The focus in the media this week has continued to be the constitutional proposals with special emphasis on the National Security Council (NSC) despite General Musharraf announcing that the proposed NSC would be non-intrusive.
The News in its editorial (“Non-intrusive NSC?  22 July 2002) commented “Given the heavyweight membership - the khakis by power and prestige far outweighing the politically weakened prime minister and a few ministers - it seems the body is designed to ensure the elected crew behaved itself, not maintain a fictitious balance in the highest echelons of authority.  The editorial also argued that “the excessive power the president has been given in the proposals makes anything like a NSC (in its softer version) unnecessary.  Adrian Husain feels (“The NSC bottleneck  Dawn, 25 July 2002) “Whichever way one examines the matter, an NSC can only be thought of, in the context of a parliamentary system of government, as a hallowed body 'guardians' with overriding powers or what is referred to, in legal parlance, as a supra constitutional.  Nasim Zehra opines (“National Security Council  The News, 26 July 2002) that in its present form, the NSC “will create further distrust with Pakistan’s power scene.  Benazir Bhutto, in an interview to Daily Times (25 July 2002) said, “The PPP opposes an NSC which usurps the powers of Parliament. It can consider a transition timetable where the President could have the powers to sack the Parliament as per the Kakar formula. That is both the President and the Prime Minister would go when the eight amendment was used, subject to finalisation by the ARD and PPP. Power would be handed to the Judiciary as in Bangladesh to hold elections. 
However, renowned analysts such as Shahid Javed Burki support the NSC, given the past record of the political leaders. Arguing that the “NSC is likely to function as a watchdog on the civilian-led administration, acting only when the prime minister has crossed a clearly demarcated threshold,  Burki feels that the NSC “is likely to work as an institution where the two important components of the Pakistani ruling class interact with one another and exchange information.  (“Reform: Six positive elements  Dawn, 24 July 2002.)
There were also arguments against the Supreme Court’s judgment making graduation mandatory for contesting in Provincial and National Assemblies. Faisal Bari, arguing this condition as discriminatory, rightly questions (“Driving Miss Daisy  The Nation, 22 July 2002) “Do all people in Pakistan have the opportunity and the resources to get a bachelor’s degree? Is it not the case that higher education is not only restricted to a very small class, it is also ‘expensive’ to study for 14-16 years that are required to become eligible to appear for the bachelors examination.  Another interesting report on the issue was the decision of the Election Commission to recognize holders of degree awarded by madrassas as eligible for elections. (The Frontier Post, 26 July 2002)
There were also reports on Kashmir. Dawn quoted Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan claiming (“Govt’s stand on Kashmir unchanged, says Qayyum, Dawn, 22 July 2002) that Musharraf was the only president who could stand against all foreign pressures and not change Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. Whether the international community believes it or not, the fact is Pakistan under General Musharraf or anybody else would never change its Kashmir policy. It simply cannot afford to. Inayatullah argues (“What next in Kashmir  The News, 24 July 2002), “having conceded so much under Indian and American pressure, reversing a vital decades old strategy for supporting the Kashmiri's fight for freedom, it is Pakistan's right to expect concrete action on the part of Washington to help finally settle the Kashmir question.  According to him, India’s game plan is, “By cutting off support from Pakistan, it hopes to adequately manage the insurgency in the occupied state. It plans to use the carrot and stick approach. To some extent it has already succeeded in weakening the Hurriyyat which may take steps to adjust to the changing situation. This time elections may not be rigged massively as before and New Delhi may succeed in creating an impression that the elected Assembly would be by and large representing most of the Kashmiris -- from the valley, Jammu and Ladakh. 
The London-based Kashmiri leader Shabir Choudhry apprehensive (Kashmir: A crucial phase  25 July 2002) that the forthcoming elections in J&K as one means to decide the future observes: “in the presence of a large army it is not an appropriate method to ascertain the wishes of the people. If the APHC or other Kashmiri leaders participate in the scheduled elections, then that may amount to accepting the status quo. If that was to be the end-result, then the question is why did the Kashmiris sacrifice so many lives? Those who would participate in the elections may face the wrath of the people. 
These crucial issues aside, Benazir Bhutto made an interesting, yet debatable, assertion in The Nation (22 July 2002) that “Democracies don’t fight wars or promote international terrorism . Democracy returned to Pakistan after Zia’s death in 1989 – the same year when terrorism commenced in Kashmir. Is it just coincidence?
Facebook
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
