governor-General, 'Ghulam Muhammad dissolved the Assembly on 24th October, 1954. This act was challenged by Moulvi Tameezuddin Khan, then President of Assembly in Sindh Chief Court, who declaimed the dissolution as unlawful. This was challenged in Federal Court who reversed the judgment in Federation of Pakistan v. Moulvi Tameezuddin Khan (PLD 1955 FC 240) and held that consent of Governor-General is necessary to all laws and amendments made in Government of India Act, 1935, and section 223-A of Act conferring powers on High Court to issue writs had not received such consent. In 1955 Emergency Powers Ordinance was promulgated under section 42 of Government of India Act, 1935 by which Governor-General was given powers to validate Acts by indicating its assent with retrospective operation. This power was challenged in Usif Patel's case (PLD 1955 FC 387). The Federal Court declared that Acts mentioned in the Schedule of this Ordinance could not be validated under section 42 of Government of India Act, 1935 nor could retrospective effect be given to them. At that time Constituent Assembly had ceased to function as dismissed by Governor-General. The Governor-General thus made a Reference to the Federal Court inviting Court's opinion whether the Governor-General could under any law or provision of Constitution declare that all orders made or done under those laws should be valid and enforceable. This was answered with affirmative by Federal Court in (PLD 1955 FC 435). The second Constituent Assembly was elected in 1955 as per guidelines of Federal Court. The first Constitution came into force on March 23, 1956. Due to political instability, killing of Deputy Speaker of East Pakistan Assembly etc. led to the abrogation of Constitution by President Sikander Mirza on 6-10-1958 and imposed Martial Law in the country and appointed General Muhammad Ayub Khan as Chief Martial Law Administrator. In 1958 C.M.L.A. promulgated an Order known as the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order. In State v. Dosso (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 533) held that if Constitution was destroyed by successful revolution, the validity of prevalent laws depended upon the Will of new law-creating organ. Therefore, if new legal order preserves anyone or more laws of old legal order, then a writ would lie for violation of the same. On the basis of theory propounded by Hans Kelsen Supreme Court accorded legitimacy to assumption of power by General Muhammad Ayub. In 1959 Basic Democratic Order was promulgated, 40,000 basic democrats were elected, who chose Muhammad Ayub Khan as President. On 1-3-1962 the second Constitution was promulgated. Again due to war between neighbouring India and Pakistan in 1965, dissatisfaction over tremendous power of Assembly resulted in descending of President Ayub's powers. Instead of handing over power to Speaker of National Assembly according to the Constitution of 1962 he called upon General Yahya Khan, who abrogated the Constitution and promulgated Provisional Constitution Order, 1969. This was followed by Legal Framework Order, 1970, under which general elections were held. As a result of elections Awami League led by Mujeeb-ur-Rehman swept polls in East Pakistan. The transfer of powers did not take place which led to violent agitation and as a result in 16-12-1971 East Pakistan dismembered from Pakistan. Imposition of Martial Law was challenged in Miss Asma Jilani v. Government of Punjab and others (PLD 1972 SC 139), wherein Court held that doctrine of Legal Positivism founded on Hans Kelsen theory and recognized in Dosso case was inapplicable. General Yahya was termed as usurper and all actions taken by him except those in welfare of people were declared to be illegal. In 1971 Yahya Khan resigned and handed over powers to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. In 1972, Interim Constitution was enacted which later on succeeded by permanent Constitution of Pakistan. On 7-3-1977 general elections were held. Then Martial law was imposed in some troubled areas and simultaneously certain amendments were made in Constitution. On 5th July, 1977 General Zia-ul-Haq then Chief of Army Staff for the fourth time imposed Martial Law and ordered that 1973 Constitution will remain in abeyance. The imposition of third Martial Law was challenged in Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of the Army Staff and Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1977 SC 657). The Court on basis of Doctrine of Necessity declared imposition of Martial Law as valid. Then came the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. In pursuance of Referendum Order, 1984 General Zia-ul-Haq held Referendum and was elected. In 1984 Revival of the Constitution Order came, elections held in 1985 and assemblies elected which were again dissolved by General Zia-ul-Haq on 29-5-1988. It was challenged in High Court as Muhammad Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 Lah. 725). The Court declared the dissolution illegal and matter came to Supreme Court in appeal. On 17-8-1988 General Zia died in air crash. The Court vide Federation v. Haji Saifullah Khan (PLD 1989 SC 166) upheld judgment of High Court but refused to grant relief of restoration of assemblies. Elections held in 1988 and Pakistan People's Party formed Government at Centre. On August, 1990 Ghulam Ishaq Khan, then President levelled certain allegations of corruption and maladministration, dissolved National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b) and ordered fresh elections. This Order was challenged in all four High Courts. The Lahore and N.