If someone believes that Nawaz Sharif parted his way from PPP just because PPP did not restore the judges, then mercy on him. I would take “judges” issue as an excuse to part ways rather as “priciple” stance of PMLN.

Here is what it is:

- Zardari wants to save his govt. and would do anything for it. He becoming the president will make sure that no one (like Laghari) dimiss PPP govt. when Presidency still have powers of 58-2(b). He doesn’t want judges (read: CJ) to be restored not because of NRO but due to his judicial activism. (Honestly, it is same as running a parallel govt. and no govt. would allow it – not even Nawaz Sharif). I do not think NRO is a reason for not restroing the Judges. If history is any guide, then all previous rulers cleared all the cases against them when they became in power. Even if NRO goes, and cases are made active, why Zardari’s own govt. will persue those cases against Zardari? Why his own govt. will not withdraw those cases? He needed NRO only when he was not in Power. No ruler – in Pakistan – needs an NRO when he is in power.

- Nawaz on the other hand is keeping eyes on next election and scoring points by supporting the popular emotions AND opening guns on PPP whenever possible. He wants PPP (or Zardari) in Presidency IF 58-2(b) is removed. Why? Because if there is an early elections AND PMLN wins, then it would not fear any 58-2(b) even if there is a PPP president. Otherwise, there will be Zardari sitting in president house if PMLN, tomorrow, comes as winner and form the govt. in center.

To believe on Nawaz’s claim to support free Judiciary and media, one MUST first look:
- What he has done to media and judiciary when he had 2/3 mjority? (As mentioned in this post too)
- What benefits he will get to part ways? and what are other reasons to part ways – Surely its not only Judges or Zardari’s “wada-khilafi”.

=====================
Read my posts here or Subscribe for updates.

Still, even if he were politicized, you hit the nail on the head in describing the campaign against CJ Iftikhar as malicious. It’s done in such a cynical and farcical way.

In fact, the movement AGAINST him has become too politicized. The accusations against him are merely ‘political speak.’

PPP politicians cry of legal objectivity, when in fact much of this is part of their desire to have a servile eunuch in the chief justice’s seat. Farzana Raja said that Pakistan is being held hostage to one man, Iftikhar Chaudhry, when it can be argued that Pakistan is being held hostage because of another man, Asif Zardari, and his desire to have his ill-filled bank accounts and other assets unmolested.

Until now, the current debate has been weighed against the lawyers. They have had to be deferential to the PPP, the Bhutto-Zardaris, and this idea of parliament’s supremacy (tell me what has this body debated in the past few months).

If this structural hindrance (i.e. the deference) is removed, let’s see how Zardari & Co. fares in the public debate.

i really liked and admired his response, which was (heavily paraphrased here) that a person who for the past year has not made a single media appearance, has refused to speak to any channels or papers, who has not released any statement of intent political or otherwise in the middle of a media firestorm where everyone has chosen to speak for him in every single public avenue of discourse can in no way be construed to be politicized.

i must admit that i have never been gung-ho about the judges issue, but i feel that the politicization of the CJ is a malicious campaign.

please put into context the remarkable self-restraint he has displayed with the shameless media and publicity baiting of his supporters and detractors alike.

i don’t think i have ever heard a soundbite from him, and working in the media we have literally mountains of soundbites every single day from every single politicized personality in pakistan.

say what you will, but the CJ is less politicized than you or i

In respect to your comments: If Iftikhar Chaudhry has become too politicized, then what is Dogar? What are all the second PCO judges? And Zardari, who has made the same claim as you, is seeking a position (the presidency) which the original constitution of ‘73 intended to be a non-political position.

I find it interesting that various standards are applied to Iftikhar Chaudhry, yet most other actors are accepted even if they have looted hundreds of millions of dollars or killed so many. What’s next…Iftikhar can’t be CJ because his eyes are a bit crossed?

As for your second paragraph, you’re right, there is a contradiction there. But it’s not mine. It’s that of those political actors who claim to be against militancy and in favor of a relatively secular democracy, and yet have obstructed a movement in favor of the rule of law in many different ways over the course of months (and, in terms of the MQM, over a year).

Pakistanis do face a choice between the rule of law and vigilante “justice.” The contradictions (or hypocrisy) of many of the major political actors willingly or unwillingly pushes Pakistan toward the latter.

Sorry, but completely disagree with that. I don’t know about powerful Pakistanis, but I can tell you that this (extremely powerless) Pakistani opposes the reinstatement of Iftikhar Chaudhry because he can no longer be part of a truly independent and unbiased judiciary. His role has become too politicized, and he himself has become too political. I do not consider plausible any circumstances under which Iftikhar Chaudhry would be a neutral and fair arbiter on matters of legal and constitutional importance, and that fact by itself should disqualify him from holding that position again.

Also, isn’t there a contradiction between saying first that the cleavage that is emerging is both pro- and anti-Iftikhar Chaudhry and pro- and anti-war against the Taliban (with the same cast on each side), and then saying that Pakistanis face a choice between Iftikhar Chaudhry and Baitullah Mehsud? It seems to be that, by your own admission, every single mainstream political party in Pakistan has reached the opposite conclusion: all those (seriously) against BM are also against IC, and all those (seriously) for IC are also leery of fighting “America’s war”. Are you arguing (implicitly) that each of the main players have in fact miscalculated in the calibration of these positions?

1) Mr. Zardari gets required number of votes and gets the president.

2) A dark era begins, where he’ll loot Pakistanis more than ever before.

3) Zardari Strikes a deal with USA and UK and EU to finish Pakistan’s nuclear program for heavy sums of money

4) Zardari in an effort to gain control of the nuclear and defense assets, replaces Gen Kayani and appoints some junior general as COAS.

5) The like minded elite, as mentioned above, gives required access to US.

6) The neighbouring countries start their interventions into Pakistan, and trying their best to disintegrate (Naooz-u-Billah) our beloved homeland.

I would strongly recommend that we wake up now, or it would be too late to stop this from happening. Zardari has a documents history of violence against his own family (Murtaza Bhutto, BB) and he can never ever be sincere to anyone if he hasnt been sincer to his own in-laws.