Article 66; Freedom of Speech and Immunity

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Article 66; Freedom of Speech and Immunity

By

Saiyan0321/ Usman Khan Yousafzai​

Recently we have seen some very controversial statements from Ayaz Sadiq and Maulana Atta Ur Rehman and Mohsin Dawar was always making such speeches. These speeches have brought forth questions on immunity of parliamentarians from court proceedings and how vast or expansive this immunity is. The immunity of the Parliamentarians is covered by Article 66 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
So first what is the Article 66. Its reproduction is the following;



66. Privileges of members, etc.-

(1) Subject to the Constitution and to the rules of procedure of 1[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)], there shall be freedom of speech in 1[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] and no member shall be liable to any proceedings in any Court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in 1[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)], and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of 1[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.

(2) In other respects, the powers, immunities and privileges of 1[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)], and the immunities and privileges of the members of 1[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)], shall be such as may from time to time be defined by law and, until so defined, shall be such as were, immediately before the commencing day, enjoyed by the National Assembly of Pakistan and the committees thereof and its members.

(3) Provision may be made by law for the punishment, by a House, of persons who refuse to give evidence or produce documents before a committee of the House when duly required by the Chairman of the committee so to do:

Provided that any such law-

(a) may empower a Court to punish a person who refuses to give evidence or produce documents; and

(b) shall have effect subject to such Order for safeguarding confidential matters from disclosure as may be made by the President.

(4) The provisions of this Article shall apply to persons who have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, 1[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] as they apply to members.

(5) In this Article, 1[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] means either House or a joint sitting, or a committee thereof.
By its clear reading, we have come to know that a member of the parliament has special privileges and these privileges are different from the ones allotted to other institutions in the name of freedom of speech and expression. Now first of all Pakistan is home to the trichotomy of power which means that the country has no single sovereign but three institutions that are working together for proper governance of the country. Judiciary, Legislative aka the parliament and the executive. These three equal institutions balance each other out and as such are home to special privileges that chain the other institutions from taking action against them like for example the court cannot initiate proceedings against the member of the parliament and the member of the parliament cannot talk about the courts in the parliament. This is the balance that creates the proper governance of the state.

Now the article is one we have inherited from British Era and is a product of their legal evolution, You see when the people and the parliament of the British was fighting for more autonomy and more security especially during the reign of King Charles the first and in this ensuing power struggle between the parliament and the reigning monarch, their needed a form of security. You see the king's laws were implemented by the crown and the parliamentarians feared talking about the king's laws fearing the ire of the monarchy or a possible retaliation so this privilege was added as Article 9 to their bill of rights in 1689. This was they could talk about any issue without being pressured through executive or legal proceedings and this was a massive shield for the parliamentarian. This was never meant to provide them any protection from confessional or other immunity against crimes committed by them and this was held In the case of R. Chaytor [2010] the UK Supreme Court concluded that four parliamentarians charged with misappropriation of expenses (being discussed in Parliament) were not entitled to protection of Privilege and of course in 1999 Joint Committee Report of the UK on Parliamentary Privilege specifically observed that Houses of Parliament were not “a haven from the law” while another 2013 Committee Report reaffirmed neither the Bill of Rights nor cognizance of the House of Commons posed any bar to the jurisdiction of the Crown Court.

So this is a bit of a history of the law and how it came to be and what was the reason behind it. Coming to Pakistan. The importance of the article stems from the fact that the parliament in Pakistan faces severe pressure from external elements and from the very trichotomy itself. You have the courts placing pressure and pre 2010 you have the executive placing pressure at the same level as 1600s British monarchy and we witnessed this in the form of martial laws or the the 90s and people need help if they think Bhutto could take criticism. The guy could not take criticism and those that opposed him or spoke against him earned his wrath. So with Pakistan we see that Article 66 stems from necessity because in its absence the floodgates would open and the pressure that they already face would become a 100fold. I am telling you this to help you see the article and our political situation. This isnt a reference to any incident or this particular incident.

With the history done and its relationship with Pakistan highlighted.
Lets come to the question at hand. If there a limit to the Privilege? Can a parliamentarian say whatever comes from him mouth in the parliament? Can he speak the country, the very formation of the state, the founding fathers, Islam or any seditious material and be safe due to the privilege?

There is actual jurisprudence to this and this question has been brought to courts multiple times but often relating to trichotomy rather than solely concerning to an institution that is subservient to the trichotomy. For example most precedents concern parliamentarians abusing courts and from these precedents we must see whether there exists a limitation that is not just based on trichotomy of power.

In the PLD 1998 SC 823 the court indeed declared that Article 66 Clause 1 does indeed empower a member as such however the court held that Judiciary enjoys the ultimate authority of Judicial review and when parliament at any stage endeavors to transgress its limits (A highlight to there being limits to parliaments and members), by infringing upon the jurisdiction of other organs (i.e the trichotomy of power) and thus by doing so affecting the broad features of the objectives resolution. The court held that the prime minister as chief executive is obliged by various provisions of constitutions to address the nation or the parliament and apprising them of various national issues which may indeed have a possibility to adverse the smooth governance of state HOWEVER the court held that despite this he does not enjoy license for damaging or violating integrity of its constituent organs.

Another very important case which all of you would know much about is the Nawaz sharif disqualification case cited PLD 2017 SC 265 and here we see another limitation placed on parliamentarians where the court held that the said article was in respect to liability to any proceeding in court in respect of anything said in the parliament but not even the floor of the parliament is utilized in advancing a personal explanation regarding a matter especially if the said speech was not just meant to appraise the parliament but the people of Pakistan due to the heavy presence of media. So here we see that the floor of the parliament is not some safe space where you can speak anything you desire. There are limitation.

There is another case where this was discussed and it is cited as PLD 1975 SC 383. Its a pretty famous case titled Zahoor Elahi vs Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the case was concerning on the limitations placed to talk about the court. Now i am not going into the facts of the case but how the court interpreted the law itself. Now the law in question was not Article 66 but Article 248 which provides immunity to President, Governor, Prime Minister and ministers,. The court in this case held firstly that immunity provisions must be interpreted very strictly and cannot be granted an expansive view point and they must be contained within the provisions itself. When you interpret a law, you can take a stricter view or an expansive view to allow for a wider array of area that the law covers. The courts in their wisdom utilize these two aspects where they feel its necessary and the court held that immunity provisions must be interpreted very strictly. The court declared that this act basically covers official acts and not acts done in private capacity or criminal acts that he may have done., If he has any other capacity, then he cannot claim immunity for act done in that capacity if it has no relation whatsoever to the office of the Prime Minister. It is true that the immunity cannot possibly extend to any, thing done illegally, nor does the immunity protect the Prime Minister in respect of any criminal proceeding. In order to avail of this immunity, it must be shown that whatever was done had some co-relation to the official functions or duties or powers of the Prime
Minister. This case was used as the reasoning behind PLD 1998 SC 823

Now some jurists have interpreted the clause as protection from damages or libel and without a doubt if a parliamentarian is to say that the DCO of Lahore is an incompetent person whose corruption puts Zardari to Shame then the DCO cannot take the said parliamentarian to court. Infact this was held in PLD 1998 SC 823 that members have unqualified freedom of speech where they can utter the most slanderous of statements whether in good faith or bad faith and the courts cant hold proceedings against them as they are protected. Now you may state that the landmark judgment is creating limitation yet providing expansive view? Indeed so, which makes it landmark since its is explaining exactly where the limits are and what a parliamentarian can do and what he cant. Where he can slanderous things in the parliament against any person but he cant do it against the constitutional organs of the state. Infact the court also held that a speech made cannot be subjected to suit for damages or recovery or defamation not it can be the basis to furnish for initiating criminal prosecution for defamation. So No section 500 of the PPC for a parliamentarian aka punishment for defamation.

