In a democratic set up the parliament is sovereign with he limitation that it can only make laws or take decisions and actions in the interest of the people it represents. If any of its actions results in national loss, the rulers lose their right to govern. The European definition of sovereign meaning autocratic king does not apply to an Islamic democracy based on the Caliphate tradition of public accountability for the head of state or government.
The members of the assemblies, senate and president take an oath to act in public interest and not for personal gain. So any law (act of parliament or presidential ordinance) made for personal gain of current or ex-legislators or which tends to eliminate or diminish expectation of public gain is not a law but a conspiracy.
The Supreme Court has the right to interpret laws, and it should do so not only in the light of constitutional and legal provisions but also uphold the fundamental objective of public good.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow a new span of 120 days for parliament to endorse lapsed ordinances is tantamount to assuming that they were promulgated yesterday. It could have made sense if the parliament had done so in the first 120 days of its formation. It can always introduce a new bill incorporating the contents of a lapsed one.
Since all the sitting judges were persecuted by ex-general Pervez Musharraf, they should not participate in his personal trial. A tribunal of unbiased judges could be formed if investigations show that he deserves to be tried.
The constitution contains an oath for military officers. If they have not taken it so far, they should be made to do so now to give them constitutional legitimacy. There should also be a similar oath for civil servants.
A UN team is investigating the death of Benazir Bhutto. But independent analysis has begun to point to the mind-boggling possibility that the IMF may have done a deal with Asif Zardari and arranged her brutal elimination.
The chairman of Pakistan Steel Mills has been sacked for corruption and PM Gilani has ordered an enquiry into misdealing starting from his own office. Why not from the president's?
Every year every citizen has to declare all his or her assets to the FBR and elected representatives submit a similar declaration to the EC. Have the president and all ministers and advisers of the present government done that? I f not why not ask them to do it post haste and make it public?
During his tenure as PM Nawaz Sharif had started a fund for national development to which everyone had contributed in local and foreign currencies. Why not start a new similar fund into which all patriotic Pakistanis should contribute at least half of their foreign assets? It could go a long way in resolving the financial crisis.
Nowadays the government is buying everything from Dubai. It should disclose the detailed identity of the suppliers in Dubai.
There is a big question mark in front of the sovereignty of the parliament. Frankly, I do not undersatnd this sovereignty. Sovereign body holds ultimate authority. Like if our parliament is supreme, then can they allow gay marriages in the best interest of the nation? There is a hurdle of the law to be in accordance with Islam injunction. Then do you really think the chaps in the House have the understanding of the islamic laws?
ReplyDeleteIf it is sovereign then why do we need the Court to interpret the laws enacted by the Parliament. I mean this is ridiculous. Its like some other person can interpret what I mean by my certain statement and I do not have the right to say anything for its interpretation.
There are some big question marks for the authority we have given to institutions. I hope things will evolve in future.