According to political science, the parliament, judiciary and administration are the pre-requisites of a modern democratic state. The task of the parliament is to make the laws. The job of the administration is to implement the laws and the function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws. If a law passed in the parliament collides with the constitution and is challenged in the Supreme Court, it can be nullified. The respect for judiciary is supreme. Countries ruled by the monarchies do not respect the law; the words of the king are the final rulings and provisions of law. Actually, there is no law in the undemocratic states. Pakistan is a democratic country, but unfortunately the agencies and military rulers are ruling it. In 1956 General Ayub Khan imposed martial law in Pakistan. Certain politicians were jailed and declared incapable to participate in politics for ten years. He had the plan to rule over the country for at least ten years. His deviation from the democratic process damaged the country. The supremacy of law was set aside. The judges should have declared his martial law illegal, but they also acted on the law of convenience and harmed the integrity of the law. I once met president Ayub Khan and he told me that he had ruled the country like the Moghal emperor Akbar.
The saying “Birds of a feather, flock together†must have been derived from historical experiences and observations. The flocking together of two political birds of our time, General Musharraf and President Bush, fits the saying perfectly. Their personalities, temperament and undertaking are stunningly similarities despite the differences in the political and social systems of their respective countries. A non-democratic mindset is what makes the two men of the same feature.First of all, look at the way both Musharraf and Bush came to power: the former grabbed power through military might while the latter became president through a judicial coup d’etat. If the Supreme Court were not dominated by conservative judges appointed by President Ronald Reagan and Bush Senior, there was no way the presidency could have gone to Bush. He got fewer votes than his opponent and if the Supreme Court had not decided in his favor, he may have lost through the electoral votes as well. After coming to power, both languished in their big chairs wondering what to do next. Mushrraf had no clue how to improve the economic conditions of the country while Bush was so marginalized that he used to spend most of his time at his Texas ranch or talking to school kids. It was only after 9/11 tragedy that the stars of both the men started shining.  Within days Bush’s approval rating skyrocketed to 90% and Musharraf’s empty treasury started bulging up with foreign aid. The fateful events of 9/11 gave both of them a new life. Imagine, if there was no 9/11, could Bush have won a second term or Mushrraf stuck to power so long? Both of them are the real beneficiaries of 9/11.Being Commanders-in-Chief of their respective armies, both have been keen to indulge in military adventures. Musharraf humiliated Pakistan in Kargil while Bush ruined American prestige and world standing through Iraq. If Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Bill Clinton had not managed the explosive situation at the time, Musharraf would have pushed the country very close to a nuclear conflict. Unfortunately, there is no one who can salvage Bush in Iraq even if he abandons his stubbornness. Both hate to admit their mistakes or that they have let down their countries. Musharraf has never admitted that the Kargil adventure was his brainchild and that he tried to sell the idea first to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and then to Nawaz Sharif, both of whom didn’t buy the idea. He then stealthily initiated the Kargil military campaign. Bush, due to Congressional oversight, could not use Musharraf’s stealth strategy. He thus concocted a case against Saddam Hussein. Even now, after such a mammoth loss of life and other resources, Bush and his war team are not willing to concede that they blundered into Iraq. Even now when the Congress and Senate are intent on cutting down on war funds if a withdrawal timetable of American troops is not given, Bush is stubbornly sticking to his guns. Besides the military war, both, Musharraf and Bush are also intent on destroying the institutions in their respective countries and have specifically attacked the legal system and judicial processes. Pakistan was always a military/police state and Bush has tried his best to turn the US into one too. Mushrraf never conceded liberties to Pakistanis, except very banal ones, while Bush has used every method to take away the liberties of the US citizens. Take the ongoing judicial crises in Islamabad and Washington. Musharraf humiliated the Chief Justice of Pakistan inside his military camp because the CJ did not oblige the government on several key economic and political issues. The entire country has stood up in protest against Musharraf’s arbitrariness and unworthy treatment of the CJ. But instead of bowing to the will of the people, Musharraf has chosen to use his muscle against the judiciary and the people.Bush did the same by firing public prosecutors of eight states because they were not going along with the Republican Party’s demand of implicating Democratic candidates in 2006 elections. Bush’s bad luck was that both houses of Congress were taken over by the Democratic Party which started holding hearings about the politically motivated firing of eight public prosecutors. Bush’s close confidant, his Secretary of Justice, Alberto Gonzales, has been discredited so much that even Republican senators have demanded his resignation. Like Musharraf, Bush has refused to accept reality. It seems