PAKISTAN
The speech by COAS Gen Raheel Sharif at GHQ on the Martyrs Day ceremony last Wednesday showed the country not only that he could make a good speech, but how closely his institution was bound into the various ties that make up the current constitutional dispensation. He demanded that those engaged in terrorism should submit before the Constitution. This highlighted a problem. At one level, the statement was within the demands made of the militants by the government as a whole. It further revealed the refusal of these elements to accept the Constitution on the premise that it was not Islamic.
He spoke of all the institutions of the state working together against terrorism, and may have inadvertently extended the number of pillars of the state from three to five. There are traditionally three: the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. The press is commonly called the Fourth Estate, which has led to its being run together as a pillar of the state. Yes, it may be an Estate, but it is not part of the state machinery and should not be. The elevation of the military from a part of the Executive to a separate pillar of the state may have its roots in the history of the country, but it does not fit into the constitutional scheme, which contemplates three components.
One of the reasons why the military might be seen as a separate pillar of the state is that it, like the other three, is headed by the President, who is designated as commander-in-chief by the Constitution. However, the President has nothing to do with the media, and thus it is not really an Estate.
Pillars of terrorism in PAKISTAN
Terrorism in Pakistan has become a major and highly destructive phenomenon in recent years. The annual death toll from terrorist attacks has risen from 164 in 2003 to 3318 in 2009, with a total of 35,000 Pakistanis killed between September 11, 2001 and May 2011. According to the government of Pakistan, the direct and indirect economic costs of terrorism from 2000–2010 total $68 billion. President Asif Ali Zardari, along with former President ex-Pakistan Army head Pervez Musharraf, have admitted that terrorist outfits were "deliberately created and nurtured" by past governments "as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives" The trend began with Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies of the 1980s, under which conflicts were started against Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. Zia's tenure as president saw Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which led to a greater influx of ideologically driven Muslims (mujahideen) to the tribal areas and increased availability of guns such as theAK-47 and drugs from the Golden Crescent.
The state and its Inter-Services Intelligence, in alliance with the CIA, encouraged the "mujahideen" to fight a proxy war against Soviet forces present in Afghanistan. Most of the mujahideen were never disarmed after the war ended in Afghanistan and some of these groups were later activated at the behest of Pakistan in the form of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and others like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The same groups are now taking on the state itself, making the biggest threat to it and the citizens of Pakistan through the politically motivated killing of civilians and police officials.
From the summer of 2007 until late 2009, more than 1,500 people were killed in suicide and other attacks on civilians for reasons attributed to a number of causes – sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims; easy availability of guns and explosives; the existence of a "Kalashnikov culture"; an influx of ideologically driven Muslims based in or near Pakistan, who originated from various nations around the world and the subsequent war against the pro-Soviet Afghans in the 1980s which blew back into Pakistan; the presence of Islamist insurgent groups and forces such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba; Pakistan's thousands of fundamentalist madrassas (Islamic schools) which are thought by many to provide training for little other than jihad and secessionists movements – the most significant being the Balochistan liberation movement – blamed onregionalism, which is problematic in a country with Pakistan's diverse cultures, languages, traditions and customs.
Pakistan Army Full ISPR Documentary (Glorious... by chaand-pk
The original three Estates are the nobility, the clergy and the commons. The concept has its origins in the summoning of the States General, the assembly of these three estates, in the final crisis of the French monarchy, just before the French Revolution. The States General had been last summoned a century and three-quarters before. The press has been added because of its influence, and because it appertains to none of the original three.
The concept of a trichotomy of powers involves the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. It must be noted that all three need the President to play a role, more or less ceremonial, to carry out their functions. He is the head of the Executive, though only in name, and the Prime Minister is the real chief executive. But the government is carried out in the name of the President. He also appoints provincial governors, in whose name the provincial governments are carried out. He swears in the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and appoints all the judges. He signs all legislation, which is passed by Parliament, and he addresses an annual joint session. He is an accounted part of Parliament because of this.
Indeed, the office of the President is patterned on that of the Viceroy under the Raj. The Viceroy, as the title implies, was a deputy for the King, or rather, after 1877, of the King-Emperor. Pakistan came into existence in 1947, and was given independence as a dominion. The King-Emperor became King of Pakistan, represented by a Governor-General appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister of the new dominion. That Governor-General inherited powers from the Viceroy, powers which have been transmitted to the President through the Constitutions that came after. The President is thus firmly in place of the British monarch, and ‘reigns but does not rule.’
The institution which General Raheel heads has constantly looked to the President, in the last two Martial Laws preferring to continue with the incumbent, even though he was handpicked by the Prime Minister who was ousted. This was because, just like the British monarch, the Pakistani President has a personal relationship with the armed forces, of which both are commander-in-chief. The commissions given to both armies’ officers are signed by the commander-in-chief, and it is that commission which even a full general will still hold. His promotions are notifications from the Military Secretary, as are his various postings.
