Pre-impeachment musings (City Notes)

And by the way, if he is impeached, will this reduce either petrol prices or the rate of inflation? Would the induction of a woman from one of the smaller provinces help? I mean the inflation rate. Or the world oil price. If not, why not keep the incumbent, who at least has made his terms with the USA on the War on Terror? Anyone who becomes President will be viewed by the Americans from the point of view of the next five years of the War on Terror, and thus must be accordingly approved, like the incumbent.

But if there is no news of a resignation, don’t get too happy and assume there is going to be none. Maybe not today, but the politicians, may they rot forever, seem to have united on this point, even though the President has made it clear that he was one, legitimately elected, and two, is willing to continue to perform his functions. This, it appears, includes criticising the present government.

Well, it seems to me that there’s only one way out of this imbroglio. That the President use his power under Article 58(2b) to dissolve the National Assembly. He is not yet under notice of impeachment, and even if he were, it would make no difference. True, the Supreme Court would then hear the case, but this is a Court which believes the judiciary must not interfere in the work of the executive. And what can be more the work of the executive than a presidential dissolution?

But perhaps the President is wondering about the quality of the next executive. Obviously, a free hand must then be given to someone, presumably the Chaudhris of Gujrat. But in this crisis, what practical help have they given? Why should the President not turn to an international banker of Pakistani origin? Even if that banker will later run off, and prove much worse than the Chaudhris? The moral of the story: never trust civilians.