Amendments in 62 and 63


A political immorality

One only understands and becomes familiar with a misery when he himself undergoes it, face it or the decay of it extend its roots to him, in the most appalling circumstances, appalling because normalcy is always fine and bears no hazardous circumstances.
The ousted premier’s party wants to introduce some changes to the articles which are responsible for their leader’s demise from political life. This move is irrelevant at this time when even the staunchest allies like Mulana Fazal are opposed to making any change in haste which might give opposition and judiciary another open front to make another successive attack, but the pattern of PML-N clearly instills the excitement in the mind of an observer as they act in frenzy, only when the outcome suits them and more often than not without having any fear of the imminent consequences.
Federal Law Minister Zahid Hamid at the National Assembly session last week announced the decision to table the bill soon, his concern for such a bold move related to these articles maybe is right but the timing is definitely not right, according to him both articles 62 and 63 fail to shed any ray of light in the slightest that whether the punishment awarded against them is for a certain time limit, the only details these articles provide are the conditions which may amount to the disqualification of a candidate.
As of now PPP, the party with the second majority in the assembly, has clearly told the PML-N leadership to not to rely on them this time, other allies share almost same sentiments, and why not, you can struggle to keep a man at bay from his suicidal intentions, once when he has committed it, you cannot bury yourself with him.
If PML-N succeeds somehow to make the desired amends, multiple problems can arise, benefits too but only to be taken advantage of by the lawmakers.
Firstly, if we see it in a broader sense the both articles work in favour of the state and people, their simplest task is to keep a check on the politicians. These articles explicitly state the kind of lawmakers who should not be allowed to hold their offices if they are found not complying with the ingredients mentioned in it. The question arises, what kind of lawmaker would hide anything from the scrutiny of the Election Commission? Only the one whose assets are garnered through the illegitimate methods and contrary to the laws.
If some points of these articles are retracted by the assembly once the bill is presented, then it would be like an open invitation to a crook who otherwise would find it difficult to contest the elections because of the illegal assets he can under no circumstances declare.
Secondly, disqualification from the political activities of any kind for five years may sound a bit harsh in the first read but it, in fact, it doesn’t even sound like a punishment if reread. When it is established in the court that in context to the articles 62 and 63 a certain member is disqualified it means he wasn’t sincere to the country in the first place, he lied to the Constitution, to his office, to assembly, to the people and to the oath he had taken when joining the federal or provincial assembly, what good can be expected from any such person when he’ll return after completion of the awarded punishment of five years.
The rule is plain; if someone has wronged the Constitution of this land he stripped himself from any further chance to hold a government office. His exit must be exemplary and lifelong.
Thirdly, public opinion, if only it matters, would be unsatisfactory if amends are passed by the assembly for both articles. They already don’t hold the lawmakers and leaders in high esteem due to their ample corruption scandals.
A clear cut opinion formed by a layman would be that our leaders and lawmakers are so uncertain of their not indulging in the acts which go against the law of the land that they have to amend and maybe soon have to introduce laws which can work like a shield for them.
Lastly, if someone has not done any wrong, bypassed any law and never have made any attempt to do something unpleasantly disgraceful, then, no law, whatsoever and no matter how stringent, can force him to fish out the floral handkerchief from his pocket to wipe the sparkling perspiration from his forehead.
The only piece of advice that can be given to PML-N at this time is, please don’t stoop to a level where a line from Orhan Pamuk’s novel ‘Snow’ will become relevant to you, ‘and he is so stupid that even the morons call him a moron.’

Naeem Tarrar is a freelance journalis