The Big Khaki Chief has spoken. His word is law. A referendum will be held next month. The preamble, the question, has been drafted by none other than my friend, Jadoogar of Jeddah Syed Sahrifuddin Pirzada. Let us hope that this time round he has done a better job.

The question: do the people of Pakistan want General Pervez Musharraf with them in a seat of power for a further period of five years? Our president general is sound of mind, nimble, with swift and sound reflexes; he is neither a bigot nor does he fear the bigots who surround him; he has not dipped his fingers into our exchequer (though this may be difficult to say of some of his officers who he trusts and has appointed). There is no alternative. It is unthinkable that he could be replaced by any of the current crooks, the former plunderers of the national till, now jockeying for power and position. He should have the vote of all sane people who do have their and their country's best interests at heart. As things stand he should gain the popular vote. But, however honestly conducted, the results of the referendum will be suspect to his detractors and to his enemies.

In his support, one of our national newspapers in an editorial yesterday summed up: "Therefore, while the President enjoys US support no matter what he does this is not a reliable source of strength. The best source is always the people's goodwill. To achieve this, the government should not use its licences to do what it wants, but should conduct the coming referendum so fairly and transparently that the exercise impresses the people of Pakistan."

Now, in one lifetime, how many times can a commentator on the national scene write the same thing over and over again? But it has to be done.

Every citizen of this country who can read, write and think, can say without any fear of contradiction that it is, and always has been, the intent of all our leaders (barring the first), to enforce their will, to tailor the Constitution and all laws of the land and to interpret them to suit their own particular needs so that they may remain in power perpetually. During the early years, the leaders did make some sort of effort to pretend that they had the interests of the country and its people at heart, bogus though it may have been, but since 1971 even this pretence was discarded. Thereafter, we had total blatant glasnost; machinations, schemes and scams were publicly, fearlessly and contemptuously aired.

There is no doubt that our mangled and maligned Constitution is in dire need of a thorough overhaul and a rewriting. For instance, according to Article 62 a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of parliament unless "(f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, and honest and ameen;". Under this particular sub-section alone, 99 per cent of those elected from 1988 onwards who have sat in our assemblies are manifestly unqualified to stand for election.

And it must never be forgotten that on August 14, 1973, the date on which Democrat Zulfikar Ali Bhutto proudly promulgated the Constitution that is still with us, that within four hours of its promulgation, the people of Pakistan were deprived of all their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights through a gazette notification issued by the promulgator himself, the same Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Fundamental rights having been rendered non-justiciable, he had all his political opponents arrested. They were held in various jails until released by Zia four years later.

Also to be remembered: according to the rules of procedure that 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.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution passed on September 21, 1974 deliberately infringed upon the rights of an entire community - the Ahmadis - rights that are recognized by the world at large and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The community was shorn of its majority rights and declared a minority, after having existed as a part of the majority for 27 years since the birth of Pakistan in 1947. By the stroke of a pen, it was declared that an Ahmadi "is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution and law."

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's first round and was not passed.

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

The Thirteenth Amendment Bill was introduced into both the Assembly and the Senate on the same day, April 11, 997, in Nawaz's second round. The rules of procedure were again suspended and it was passed that same day, without any discussion, without one member even rising to ask why the rules were suspended, or to suggest there be a discussion. Government and opposition unanimously approved its passage. Not a dog barked. This is the famous amendment, doing away with the overused Article 58(2)(b), which was introduced and passed to save Nawaz from a repeat dismissal. It failed to save him.

On July 4, 1997 the Fourteenth Amendment Act came into force. This Amendment admittedly had the aim of putting an end to lucrative defections. But lotaism only existed because all our political parties were in the business of buying and selling bodies. However, that was not deemed to be sufficient. The prime minister had to be further empowered, and so he was. A member of a parliamentary party is deemed to have defected if he breaches any declared or undeclared party discipline, code of conduct or policies, or if he votes contrary to any direction issued by his parliamentary party, or if he abstains from voting on any Bill. The prosecutor, defence counsel, judge and jury who can decide a member's fate is the head of the party, whose decision is not justiciable in any court of law. The 14th Amendment rendered the herd of legislators voiceless and the bell-wethers all supreme.

The 15th Amendment Bill, concerning the "Supremacy of the Quran and Sunnah", was then drafted, introduced into and rushed through the National Assembly, and passed. It was to be rushed through the Senate, but for reasons of numbers in that House, Nawaz and his men stayed their hand. Had he not been dismissed in October, 1999, he would have had the needed majority in the Senate elections due in March, 2000 and the 15th Amendment would have been with us. However, Abbaji's dream to make his son Ameer-ul-Mumineem did not materialize. We were saved by the bell.

Now, we must wish good luck to Pervez Musharraf, and good luck to ourselves. He and we sorely need it.