IF we were to completely disregard, and were able to write off, the harm done to this nation by our corrupt, spineless, avaricious politicians, devoid of conviction, we could scathingly dismiss them as being but clumsy clowns.

On April 22, a frightening-looking lot assembled at a seminar in Lahore to thrash out the problem of 'How to protect the ideological frontiers of the country'. Amongst the speakers were Evergreen Hookah-Master Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, Meraj Khalid, Mohammad Tariq, Cambridge Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, Jamaat-i-Islami Naib Amir Liaquat Baloch, Qayyum Nizami, Khwaja Saad Rafiq, Engineer Sahibzada Ibtisam Elahi Zaheer, son of Allama Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, Professor Sajjid Mir, JUI-F leader Maulana Amjad Khan, Dr Miskeen Hijazi, 'Faraz Malik of the Cambridge University and Hafiz Mohtassim Elahi Zaheer.

Whilst discussing the problematic subject of the country's ideological frontiers did they call to mind that the basic ideology-sans-frontiers of our country yet remains to be defined?

On that same propitious day, Muslim Leaguers, who refer to themselves as 'a like-minded group,' grouped in Islamabad. This is an emerging party to be known as PML(L). At a press conference they announced the nomination (not election) of a 40-member central executive committee of the new-born party. Flip-flop Mian Azhar's was appointed president of the party, Gohar Ayub Khan secretary-general, Colonel Ghulam Sarwar Cheema additional secretary general, and my friend Chandi Abida Hussain information secretary, Thirteen vice presidents were selected, amongst whom are Ejazul Haq, Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri, and General Majid Malik, as were 13 joint secretaries. Present among the 'group' was Humayun Akhtar, an extremely rich son of a rich former general.

This motley group coincidentally agreed with the stray adherents of brazen Benazir and certified that General Pervez Musharraf would make a good president.

Mian Azhar, flanked by two former speakers of the National Assembly, Gohar Ayub Khan and Fakhr Imam, reportedly confessed to the pressmen: If the 8th Amendment had not been repealed, we would not have been facing the military rule today..... there should be a system of check and balance among the state institutions and the offices of the president and the prime minister.

This was a grouping of true-blue turncoats, a get-together of those who had shot down Constitutional Article 58(2)(b), who had passed Nawaz Sharif's 13th Constitutional Amendment. They now are calling for 3the restoration of presidential powers to dissolve assemblies and the granting of a constitutional role to the army by setting up a national security council.

'We have to give a fresh look and bring in a new political formulation,' said the normally silenced-by-his-wife's-eloquence Fakhr Imam, who wisely now admits that experience has amply exhibited that the system (whichever system it be) had not worked without checks and balances.

For the new-born it is necessary to elaborate on our mangled unintelligible Constitution and its amendments.

The 1973 Constitution was passed by consensus by the many members who believed that as it guaranteed fundamental rights it was better than no Constitution at all and certainly better than martial law. None dissented. The few who were not happy with it abstained.

Before the ink was dry, within four hours of its promulgation, the people of Pakistan were deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights through a gazette notification issued by the maker of the Constitution, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Fundamental rights having been rendered non-justiciable, he then had all his political opponents arrested. They were held in various jails until released by Zia-ul-Haq four years later.

Not satisfied with the notification, Bhutto had his Constitution amended seven times between its promulgation on August 14, 1973 and July 5, 1977, the date of his fall from grace.

An amendment of a Constitution is an extraordinary measure necessitating a great deal of deliberation on the part of the ruling party, consultation with the Opposition, and a careful objective study of public opinion on the subject. Its passage through the legislature must be deliberately regulated to ensure full discussion, to provide ample opportunity for criticism.

According to the rules of procedure which govern parliamentary procedure under the 1973 Constitution, a bill, other than a finance bill, upon its introduction in the House must be referred to the relevant standing committee, unless the requirements of the rules have been dispensed with by the House through a motion of the relevant member. The standing committee is asked to present its report within 30 days. When this is received, copies of the bill (and any changes recommended by the committee) are to be supplied to each member within seven days. Two clear days must then elapse before the bill can be sent down for motion.

These rules were suspended by Bhutto for the passage of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendment bills. The First Amendment bill was introduced in the House on April 15, 1974. The standing committee presented its report the next day and within a week it was passed leaving no time for debate. The Third Amendment bill was introduced on February 11, 1975, the required report was presented and the bill passed the next day.

Then came the Zia-Junejo era. The Eighth Amendment bill was passed in 1985. The rules were not suspended. Debates continued for around six months before it was passed. The Ninth Amendment bill (concerning Islamic injunctions) was introduced but never passed. The Tenth Amendment Bill, a bread-and-butter bill (amending Articles 54 and 61) was passed after due deliberation.

The Eleventh Amendment bill (women's seats) was introduced in Benazir Bhutto's first round and was not passed.

The Twelfth Amendment bill (special courts) was introduced by Nawaz Sharif in his first round, the rules were suspended, it was rushed through with little discussion and passed.

The Thirteenth Amendment bill was introduced by Nawaz in his second round into both Assembly and Senate on the same day, four years ago, on April 1 1997, and it was passed that day without any discussion, without one member even rising to ask why the rules were suspended, or to suggest that there be a discussion. Government and opposition unanimously approved its passage. Not a dog barked.

The only occasions in the past where there has been complete unanimity between the treasury and the opposition have been those when bills have been introduced concerning the salaries, perks and privileges of the honourable members. The motivation on those occasions was pure greed. The motivation in 1997 was also greed - greed for unrestrained power.

This is what the Thirteenth Amendment is all about:

Article 58 (2): Notwithstanding anything contained in clause 2 of Article 48, the President may also dissolve the National Assembly in his discretion where, in his opinion

(a) a vote of no-confidence having been passed against the prime minister, no other member of the National Assembly is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the National Assembly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, as ascertained in a session of the National Assembly summoned for the purpose; or (b) a situation has arisen in which the government of the Federation cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and an appeal to the electorate is necessary.

(b) was deleted by the 13th Amendment

Article 101 (1): There shall be a governor for each province who shall be appointed by the president after consultation with the prime minister.

After the 13th Amendment this read: There shall be a governor for each province who shall be appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister.

Article 112 (2): The governor may also dissolve the provincial assembly in his discretion, but subject to the previous approval of the president, where in his opinion:

(a) a vote of no-confidence having been passed against the chief minister, no other member of the Provincial Assembly is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Provincial Assembly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, as ascertained in a session of the Provincial Assembly summoned for the purpose; or

(b) a situation has arisen in which the government of the province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and an appeal to the electorate is necessary.

(b) was deleted by the 13th amendment

Article 243 (2): The president shall, subject to law, have power

(a) to raise and maintain the military, naval and air forces of Pakistan; and the reserves of such forces;

(b) to grant commissions in such forces; and

(c) to appoint in his discretion the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, the Chief of the Army Staff, the Chief of the Naval Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff, and determine their salaries and allowances.

In (c) the words 'in his discretion' were deleted by the 13th amendment.

Now, our suspended parliamentarians are willing to agree to anything which will catapult them back into their profession, to anything which will restore to them power and pelf. Many would conceivably be willing to sell themselves if it would ensure their return to power. Are the entire lot not deserving of disqualification for life?