At this juncture in national history, the issue is whether President Musharraf should face impeachment, or he should quit to avoid impeachment. The latter alternative is a matter of evaluation here in order to arrive at a definite conclusion.
The Law Minister, Farooq Naek, as reported in the national press, stated that the President should resign to spare Pakistan the trauma of a bitter impeachment process. Further, some ten PML-Q MPs wanted President Musharraf to resign, receive safe exit, and any resolution in the National Assembly for the impeachment should be avoided. Furthermore, Australian foreign minister is reported to have stated that President's impeachment had "international implications," and asked for a "quick resolution of the dispute." The reason underlying this viewpoint was that continuing instability could hurt efforts in the war on terror in the Pak-Afghan border area.
For comparison, and inferences to be drawn relevant to the ongoing issue in Pakistan, impeachment process involving President Nixon of the U.S. affords a meaningful study. The Watergate break-in occurred in June 1972, and shortly afterwards it was leaked out to the public. Subsequently, the three charges or articles of impeachment voted in by the House Committee in July 1973 were: (i) The obstruction of justice; (ii) abuse of power; & (iii) unconstitutional defying of the committee subpoenas. These charges were the result of an elaborate, extended & nationally televised House Committee proceedings.
Noteworthy fact is that the charges for impeachment of President Nixon were meticulously established in front of the nation to serve as a positive precedent in future. It was only afterwards that President Nixon was allowed the option to resign in August 1973. Henry Kissinger in his Years of Upheaval observed that in spite of all the turmoil caused by the Watergate break-in scandal, it was viewed by some astute individuals, even in the beginning of the tribulation, that the Watergate would bring a democratic revival. And that the U.S. Congress could not remain unaffected by the public mood.
In the political and constitutional history of Pakistan, it is a precedent-setting occasion that an incumbent president is likely to be impeached. Any undue and unwarranted haste in the matter, much less to scuttle it through his resignation, not to speak of providing him a safe exit, will be an unjustifiable act, which is likely to stand out as a blot in the nation’s political history. As illustrated by the already stated instance from the U.S. history, the ensuing steps are to be incorporated in the impeachment proceedings: 1. To duly register the public temperament; 2. framing of impeachment charges; 3. Parliamentary proceedings, along with final facts related to charges consequent to investigations made available in advance; 4. and, at the end, final option is to be considered by the Parliament for the prosecution.
Noteworthy, is the fact, despite all the concerns of a superpower, the Watergate issue and hearings in the U.S. lasted almost 14 months. The cited instance affords inference that no unwarranted haste is indicated in the impeachment proceedings contemplated here in Pakistan.
In accordance with Article 47, the Parliament (joint sitting) is entitled to "investigate or cause to be investigated" the charge for the impeachment. The grounds comprise violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct. In this perspective, the President's Oath of Office under Article 42, Third Schedule, is quite relevant as well. In addition to other charges to be framed, the following charges are suggested which are to be "investigated" or "cause to be investigated" by the Parliament: (i) The national foreign policy for Afghanistan, abetting its foreign military occupation, (ii) as well as zero non-production of additional electricity under President Musharraf; (iii) implications of the President's press conference in Seoul on 7 November 03, (reported the next day in the Daily Times) concerning the nuclear disclosures as state secrets are not to be disclosed; and, (iv) last but not least, national policy related to Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, which in its existing form is tantamount to facilitating the deal. The salutary consequences of the outlined measures will be far-reaching in the nation's future, which are direly needed to inaugurate the revival of national institutions.
It is to be fully appreciated that impeachment is a political process, and charges for it are a matter of political judgement of the parliamentarians, unlike the possibility of a subsequent prosecution if called for, which is a legal process. As this nation is in search of an ascendant trajectory of its course, so in (John) Miltonian sense it has to begin to convert its "vices" into "virtues", and such a precedent-setting occasion is at hand.
The Law Minister, Farooq Naek, as reported in the national press, stated that the President should resign to spare Pakistan the trauma of a bitter impeachment process. Further, some ten PML-Q MPs wanted President Musharraf to resign, receive safe exit, and any resolution in the National Assembly for the impeachment should be avoided. Furthermore, Australian foreign minister is reported to have stated that President's impeachment had "international implications," and asked for a "quick resolution of the dispute." The reason underlying this viewpoint was that continuing instability could hurt efforts in the war on terror in the Pak-Afghan border area.
For comparison, and inferences to be drawn relevant to the ongoing issue in Pakistan, impeachment process involving President Nixon of the U.S. affords a meaningful study. The Watergate break-in occurred in June 1972, and shortly afterwards it was leaked out to the public. Subsequently, the three charges or articles of impeachment voted in by the House Committee in July 1973 were: (i) The obstruction of justice; (ii) abuse of power; & (iii) unconstitutional defying of the committee subpoenas. These charges were the result of an elaborate, extended & nationally televised House Committee proceedings.
Noteworthy fact is that the charges for impeachment of President Nixon were meticulously established in front of the nation to serve as a positive precedent in future. It was only afterwards that President Nixon was allowed the option to resign in August 1973. Henry Kissinger in his Years of Upheaval observed that in spite of all the turmoil caused by the Watergate break-in scandal, it was viewed by some astute individuals, even in the beginning of the tribulation, that the Watergate would bring a democratic revival. And that the U.S. Congress could not remain unaffected by the public mood.
In the political and constitutional history of Pakistan, it is a precedent-setting occasion that an incumbent president is likely to be impeached. Any undue and unwarranted haste in the matter, much less to scuttle it through his resignation, not to speak of providing him a safe exit, will be an unjustifiable act, which is likely to stand out as a blot in the nation’s political history. As illustrated by the already stated instance from the U.S. history, the ensuing steps are to be incorporated in the impeachment proceedings: 1. To duly register the public temperament; 2. framing of impeachment charges; 3. Parliamentary proceedings, along with final facts related to charges consequent to investigations made available in advance; 4. and, at the end, final option is to be considered by the Parliament for the prosecution.
Noteworthy, is the fact, despite all the concerns of a superpower, the Watergate issue and hearings in the U.S. lasted almost 14 months. The cited instance affords inference that no unwarranted haste is indicated in the impeachment proceedings contemplated here in Pakistan.
In accordance with Article 47, the Parliament (joint sitting) is entitled to "investigate or cause to be investigated" the charge for the impeachment. The grounds comprise violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct. In this perspective, the President's Oath of Office under Article 42, Third Schedule, is quite relevant as well. In addition to other charges to be framed, the following charges are suggested which are to be "investigated" or "cause to be investigated" by the Parliament: (i) The national foreign policy for Afghanistan, abetting its foreign military occupation, (ii) as well as zero non-production of additional electricity under President Musharraf; (iii) implications of the President's press conference in Seoul on 7 November 03, (reported the next day in the Daily Times) concerning the nuclear disclosures as state secrets are not to be disclosed; and, (iv) last but not least, national policy related to Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, which in its existing form is tantamount to facilitating the deal. The salutary consequences of the outlined measures will be far-reaching in the nation's future, which are direly needed to inaugurate the revival of national institutions.
It is to be fully appreciated that impeachment is a political process, and charges for it are a matter of political judgement of the parliamentarians, unlike the possibility of a subsequent prosecution if called for, which is a legal process. As this nation is in search of an ascendant trajectory of its course, so in (John) Miltonian sense it has to begin to convert its "vices" into "virtues", and such a precedent-setting occasion is at hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment