Nawaz Sharif-Zardari meet: Resolve against undemocratic moves
by Aziz Narejo, TX
So it is official. They are meeting again over a dinner at the presidency. To make some promises – to keep – or to break – depending on the situation, the motives or the priorities.
After all their agreements and pledges or promises are not verses from Quran or Hadith!
There surely is lack of trust between the two. Outcome is uncertain. Could be that Zardari is facing the heat due to NRO, minus one stories and other rumors doing the rounds among the chattering classes that he might be forced to take a flight to another exile at only an hour‘s notice.
But if the two are really serious and mean business, they should make a resolve against the undemocratic forces in the country which are reported to be active again. These forces have created such a vested interest that they could not afford to part with civilian decision making even for short periods. As they have created a furor against KL Bill coming out openly against it as well as through their proxies, it seems that the snake is raising its head one more time.
NS and Zardari who head two major political parties bear huge responsibility. They should join hands to defeat these anti-democratic forces.
Zardari might seek NS’s support on NRO bill in Parliament while the two are certain to discuss CoD and repeal of the 17th Amendment. I think the two should focus on some more issues.
They should work on a new social contract listening to the voices of the people. Autonomy or sovereignty, distribution of resources, law and order and protection of the citizens especially the weaker sections of the society and other matters that have the potential to strengthen or destroy the foundations of the country. They have to resolve against all kinds of terrorism, violence and use of force in politics.
They should also resolve to preserve, safeguard and act upon all the Articles and the provisions of the Constitution. There should not be any classification of doable or undoable clauses or Articles of the Constitution. Otherwise there would be no sanctity of the supreme law of the land.
Courtesy: – SANAlist, October 23, 2009