-W.F.P. High Courts upheld orders of dissolution. The matter came to Supreme Court in Tariq Rahim v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1992 SC 646), but Court refused to grant leave to appeal against judgments of High Court. In general elections held in 1990 Nawaz Sharif came in power. On 18-4-1993 Ghulam Ishaq Khan once again dissolved Assembly. The matter came before Supreme Court in Nawaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 473) and by majority the Court held that order of dissolution did not come within the ambit of powers conferred to President under Article 58(2)(b) and restored the Cabinet and Assemblies. However, in peculiar situation Mian Nawaz Sharif advised the then President to dissolve Assemblies on 1993. In the election Benazir Bhutto came to power and Farooq Leghari was elected President. On 5-11-1996 President dissolved National Assembly and dismissed the Constitution. This was challenged in Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 388) but action of President was held Constitutional and legal. In election held in 1997 Mian Nawaz Sharif returned to power. Some amendments were made in Constitution and by Thirteen Amendment, Article 58(2)(b) was repealed. Differences between Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff and coup took place on 12th October, 1999. After viewing our Constitutional History we can fairly conclude that in 56 years of our creation we have miserably failed to evolve a system of governance, transfer of power and to follow Constitutional path for achieving the welfare of people and establishment of democratic institutions as envisaged by Constitution. Now we will review the petitions filed against the coup d'etat of 1999 and its possible implications on our future. SYED ZAFAR ALI SHAH v. GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, CHEIF EXECUTIVE Through this petition the action of Chief of Army Staff on 12th October, 1999 was challenged. It was also asked that all orders made be declared un-Constitutional. The short order made in this case was that stability in system, success of Government, democracy, economic stability and prosperity of people depend to considerable degree on interpretation of Constitution and legislative instruments by superior Courts. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that judiciary is independent. Fresh oath under Oath of Office (Judges) Order No. 1 of 2000 does not in any way preclude the Judges of this Court from examining the questions raised in petition, which have to be decided in accordance with their conscience and law. The object of taking of this oath was to reiterate the well-established principle that the foremost duty of Judges of superior Courts is to save judicial organ of State. This was exactly what was done. As the question of intervention by Armed Forces was concerned Court held that indubitably. National Assembly, Provincial Assembly and Senate being symbols of unity owes utmost respect, however when representatives of people are themselves accused of massive corruption, where there is no political and economic stability, where all institutions of State were being systematically destroyed etc. the Extra-Constitutional step of taking over the affairs of country by Armed Forces for transitional period to prevent any further destabilization is validated as no solution is provided in Constitution. The 1973 Constitution still remains the Supreme Law subject to condition that certain parts held in abeyance on account of State Necessity. General Pervaiz Musharaf, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Army Staff through Proclamation of Emergency dated 12-10-1999 followed by P.C.O. of 1999, whereby he has been described as Chief Executive having validly assumed power by means of Extra Constitutional step, in the interest of State and people are entitled to perform such acts and promulgated all legislative measures. The case of Judges oath can't be reopened being hit by doctrine of past and closed transactions. The Chief Executive shall appoint a date not later than 90 days for holding general elections. The Court has jurisdiction to review Continuation of Proclamation of Emergency dated 12-10-1999 at any stage if circumstances so warrant, as held in PLD 1999 SC 57. PAKISTAN MUSLIM LEAGUE-Q v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS In this writ petition the imposition of Article 8A in Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002, by which the condition of graduate to become member of Parliament was challenged. The contention of petitioner was that such condition was violative of the provisions of Article 17 and Article 25 of the Constitution and it has also travelled beyond the parameters set by Supreme Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah's case. Moreover keeping in view the prevailing state of literacy in the country such condition was unreasonable and irrational. It was urged by the petitioner that Election Order in essence and spirit was an amendment which Government is not authorized to do. The Court held that Election Order is not an amendment but is law within the purview of Article 62(i) of Constitution. Section 99 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 also deals with the qualifications for membership of the Parliament and is part materia with Article 62 of Constitution. A perusal of Article 62 of Constitution clearly shows that further qualifications in addition to those laid down in Article 62 can be prescribed by a law enacted by law making authority. The Election Order being issued by Chief Executive on the strength of powers conferred by Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah case is thus validly promulgated law. It was further held that Election Order is not violative of Article 7 and Article 25 of Constitution. It was held in PLD 1989 SC 66: That fundamental right conferred by Article 17(2) by which every citizen has been given right to form or to be member of political party comprises the right to participate in and contest an election." Thus every citizen has a right to contest election but principle enumerated therein does not confer an unbridled right on every citizen to contest an election. And only those citizens are eligible who possess qualifications contained in Article 62 and do not suffer any disqualification in Article 63 of Constitution and law. Article 25 which is equality before law was interpreted in 1.991 SCMR 1041 as "That under Article 25 all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection before law but the State is not prohibited to treat its citizens on the basis of reasonable classification." The question of unreasonableness is also not convincing because educational qualifications not only raise the level of competence and change the political culture but will also be incentive to education. (PLD 2002 SC 994). WATAN PARTY THROUGH PUNJAB PRESIDENT LADIES WING TASNEEM SHAUKAT KHAN v. CHEIF EXECUTIVE OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS This petition was filed under Article 184(3) of Constitution to set aside the amendments made in Constitution through Legal Framework Order. The contention was that these amendments are made by transgressing the limits laid down in Zafar Ali Shah's case as only limited powers were granted but Chief Executive has introduced as many as 29 amendments. Amendment in Constitution can be made by 2/3 majority of members of both Houses of Parliament. In countries like Australia and Japan amendment is possible with absolute majority followed by popular Referendum. The L.F.O. has also effected trichotomy of powers by reincorporating Article 58(2)(b) in the Constitution and has no mandate for the said job. The Court held that Supreme Court vide judgment in Zafar Ali Shah's case validated the Extra Constitutional step on the basis of doctrine of State Necessity and on the principle of Salus populi suprerna lex as embodied in PLD 1977 SC 657, while validating the Extra Constitutional step the Court held that 1973 Constitution remains the supreme law of land subject to the condition that certain parts thereof have been held in abeyance on account of State Necessity. As to the reincorporating of Article 58(2)(b), it has not concentrated the powers in the hands of President but brought about balance between the powers of President and Prime Minister in Parliamentary form of Government. The Court further held that petitioner had no locus standi because according to PLD 1975 SC 66 and PLD 1998 SC 161 the person trying to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) needs not be aggrieved person nevertheless the person approaching the Court under this provision has to demonstrate that question raised concerns the public at large. And in order to check the validity of all amendments through L.F.O. the Parliament and not the Court is the appropriate forum. (PLD 2003 SC 74) PAKISTAN LAWYERS FORUM v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS The petitioner's contention .was that Government of Pervaiz Musharraf on account of rigged Referendum held on 30-4-2002, is not capable of holding fair elections which were near in the light of judgment in Zafar Ali Shah's case. The Election Commissioner Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Irshad Hassan Khan be declared incapable of holding fair elections as he has become partial. All public functionaries from Grade 22 downwards be warned permanently from interfering with the process of election. The President be declared violative of condition of handing over power to civilian within time frame of 3 years, and has become usurper and subverter of Constitution 1973 liable to be tried under Article 6 of Constitution. The petitioner relied on Laski's theory stated in PLD 1972 SC 139: "Laski's theory is that the control of Armed Forces of the State is an essential element of the Sovereignty of the State and that the Armed Forces are under command of State. Once the State loses that command it becomes ineffective and must either then change the law or abdicate." The august Court held that there is no infringement of the judgment of Supreme Court as Chief Executive has appointed a date for holding elections for National Assembly, Provincial Assembly and Senate. The delay in the transfer of power to civilian Government in the making appears to be because of lack of majority of any party in Parliament and also due to lack of consensus on formation of coalition Government. The answer to question that whether the President has committed treason or contempt of Court is for the same Court to judge who passed the verdict in Zafar Ali Shah's case. The amendment in Constitution is a political question and therefore does not fall within domain of Judicial Review. Moreover, in democratic system checks and balance is provided to avoid Autocratic rule and to provide balance of power for proper conducting of Government according to Constitution. One reason in favour of Article 58(2) (b) is that it prevents Constitutional deviation. The exercise of power under this Article or Constitutional deviation can be avoided not by letters of Constitution but by political ethics, morality and maturity (PLD 1997 SC 426). Legal Framework was enforced on 21-8-2002, twenty-seven Articles were amended. In view of Article 239(5) of Constitution