as if Bush and Musharraf may be consulting each other about their common problems with he judiciary and law.One can highlight numerous common traits between Bush and Mushrraf but to cap the discussion it is suffice to say that both have tried to help the rich and international corporations at the expense of the poor. If Bush has directly benefited Halley-Burton, Exxon and other oil companies, Mushrraf is not behind in transferring public wealth into private hands or throwing away precious property like the Pakistan Steel Mills for pennies. It is not by accident then that the gap between the rich and poor has increased to an unprecedented level in the US and Pakistan during their administrations. Ironically, while the US is a developed democratic system, Pakistan is still struggling with ‘democracy’ and no where close to making it. Still, if countries are ruled by people with a non-democratic mindset, results may be similar in many respects, even if the political and social processes and setups are world’s apart.   Â
By Dr.Maqsood Jafri  According to political science, the parliament, judiciary and administration are the pre-requisites of a modern democratic state. The task of the parliament is to make the laws. The job of the administration is to implement the laws and the function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws. If a law passed in the parliament collides with the constitution and is challenged in the Supreme Court, it can be nullified. The respect for judiciary is supreme. Countries ruled by the monarchies do not respect the law; the words of the king are the final rulings and provisions of law. Actually, there is no law in the undemocratic states. Pakistan is a democratic country, but unfortunately the agencies and military rulers are ruling it. In 1956 General Ayub Khan imposed martial law in Pakistan. Certain politicians were jailed and declared incapable to participate in politics for ten years. He had the plan to rule over the country for at least ten years. His deviation from the democratic process damaged the country. The supremacy of law was set aside. The judges should have declared his martial law illegal, but they also acted on the law of convenience and harmed the integrity of the law. I once met president Ayub Khan and he told me that he had ruled the country like the Moghal emperor Akbar. Undoubtedly he was a patriot and great administrator but, being from the army, his mind did not lean towards establishment of democracy. Because of his undemocratic policies, the people of East Pakistan felt ignored and segregated from the mainstream of politics. Eventually they revolted under the leadership of Mujib-ur-Rehman, and Pakistan was dismembered. Similarly, the next military dictator, Yahya Khan added fuel to the fire. Instead of seeking political solution of the problems, he took military action and innumerable Pakistanis were killed. He wanted to remain the president, but Mujib did not agree. The lust of power of a military dictator threw us into the chasm of disasters. The next military dictator general Zia-ul-Haq ruined the country. First he decided to exile Bhutto for ten years instead of keeping him in prison, but was scared of the honorable return of Bhutto under the pressure of the masses. Hence, the dictator decided to hang Bhutto. And Zia, to strengthen his own rule, sowed religious extremism, sectarianism, and terrorism in the country. His wishing to banish Bhutto for ten years revealed his inner desire to rule over the country for ten years and his fear of Bhutto’s popularity led this power-thirsty military ruler to punish Bhuto by death.Today, General Pervez Musharaf also wants to linger on his rule. The judges of Supreme Court in 1999 should not have granted him the period to continue his regime for three years. It windows the weak side of our judiciary, from which we are suffering today. A judge remarked that generals do not come to power on the advice of the judiciary; they grab the power, and, if the judiciary does not give them grace period to restore democracy, the generals can abrogate the constitution and suspend the courts, as they do not believe in the supremacy of law. According to article 6 and its sub-clauses, the sentence of the imposer of martial law is capital punishment or at least life imprisonment. These generals very adroitly coin up new terminology to save them from the constitutional punitive steps. So-called experts of constitution, like Sharif-ud-Pirzada, are found in all governments to misinterpret the constitution. Â
By Dr.Maqsood Jafri  According to political science, the parliament, judiciary and administration are the pre-requisites of a modern democratic state. The task of the parliament is to make the laws. The job of the administration is to implement the laws and the function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws. If a law passed in the parliament collides with the constitution and is challenged in the Supreme Court, it can be nullified. The respect for judiciary is supreme. Countries ruled by the monarchies do not respect the law; the words of the king are the final rulings and provisions of law. Actually, there is no law in the undemocratic states. Pakistan is a democratic country, but unfortunately the agencies and military rulers are ruling it. In 1956 General Ayub Khan imposed martial law in Pakistan. Certain politicians were jailed and declared incapable to participate in politics for ten years. He had the plan to rule over the country for at least ten years. His deviation from the democratic process damaged the country. The supremacy of law was set aside. The judges should have declared his martial law illegal, but they also acted on the law of convenience and harmed the integrity of the law. I once met president Ayub