Infact the problem comes when the acts leave the constituent acts or the assembly acted beyond its constitutional domain or a member left the constitutional limits like i said above can they talk against Islam in the parliament? Can they go against the objectives resolution or the preamble and declare Pakistan should not be a federation or even a parliamentary system? No. That would be leaving the domain of the constitutional limit and would be not be considered as under immunity and this was held in PLD 1958 SC 397 that such a proceeding could be come under perusal of the court through Constitutional Writ.

In PLD 2014 SC 367 The court observed that politicians and other public figures having their say and a following amongst the public were expected to use ore decent and guarded language and had to be more careful in the maturity of the mind and wisdom in respect to various national institutions and to present themselves as role models for the society at large.

Now with the above we see that members have limitations and the courts have interpreted the section in a manner where in its official capacity the member enjoys vast immunity however within the limits of the constitutional nature of the act being committed and not if he leaves those limitation.

Now perusal of the section brings forth an interesting discovery and that is 'Subject to the Constitution and to the rules of procedure of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)' which means that these rules of procedure are extremely important and can further create limitations on the member but do these rules have constitutional authority to create such a powerful limit on a constitutional provision? Well Section 67 does empower the parliament to make such rules of business that govern their own proceedings but again does it have constitutional nature? Well this question was placed again in PLD 2014 SC 131 where the court held that the said rules are made under Article 67 of the constitution and as such has the status of law deriving direct mandate from the constitution. So these rules are indeed constitutional in nature and can limit articles of the supreme document. So what do these rules say about the conduct of the member. That is covered by Section 31 of the rules and procedures and i shall bring it as such
31.Conduct to be observed while speaking.-
(1) The subject matter of every speech shall be relevant to the matter before the Assembly.
(2)Except with the permission of the speaker, a member may not read his speech but may refresh his memory by reference to his notes.
(3)A member while speaking shall not -
(a) discuss any matter which is sub-judice;
(b) reflect upon the President in his personal capacity:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall preclude any reference, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, to the President in relation to any act done by him in his
official capacity;
(c) discuss the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties;
(d) make a personal charge against a member, Minister or the holder of a public office, except in so far as it may be relevant in regard to the matter before the Assembly;
(e) use his right of speech for the purpose of wilfully and persistently obstructing the business of the Assembly;
(f) use offensive expressions about the conduct of proceedings in the joint sitting, National Assembly,
Senate or a Provincial Assembly or a Committee or Sub-Committee;
(g) un-necessarily cast reflection on the conduct of any person who cannot defend himself before the Assembly;
(h) reflect on any determination of the Assembly except on a rescission motion;
(i) use the President's name for the purpose of influencing the debate; or
(j) utter treasonable, seditious or defamatory words or make use of offensive or un-parliamentary expression.

Explanation.- In this clause, "un-parliamentary expression" means any expression which imputes false motives to a member or charges him with falsehood or is couched in abusive language.

Now here we see the limitations imposed by the trichotomy of power upon the member and we also see that in Subsection 3 Clause J that a member cannot utter treasonous and seditious words or defamatory words. Coming to defamation then, the court has interpreted that no defamation can be filed yet here he is restricted from defamation. The explanation explains that he cannot utter defamatory words against another member. The limitation is again in the trichotomy since the legislative is also part of the trichotomy thus a member cannot abuse the courts (Judicature), the President ( Executive) and the parliament or parliamentarian ( Legislative). The courts interpreted it this way.

So there is the legal interpretation of the said Article by our courts. The immunity is not expansive but is largely limited by the constitution and it is in the constitution that we see the objectives resolution, the trichotomy and the preamble so constitution is the limit for the member.

So the question rise is whether Ayaz sadiq in his statement said anything treasonous or seditious or acted outside the purview of the constitution. Personally i dont think the courts will see it that way but ofcourse each will have his own opinion on that,

@Kaptaan @Yankeestani @Waz @Nilgiri @Joe Shearer @T-123456 @Webslave @Saithan @Cobra Arbok @Combat-Master @Cabatli_53 @Test7
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
537
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan
So the question rise is whether Ayaz sadiq in his statement said anything treasonous or seditious or acted outside the purview of the constitution. Personally i dont think the courts will see it that way but ofcourse each will have his own opinion on that,

The answer lies in who makes the determination whether sedition charges are to be imposed or not. The courts have a history of mere rubber-stamping such decisions.
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
The answer lies in who makes the determination whether sedition charges are to be imposed or not. The courts have a history of mere rubber-stamping such decisions.

I forgot to tag you. forgive me. :D Well where there is a will there is a way so the courts work extra hard when they want to declare somebody a traitor. :D The court indeed has such a history but then again there were judgments where despite everything the courts held true to the trichotomy of power as well. Hamdoor ur Reham judgment in Zahur Elahi vs Zulfiqar bhutto is one of those moments.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,792
Reactions
120 19,865
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
So the question rise is whether Ayaz sadiq in his statement said anything treasonous or seditious or acted outside the purview of the constitution.

If we have video evidence of the meeting, it can be compared. That would be the absolute reference to use.

If there isn't why would a court look at it seriously. You would get A and/or B testify one thing and C testify another thing. Sufficient lawyering up means nothing proven.

But sure lets see if AG or whomever files a charge against this MP on anything....I guess that depends on whether they have anything to actually bring to bear or simply they want to make an example out of him.

As far as I am concerned Pakistani military has lied and at far greater scale over such matters....compared to civilian political setup that is "play along to get along" with them mostly....and being a little naughty/frustrated to them lately too since musical chairs streak has gone against them a while now.

In mean time, Pakistani public should do a class action lawsuit against SMQ for saying Pakistan will be whitelisted by FATF this recent meeting if they have made investments and actions that lost money because of it now. Or i guess it depends on what "soon" and "America" "support" means.

But that would open a whole new can of worms anyway....courts wont go there. But someone should attempt it just to publicize it and put pressure on the govt. Its all domestic blab in the end. Foreign affairs wise, FATF will take look at fawad among other things for next round of grey or black hat pick.

It is countries that are irresponsible that have to state (through the military mouthpiece too) they are "responsible" (in reply to one of their own MPs) given it is just redundant for others...with time more catch on that dissonance in small ways and big ways to add to the growing list:

 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
If we have video evidence of the meeting, it can be compared. That would be the absolute reference to use.

It was said on the parliamentary floor and there the parliamentarian has a level of immunity. Ofcourse nowhere does that limitation to the immunity contain the military so talking about the army is technically and legally speaking, ok and as i stated even slander in good or bad faith has been given a thumbs up simply to protect the speech of the parliamentarian and its sanctity. Maulana Atta Ur Rehman was far more than Ayaz. Ayaz clarified his statement but the Maulana basically declared the state as sponsor of terrorism in roundabout words but even then, there is a grey area and my opinion is that they wont be prosecuted by the courts.
But sure lets see if AG or whomever files a charge against this MP on anything....I guess that depends on whether they have anything to actually bring to bear or simply they want to make an example out of him.


I dont think they will. The government wont do it as it will make it look like the government is oppressing the opposition. They already took their hands off the treason FIR that was filed. So far nothing much has happened and i dont think anything will.
In mean time, Pakistani public should do a class action lawsuit against SMQ for saying Pakistan will be whitelisted by FATF this recent meeting if they have made investments and actions that lost money because of it now. Or i guess it depends on what "soon" and "America" "support" means.

The lawyer that files such would get alot of limelight. Dont think i didnt have such an idea but such a case would be filed in High Court and i still need to complete my two years of lower court before i can get a High Court and petitioner in person pisses them off. Believe me, i tried it a couple of times.
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
537
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan
I dont think they will. The government wont do it as it will make it look like the government is oppressing the opposition. They already took their hands off the treason FIR that was filed. So far nothing much has happened and i dont think anything will.

The present government has unleashed NAB in a clear attempt to harass and suppress the opposition already.
 

Mis_TR_Like

Contributor
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
1,420
Reactions
27 5,516
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Northern Cyprus
So the question rise is whether Ayaz sadiq in his statement said anything treasonous or seditious or acted outside the purview of the constitution. Personally i dont think the courts will see it that way but ofcourse each will have his own opinion on that,

I know little about the situation, but from what I've read in the past 15 minutes I think that it could go either way, however I'd wager that the courts will punish him.



"The remarks by Ayaz Sadiq are beyond apology. Now the law will take its course," Faraz tweeted.


We will see how this ends, but as an outside observer with very little knowledge on the internal matters of Pakistan, I personally think he could very well be found guilty of saying something treasonous.
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
The present government has unleashed NAB in a clear attempt to harass and suppress the opposition already.

Treason charge would be too open. You see the people have an image that treason charges are political games played to oppress politicians whereas corruption is something that the people dislike and most dont see corruption charges as harassments since many of these charges are based on actual grounds. Treason would simply allow them to appear more victimized.
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
I know little about the situation, but from what I've read in the past 15 minutes I think that it could go either way, however I'd wager that the courts will punish him.



"The remarks by Ayaz Sadiq are beyond apology. Now the law will take its course," Faraz tweeted.

We will see how this ends, but as an outside observer with very little knowledge on the internal matters of Pakistan, I personally think he could very well be found guilty of saying something treasonous.

Doubt it. Messing with the trichotomy weakens the courts own reach and power as well and punishing a member for a speech he made in the parliament will be big and will have far reaching affects. Is that shibli faraz? yesterday he was asking for apology and now apology is over? He is a joke but lets see. It would be a very interesting case.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,792
Reactions
120 19,865
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Maulana Atta Ur Rehman was far more than Ayaz. Ayaz clarified his statement but the Maulana basically declared the state as sponsor of terrorism in roundabout words but even then, there is a grey area and my opinion is that they wont be prosecuted by the courts.

What did he say?

Why is he still a thing anyway? He has some dedicated support base?

Pakistan always throws up these characters (his brother I know better from good old days before lol) after some period of cold storage....but then again we have our versions of it too.

If its roundabout way, was he complaining about Pak army activities in FATA etc?
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,792
Reactions
120 19,865
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
"The remarks by Ayaz Sadiq are beyond apology. Now the law will take its course," Faraz tweeted.

Its likely just a political threat/jibe as usual to kabuki theatre with to the audience.

Shake the fist, point finger, poke the baddie when everyones looking, till public attention or political winds move to something else.

The courts of Pakistan (and region in general) are super backlogged as it is....to jump the line you need to really have something that a) lot of money involved b) huge example to be made of. This doesn't really cut it...as saiyan said it can victimize overtly the opposition....even further than its already perceived by the disgruntled in pakistani populace (they dont like any party much, but they want some semblance of check and balance to use against whomever is in power and screwing the economy etc).
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
What did he say?

Why is he still a thing anyway? He has some dedicated support base?

Pakistan always throws up these characters (his brother I know better from good old days before lol) after some period of cold storage....but then again we have our versions of it too.

If its roundabout way, was he complaining about Pak army activities in FATA etc?

Well he was saying that for how long will Pakistan blame foreigners for all that is happening inside the country and all incidents that happen in Afghanistan, Iran and India, have footprints that lead back to Pakistan.

