0
RAWALPINDI, Oct 23: The Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal leadership warned on Wednesday that if the mandate given to the religio-political parties was not honoured, it would cast negative impact on the country’s politics.
Speaking at a seminar organized by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Bar Association, they reminded the government of the situation developed in Algeria and Bangladesh after electoral mandate was not honoured there.
Maulana Fazlur Rehman, MMA candidate for the prime minister office, said religious parties were in fact political parties and did not want to sever Pakistan’s relations with foreign world.
The leaders, who talked of “moderation” and “balance” in their speeches, said the MMA would strengthen the ties with the western world, including the USA.
Maulana Fazlur Rehman said the government policies had created a negative impression among the public and the mandate given to the MMA reflected that thinking.
The country, he said, was passing through a critical phase and the whole effort of the MMA was to bring the country back to civilian rule.
He said the electorate had put heavy responsibility on the shoulders of religious leaders and they would try to come up to their expectations.
If the mandate of the people was not accepted it might add fuel to the negative feelings which had been created due to the policies of the rulers, he added.
The MMA, he said, was of the view that since Pakistan came into being as a result of democratic process no other system would guarantee its peaceful existence.
He said at the time of transfer of power, the law minister was complicating the situation by issuing statements on the issue.
He said the MMA was of the considered view that parliament was the supreme legislative body and no individual had the same power.
Maulana Fazlur Rehman said the MMA was ready to consider the legal framework order with an open mind and would accept those amendments which were in the country’s interest. He, however, said the amendment which were not in the country’s interest would be scrapped.
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: The JUI leader said the MMA was of the view that the National Security Council would cause tension between parliament and the army which was a national institution. Conflict between parliament and armed forces would not augur well for the country, he said.
He said the MMA was opposed to the concept of NSC because that would make armed forces a party and expose them to public criticism.
FOREIGN POLICY: The MMA leader said that Pakistan had no foreign policy at present and the alliance would try to form such a foreign policy that was moderate and balanced, keeping in view the interest of Pakistan. He said the MMA was also aware of its share in the mandate and would respect the mandate of other political parties.
He said the MMA would like to have friendly relations with western powers, including the United States of America, as it was of the view that Pakistan could not live in isolation.
US BASES: Maulana Fazlur Rehman said that Pakistan was capable of protecting itself and there was no need for external help.
ECONOMIC POLICIES: The MMA, he said, was of the view that Pakistan’s association with international lending agencies was not fruitful as after its agreement with IMF in 1980, its debt burden increased from $12 billion to $40 billion. At the start of this association, Pakistan’s growth rate was standing at six per cent, which had gone down to two per cent.
Similarly, when association with IMF began, Pakistan’s poverty level was 17 per cent, which now had increased to 40 per cent. The MMA would make efforts to break shackles of these lending agencies and try to be self-reliant.
ISLAMIZATION: He said the MMA was being bracketed with the Taliban which it was not. He said Pakistan’s religious parties were in fact political parties. The MMA was of the view that Islam was the religion of Pakistan and the recommendations of the Council of Islamic Ideology would be implemented.
Speaking on the occasion, Qazi Hussain Ahmad paid tribute to the legal fraternity for its role in the rule of law.
He, however, sharply criticized the superior judiciary.