Khan and he told me that he had ruled the country like the Moghal emperor Akbar. Undoubtedly he was a patriot and great administrator but, being from the army, his mind did not lean towards establishment of democracy. Because of his undemocratic policies, the people of East Pakistan felt ignored and segregated from the mainstream of politics. Eventually they revolted under the leadership of Mujib-ur-Rehman, and Pakistan was dismembered. Similarly, the next military dictator, Yahya Khan added fuel to the fire. Instead of seeking political solution of the problems, he took military action and innumerable Pakistanis were killed. He wanted to remain the president, but Mujib did not agree. The lust of power of a military dictator threw us into the chasm of disasters. The next military dictator general Zia-ul-Haq ruined the country. First he decided to exile Bhutto for ten years instead of keeping him in prison, but was scared of the honorable return of Bhutto under the pressure of the masses. Hence, the dictator decided to hang Bhutto. And Zia, to strengthen his own rule, sowed religious extremism, sectarianism, and terrorism in the country. His wishing to banish Bhutto for ten years revealed his inner desire to rule over the country for ten years and his fear of Bhutto’s popularity led this power-thirsty military ruler to punish Bhuto by death.Today, General Pervez Musharaf also wants to linger on his rule. The judges of Supreme Court in 1999 should not have granted him the period to continue his regime for three years. It windows the weak side of our judiciary, from which we are suffering today. A judge remarked that generals do not come to power on the advice of the judiciary; they grab the power, and, if the judiciary does not give them grace period to restore democracy, the generals can abrogate the constitution and suspend the courts, as they do not believe in the supremacy of law. According to article 6 and its sub-clauses, the sentence of the imposer of martial law is capital punishment or at least life imprisonment. These generals very adroitly coin up new terminology to save them from the constitutional punitive steps. So-called experts of constitution, like Sharif-ud-Pirzada, are found in all governments to misinterpret the constitution. Â
By Dr.Maqsood Jafri  According to political science, the parliament, judiciary and administration are the pre-requisites of a modern democratic state. The task of the parliament is to make the laws. The job of the administration is to implement the laws and the function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws. If a law passed in the parliament collides with the constitution and is challenged in the Supreme Court, it can be nullified. The respect for judiciary is supreme. Countries ruled by the monarchies do not respect the law; the words of the king are the final rulings and provisions of law. Actually, there is no law in the undemocratic states. Pakistan is a democratic country, but unfortunately the agencies and military rulers are ruling it. In 1956 General Ayub Khan imposed martial law in Pakistan. Certain politicians were jailed and declared incapable to participate in politics for ten years. He had the plan to rule over the country for at least ten years. His deviation from the democratic process damaged the country. The supremacy of law was set aside. The judges should have declared his martial law illegal, but they also acted on the law of convenience and harmed the integrity of the law. I once met president Ayub Khan and he told me that he had ruled the country like the Moghal emperor Akbar. Undoubtedly he was a patriot and great administrator but, being from the army, his mind did not lean towards establishment of democracy. Because of his undemocratic policies, the people of East Pakistan felt ignored and segregated from the mainstream of politics. Eventually they revolted under the leadership of Mujib-ur-Rehman, and Pakistan was dismembered. Similarly, the next military dictator, Yahya Khan added fuel to the fire. Instead of seeking political solution of the problems, he took military action and innumerable Pakistanis were killed. He wanted to remain the president, but Mujib did not agree. The lust of power of a military dictator threw us into the chasm of disasters. The next military dictator general Zia-ul-Haq ruined the country. First he decided to exile Bhutto for ten years instead of keeping him in prison, but was scared of the honorable return of Bhutto under the pressure of the masses. Hence, the dictator decided to hang Bhutto. And Zia, to strengthen his own rule, sowed religious extremism, sectarianism, and terrorism in the country. His wishing to banish Bhutto for ten years revealed his inner desire to rule over the country for ten years and his fear of Bhutto’s popularity led this power-thirsty military ruler to punish Bhuto by death.Today, General Pervez Musharaf also wants to linger on his rule. The judges of Supreme Court in 1999 should not have granted him the period to continue his regime for three years. It windows the weak side of our judiciary, from which we are suffering today. A judge remarked that generals do not come to power on the advice of the judiciary; they grab the power, and, if the judiciary does not give them grace period to restore democracy, the generals can abrogate the constitution and suspend the courts, as they do not believe in the supremacy of law. According to article 6 and its sub-clauses, the sentence of the imposer of martial law is capital punishment or at least life imprisonment. These generals very adroitly coin up new terminology to save them from the constitutional punitive steps. So-called experts of constitution, like Sharif-ud-Pirzada, are found in all governments to misinterpret the constitution. Â