Recently we have been giving live shows to the parliaments both NA and Senate on PTV

He stated that let me translate

'That whether they are army kids, or college kids or any kids and we went there and we cried at APS or Mardan and we cried over there and here there was an incident at madrassa (Peshawar incident a few days ago) and nobody is here to cry with us. Why have we been so abandoned? Why are we (Moulvis) so alone? Are the kids of madrassas lesser? do they not have blood running in their viens? They tell me to be quite and not make an issue but why shouldnt i make an issue? I dont blame that bench over as they are also innocent and its not their government but the hidden government and i ask them this question as to what is happening? To stop PDM jalsas, you have found religious students (stating that bombing was done by army to stop PDM). To stop PDM you only found innocent pakistanis? We told you that we are on the streets and you can arrest us anytime. So arrest us, why target children? We have said that institutions are the love of our life and are not a curse upon us but when the eyelash falls into the eye then the eye becomes painful. We have no problem with the eyelash itself. Then they say that we speak against the army and when army involves itself in politics then why shouldnt we? Bajwa visited APS but not here. Why? why are they so cheap? They should have stood there with them and stood with religious. We are democracy loving moulvis and we stopped those young men to not go to mountains and fight and we have bleed for this but if the army and government treats us this way then what can we do? where do we go with our dead and where do we say? Here faraz stands and says that we are from india and supporting indian narrative. have you forgotten your own dharnas and protests? have you forgotten those days and this is truth and no matter what they say that they are not political but it is. They are political and they will be criticized. I am not talking about the army as an institution but i will say that these generals are involved. How many times will we blame India, Iran and Afghanistan? Incidents that happen there, the footprints follow towards you and when incidents happen to the military men, we go there to console them and cry with them and stand with them but nobody stands with us. So where do we go? tell us Mr. Speaker where do we go? so today in this house we are angry at you speaker and we are angry at opposition but not at the government as these innocent are not in control, they are puppet and have no idea how to control the state and only know how to place flags and they can only bring foreign agenda like FATF. I request that we see this parliament as parliament and we treat it as such and give the people right to speak and if this incident had happened at an army camp or school, would you still have asked me to follow the rules and place this on agenda beforehand? You would have suspended the rules and all things

Speaker: you are wrong and i wanted to debate this issue and i consider this strong issue but we must follow the procedure

Then why did you not suspend and hold the questions. Did you not do that before? is there no precedent of this? was this not done when we were to talk about islands? and if we can talk about islands then why do we ignore this blood and we will not forget and we will ask the hidden kings and the responsible people and there is still no security over there. They are empty and they are waiting for another PDM jalsa and then to blow those insecure madrassah and you can do whatever you want but we will fight to the death and this time will never stay and there was a time when we were there and you were there and tomorrow you may be here and we there and you cannot rule forever and the to the institutions, you cannot make them rule forever and you cannot rule forever and you will be answerable to the people and if you do not wish to be answerable then go and defend the border and stay out of politics and if you wish to be in politics then be answerable

Speaker: Thank you maulana sahab for your statement


Damn that was 13 minute speech that i translated for you brother. You owe me a thankls :p :p
 

Mis_TR_Like

Contributor
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
1,420
Reactions
27 5,516
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Northern Cyprus
Doubt it. Messing with the trichotomy weakens the courts own reach and power as well and punishing a member for a speech he made in the parliament will be big and will have far reaching affects. Is that shibli faraz? yesterday he was asking for apology and now apology is over? He is a joke but lets see. It would be a very interesting case.
Its likely just a political threat/jibe as usual to kabuki theatre with to the audience.

Shake the fist, point finger, poke the baddie when everyones looking, till public attention or political winds move to something else.

The courts of Pakistan (and region in general) are super backlogged as it is....to jump the line you need to really have something that a) lot of money involved b) huge example to be made of. This doesn't really cut it...as saiyan said it can victimize overtly the opposition....even further than its already perceived by the disgruntled in pakistani populace (they dont like any party much, but they want some semblance of check and balance to use against whomever is in power and screwing the economy etc).

Thanks for enlightening me on this topic. It's way out of my depth, but very interesting nonetheless.
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
101 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Actually harsh language has been used multiple times in our parliament especially against the ruling party. It became more open when we held live sessions.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,073
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Let me make my position clear on this. I am a product of the legal profession but I also know that the trajectory Britain has followed is differant from Pakistan. These are two differant societies and histories. I also believe ends justify the means. There is no single path to progress. The greatest inequity in life has nothing to do with religion, high morals, history but poverty and living in a life sans what we in the first world take for granted. I also know that all those who got to being first world did so through a road that involved much blood, much ugliness.

In Pakistan's case the military must and does a play role in fact if not determined to it by law. I liken Pakistan to a soft version of the Prussian state or the Turkish Kemalist state.

Since Pakistan shares some aspects with Turkey I would like to use that country as a example. The Kemalist state was for nearly 90 years underpinned by the Turkish Army. The countless coups validate that idea. Turkey would never be where she is today was it not thanks to the Turkish armed forces and generals like Kenan Evren. They made sure that a raw, uncooked society like Turkey made up of vast numbers of semi-literate people needed shepherding and when needed use of the rod in liberal does. Decades of that created a society that reached maturity and sophistication. The failed coup of 2016 was proof of the arrival of a mature Turkish nation.

This is the model Pakistan needs. The opposition in Pakistan are prepared to sell the country in order to either regain power or protect their vested interests.

My only grouch is Pakistan Army needs to be more brutal with it's unofficial role. If we had a Kenan Evren and NOT Bajwa we would see 10,000 people in jails by now and another 100,000 facing sanctions.

People like Ayaz Sadiq in Turkey woul;d have been erased from existence. The only silver lining with recent events is that PMIK has been assured of another term. This will bring PMIK and the military even closer.

Bye bye you illigitimate harami [Nawaz Sharif] of Gen Zia .....
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,073
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
We will see how this ends, but as an outside observer with very little knowledge on the internal matters of Pakistan, I personally think he could very well be found guilty of saying something treasonous.
You do of course know that as a society and economy Pakistan is probably at least 5 decades behind Turkey. I am pretty certain a Turkish Ayaz Sadiq [Ayaz Sadik?] would have been erased by Turkish deep state in 1970s if he had said what this bas*tard said. Only in "soft" Pakistan this dirtbag is still consuming oxygen.

In order to win political points he disparaged the serving Chief of Staff of Pakistan Army and spun a narrative which does not fit with what happened and by doing so gave succour to our enemy - India.
 
N

Null/Void

Guest
Kenan Evren hmm I would argue Cemal Gursel and Ismet Inonou was much more capable general at running the TSK and Turkey Evren was just a US lackey and is sort of the reason the Gulenists infiltrated the TSK and reason why folks like Erdogan came into power
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,073
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Kenan Evren hmm I would argue Cemal Gursel and Ismet Inonou was much more capable general at running the TSK and Turkey Evren was just a US lackey and is sort of the reason the Gulenists infiltrated the TSK and reason why folks like Erdogan came into power
Each were required for their times. You can't judge them by Turkey 2020. Evren probably saved Turkey from anarchy or descent into a socialist hell. Others in past genocided the mullah and their nascent mobs.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,073
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Each were required for their times. You can't judge them by Turkey 2020. Evren probably saved Turkey from anarchy or descent into a socialist hell. Others in past genocided the mullah and their nascent mobs.
There is nothing wrong with Erdogan. He was needed to consolidate Turkey as a fully functioning Western nation. After all western countries are suefiet with religious nomenclatured parties like Christian Democrats in Europe or the Republic bible bashers. This is religion western style. Catholic school girls gallivanting outside showing their pert buttocks after having taken part in mass. You will see this increasingly in Turkey even with the Imam Hatip schools which will parallel the catholic schools we have in UK. Beyond the Eid or Christmas prayers it will be chasing the desires of flesh. Turkey will become a post religious state like most of West is.

And Edogan will go. That is when the fully matured Turkey will take it's place in the comity of the civilized West.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom