This week (14-21 July 2002), the Pakistani English media mostly focused on the implications of the constitutional packages that were introduced by the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) on 26 June 2002. A number of questions have been raised against its various provisions in the editorial and opinion columns.
The main worry was what would happen to the Parliament as an institution and parliamentary democracy as an ideology. Dawn, in its editorial (14 July 2002) questioned “Will the parliament to be elected in October be left free to decide on the package in its own lights and according to the rules and procedures prescribed by the Constitution or will it be enforced through a presidential ordinance requiring the parliament to rubber-stamp it?  Senator Iqbal Haider, the former Attorney General and the Federal Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs fears that the proposal to deprive the National Assembly from electing the Prime Minister, would in effect then enable a Prime Minister, “to avail sufficient support in the Assembly by hook or crook, if he enjoys the wholehearted backing of the President, proposed NSC and their agencies. Such a proposal would only promote worst kind of horse-trading, corruption, illegal and immoral practices  (“Constitutional Conundrum  The News, 15 July 2002). In its editorial, Dawn also expressed the same fear “the prime minister will be at the mercy of an all-powerful president acting in tandem with the National Security Council  (“Rewriting the Constitution,  16 July 2002).
On the proposal to reduce the term of the National Assembly from five years to four, Kunwar Idris made a case for reducing it to three years (“Elections before new systems  Dawn, 15 July 2002). His argument: “that is the maximum period our people are inclined to put up with a government irrespective of its being political or military. The alternating governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif between 1988 and 1999 confirm this phenomenon.  Alauddin Masood, also supporting this move, commented “a short tenure and elections at regular intervals may help in eliminating the element of agitation from the politics in addition to proportionately reducing the use of money during the elections  (“73 Constitution, 73 Amendments  The Nation, 18 July 2002).
There was also a lot of anxiety on the proposed role of the National Security Council and its implications for Pakistan’s democracy. The editorial of Dawn (14 July 2002) commented “What the NSC proposes to do, however, is to subordinate Pakistan's elected leadership to a cabal of Bonapartists in disguise. This is hardly the road to take the nation to ‘real democracy.’ 
Some analysts are of the opinion that the NSC is essential, but with limited objectives. MP Bhandara, a former member of Pakistan’s National Assembly prefers the “NSC to be a constitutional body brought into being by the next assembly and authorized to take decisions in a transparent manner, its scope of operation defined and limited specifically to the subjects mentioned earlier  (“NSC-Whose Security,  Dawn, 14 July 2002). Brig (Retd) Saleem Zia believes “to deal with political crises involving the possibility of the President dismissing the PM, the Cabinet or the NA, CMs should be excluded from NSC and the chief justice of Pakistan and all the provincial CJs be included instead. This will automatically provide legal and judicial advice to both the PM and the President, thus obviating the possible litigation's resulting from President's action in this regard  (“Constitutional Amendment Packages  The Nation, 21 July 2002).
An interesting development mentioned in the media was the Press Conference of the Pakistan Bar Council that was held in Lahore on 18 July 2002. Hamid Khan, the Chairman of Pakistan Bar Council was quoted as saying “Judiciary is validating all the illegal and unconstitutional moves of the Army regime and leading the nation to an ultimate Army dictatorship.  The lawyers organizations felt that the Judiciary had always let down Pakistan in hard times (The News, 19 July 2002).
TThere are also some sympathizers for the constitutional packages though they support indirectly. Ikram Ullah, for instance, argues “We should also keep in mind that Pakistan is facing many external dangers…. The Indian army continues to be deployed in an offensive posture against our borders and the Line of Control…. The situation in Held Kashmir remains explosive. It may get worse if India insists on its sinister design of holding the drama of fraudulent elections in Held Kashmir and label it as the will of the Kashmiri people. Under cover of "Cross Border Terrorism", India is putting pressure on US and the International community to get Pakistan declared as a terrorist state  (“The Draft Constitutional Package, The Nation, 21 July 2002). Brig (Retd) Saleem Zia feels “Most of the proposed amendments are either necessary to give coverage to certain useful institutions like local governments, National Accountability Bureau, financial reforms etc, or are useful for development of democratic practices and enhancement of provincial harmony  (“Constitutional Amendment Packages  The Nation, 21 July 2002).
On the extreme side, there was also the feeling that the constitutional proposals put forward by the military should not be debated at all by the civil society as the military has no right whatsoever to make these proposals. Ejaz Haider argues “by debating the amendments, won’t civil society allow itself to get trapped in the framework laid down by the regime?  (“Why the amendments should not be debated,  The Friday Times, July 19-25, 2002).
Facebook
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