jurisdiction of this Court is ousted, Parliament has still the power to amend Constitution. By virtue of Article 270A all Presidential Orders, Ordinances, Chief Executive's Orders including Provisional Constitution Order No.1 of 1999, Oath of Offices (Judges Order, 2001) and the Referendum Order stand validated. As far as this fact that President has been given immunity under Article 248, is unsustainable and has no substance as superior Courts have jurisdiction to judge validity of any action of Armed Forces if challenged. The judiciary is custodian of Constitution. The fact that any question is a political question will not deter the Court from determining it provided it involves interpretation of Constitution or validity of such question is to be determined on touchstone of Constitution. And the Court should not adopt political question doctrine for refusing to determine difficult and knotty questions. (PLD 2003 Lah. 371) QAZI HUSSAIN AHMAD, AMEER JAMAAT-E-ISLAMI PAKISTAN AND OTHERS v. GENERAL PERVAIZ MUSHARRAF, CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND OTHERS Through this petition Referendum Order was challenged under Article 184(3) of Constitution on the Constitutional as well as on the touchstone of verdict in Zafar Ali Shah's case (PLD 2000 SC 869). The petitioners' contentions were that despite the validation of the Proclamation of Emergency dated 14-10-1999 and the Provisional Constitution Order, 1999 by the Supreme Court, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 still remains the supreme law of the land' as laid down in Zafar Ali Shah's case. The Chief Executive had unlawfully occupied and taken over the position of President of Pakistan in violation of the judgment in Zafar Ali Shah's case, and the former President still continued to be the President notwithstanding the President's Succession Order, 2001. They also prayed for the issuance of writ of quo warranto. The Court declared that the Proclamation of Emergency (Amendment) Order and President's Succession Order had been validly issued by the Chief Executive of Pakistan in exercise of powers under the Proclamation of Emergency dated 14-10-1999 and Provisional Constitution Order, 1999 as validated by Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah's case. Referendum Order, 2002 was issued by President and Chief Executive in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah's case. Moreover it had no effect of amending the Constitution. The Court also held that questions with regard to the consequences flowing from the holding of Referendum were purely hypothetical academic and presumptive in nature and were not capable of being determined at the present juncture. Thus no case made out for issuing of writ of quo warranto. (PLD 2002 SC 853). PAKISTAN LAWYERS FORUM (REGD.) LAHORE THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER In this writ petition Legal Framework Order, 2002 issued by Chief Executive was assailed on the ground that same was opposed to judgment of Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah's case and same be declared to be beyond limit imposed by said judgment and therefore be struck down. The election of President not held in accordance with procedure laid down in Constitution and therefore even Parliament is not constituted in terms of Article 50 of the Constitution. It was further contended that assumption of office of President for five years, insertion of Article 58(2)(b) and creation of National Security Council affect the grund norm and basic structure of Constitution as spelt out in Asma Jilani v. The Government of Punjab (PLD 1972 SC 139) and Zafar Ali Shah's case (PLD 2000 SC 869). The Objectives Resolution adopted by then Constituent Assembly in 1949 was a declaration of intent and to canvass the Constitutional provision be struck down if it is not in consonance with said Resolution, would not be correct exposition of law laid down in Asma Jilani v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1972 SC 139). In State v. Zia-ur-Rehman (PLD 1973 SC 49) held as: "Having said this much about Constitutional position of the Courts and their relationship with the other equally important organ of State, namely the Legislature, it is now necessary to examine as to whether any document other than the Constitution itself can be given a similar or higher status or whether judiciary can, in the exercise of its judicial power, strike down any provision of. the Constitution itself either, because it is in conflict with the laws of God or some other solemn declaration which the people themselves may have adopted for indicating the form of Government they wish to establish. I for my part cannot conceive of a situation, in which, after a formal written Constitution has been lawfully adopted by a competent body and has been generally accepted by the people including the judiciary as the Constitution of the country, the judiciary can claim to declare any of its provisions void or ultra vires." This view was reiterated in Nusrat Bhutto's case (PLD 1977 SC 657) and Fauji Foundation's case (PLD 1983 SC 457). The Court held that Article 2A through which Objectives Resolution was made substantive part of Constitution and on which appellant's counsel has laid much emphasis was brought about by the Chief Martial Law Administrator-General Zia-ul-Haq by an Order similar to Legal Framework Order, 2002 i-e Revival of Constitution of 1973 Order, 1985. The Parliament accepted it but with certain modifications which are reflected in Eighth Amendment. Notwithstanding its becoming substantive part of Constitution, even then the august Supreme Court did not accord it a supra-Constitutional status and held in PLD 1992 SC 595-‑ "that instead of making 1973 Constitution, more purposeful, such an interpretation of Article 2A, namely, that is in control of all the other provisions of Constitution would result in undermining it and pave way for its eventual destruction or at least its continuance in its present form." Besides the insertion of Article 2A, P.O 14 amended Article 41(7), General Zia-ul-Haq assumed the office of President for a period of 5 years through Referendum and Article 58(2)(6) was inserted for the first time. The vires of Article 58(2)(b) and P.O. 14 of 1985 were challenged in Sindh High Court in Abdul Majeed Pirzada's case (PLD 1990 Kar. 9), in which it was held 'that present legal edifice is based on amended Constitution if we take out some amended provisions, the superstructure of democracy built on it may collapse. For example under Article 41(3) read with Second Schedule to Constitution electoral college for election of President has been made more representative by P.O. No. 14 of 1985 by providing that the Provincial Assemblies will form part of the electoral college. If I were to hold the above amendment is illegal it would affect the incumbent of office of Prime Minister as President had nominated the Prime Minister under Article 91 (2). A number of other incumbants of other offices and number of other institutions who were not before us will also be affected. This will be an unending process". Further Article 58(2)(b) was held to be a beneficial provision by august Court for maintaining checks and balance between the powers of President and Prime Minister. This view was affirmed in Mahmood Khan Achakzai v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 426) and Benazir Bhutto and others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 Supreme Court 388). Even in Zafar Ali Shah's case the rationale of this provision was taken note of. The assumption of office of President through Referendum was challenged in Qazi Hussain Ahmad v. General Pervez Musharraf (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 853) the same was dismissed. The vires of L.F.O., 2002 was challenged in Watan Party's case. The forgoing survey of judgments of Constitutional Courts in Pakistan indicates that generally such matter ultimately have been left to be decided by political Sovereign and Parliament and rightly so, Parliament continues to be Supreme Body. As aptly remarked by USA Judge of Court of Appeal, Learned Hand "those who put their hopes in Constitutions, laws or Courts were mistaken. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women and when it died, no Constitution, no law and no man could do much to help" (Learned Hand: The Man and The Judge by General Gunther") The precedent case-law and aforementioned decision of august Supreme Court are binding and this Court cannot sit to review them as Court of appeal. Article 189 of Constitution mandates that, "any decision of Supreme Court shall to the extents that it decides question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law be binding on all other Courts in Pakistan". Moreso, when none of political parties, has challenged L.F.O. in Court and are engaged in dialogue for consent formula on issue raised with regard to L.F.O., 2002. CRITICAL ANALYSIS The coup d'etat of 12th October, 1999 did not surprise many national and international observers. According to Ilias Bantekas, Senior Lecturer and Director, International Law Centre, School of Law, University of Westminster. Barrister (Athens) and Zahid F. Ebrahim, Advocate of the High Court and faculty member, S.M. Law College, University of Karachi: "This assumption of power by the military, the fifth in Pakistan's brief history, was greeted with relief in Pakistan. Liberal Pakistani intellectuals cite allegations ranging from corruption, incompetence to autocratism against Sharif's Government." Mr. Harun Rashid, a former Bangladeshi career diplomat also expressed similar kind of response: "Pakistan's military has done it again. On 12th October, the Army Chief General Pervaiz Musharraf dismissed the democratically elected Government of Pakistan through unconstitutional means as a tit for tat response for his dismissal as Army Chief by the deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Pakistan reportedly remained calm and there was no demonstration or opposition to the dismissal of the Government." Thus according to many observers, scholars and politicians people of Pakistan heaved a sigh of relief on the end of Nawaz Sharif Government. But keeping in mind the deplorable Constitutional history, they had also reservations about the possible outcome of this coup. The above mentioned petitions were filed to determine the validity of this outcome. And once again the Supreme Court bowing before Hans Kelsen's "doctrine of necessity" legitimized the military intervention, the Court also gave validity to all actions of Chief Executive including the more controversial Referendum and Legal Framework Order. Commenting on this decision Farooq Hassan, a lawyer for one of the religious parties, the Jamaat-e-Islami, condemned the ruling: "It has once again confirmed the suspicions that our judiciary does not have the strength to stand up... to an authoritarian executive," According to Elizabeth Neuffer journalist in America, commenting on referendum: "At the heart of the debate over Musharraf's apparent power grab is the nature of Pakistan's democracy. Musharraf was given three years by the Supreme Court to curb corruption and return the country to democracy. But the General, who held a controversial referendum this spring allowing him to remain as leader for another five years, says true democracy has never worked in his homeland and that he believes Pakistan should focus some power in the hands of the military to ensure a 'sustainable democracy'." Western diplomats say, Musharraf's amendments reflect his insecurity both in Pakistani politics and his popularity among Pakistan's voters. The General is deeply influenced, they say, by the Pakistan military's skepticism toward the country's political class, which they perceive as having saddled the nation with corrupt and ineffective leaders. Now I will discuss the most controversial L.F.O. which has gripped the country for several months. After the elections held peacefully, everyone was expecting the smooth transition of power from military to civilian rule. But from the condition of proceedings in Parliament, it seems that road to democracy is still full of hurdles. Mr. Irfan Hussain renowned journalist denounces L.F.O. by commenting, that: "The L.F.O. has no such sanctity and that is why it cannot and must not be incorporated into the Constitution without a proper debate and vote. To accept it through military fiat would open the floodgates for all future adventurers to chop and change the much-abused Constitution to suit themselves." According to Abid Hassan Minto the eminent Constitutional lawyer and Head of National Workers Party: "The controversy on the L.F.O. is full of contradictions. There are no two opinions that only the people through their chosen representatives are entitled to make and unmake laws and the Constitution. In Pakistan, however, this has not been the case. Except for the Constitution of 1956 and the original 1973 Constitution, all other dispensations were created by the establishment under the control of the Armed Forces. Even the first ever general election in Pakistan which took place in 1970 was the result of a Legal Framework Order. Since, however, the effect of that L.F.O. was to establish a representative body, democratic opinion in Pakistan rightly went alongwith it. The principle that one man can't make the law or Constitution was not invoked." He also commented by giving examples that: "The 1959 and 1972 Land Reforms were introduced through Martial Law Regulations. The 1961 Family Laws Ordinance, which slightly advanced the position of women in society, was the result of an Ordinance promulgated by a military regime. The principle on which rational democratic opinion in Pakistan accepted these instruments and laws was that these were measures that advanced society and conferred benefits upon under-privileged people. The Eighth Amendment, which made scores of amendments in the Constitution, some of them vitally affecting the democratic dispensation, became part of the Constitution. It was sanctified by Courts and ultimately accepted even by political parties who had initially opposed it. So our history with regard to amendments and introduction of laws is as full of contradictions as our political history. The L.F.O. was promulgated by a military establishment on the basis of authority given in Zafar Ali Shah's case. This case and all other cases proceeding on the basis of Doctrine of Necessity are controversial. And yet that case has become part of our judicial and political system and even the opposition today relies on it saying that the regime has gone beyond the preview of that judgment. By another instrument that is Election Order, 2002 brought about extensive changes in the Constitution. The joint electorate was reincorporated in the Constitution after removing the separate electorate introduced by Eighth Amendment. Women were allowed 60% seats. The age of an elector was reduced from 21 to 18 years and the number of seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies and the Senate were increased. These all amendments were made by one man. The L.F.O. incorporates all these amendments and some other changes in the Constitution and it also states that they have become part of the Constitution. If the principle the one man cannot change the Constitution is valid then the Elections of 2002 were invalid. That however is not politics. It is because of that the elected on all sides believe that the Parliament in which they sit is lawful body, entitle exercise power and Constitution. In fact the essence of these amendments is democratic. The controversial amendments are however the once which relate to the office of President, the creation of the National Security Council and the authority of the President to dismiss the elected Government. The issue today is what democratic and what is not. If we go by the principle as to who made the changes, then we must reject the elections as well. That not a democratic course to follow nor will advance the society any further." Now after much debate the question arises that how can the controversy be resolved? According to Abid Hassan Minto, this controversy should be resolved not as a matter of compromise between the establishment and the political forces, but on the basis of principle. The principle being that all those provisions which advance democratic dispensation should be retained in the Constitution and those which cut down the representative character of Parliament affect the federal system and institutionalize the Armed Forces as a political factor should be kept out of the Constitution. To conclude the above discussion, I would say that if we want to bring real democracy in our country, we have to put Pakistan before everything. Instead of compromises, opportunism, favouritism and betrayals we have to develop qualities of honesty, sincerity, compassion and hard work in ourselves.