Pakistan's constitution mandates a governance system that is federal in nature and parliamentary in practice. The chief executive, under such a system, is supposed to be the prime minister who by commanding a simple majority of votes is leader of the house in the National Assembly and who heads the federal cabinet of ministers who devise and implement national policies. The president, in this scheme of things, is supposed to be a figurative head of the state, representing the unity of the federal units, which are the four provinces.

All this is, however, on paper only. In practice, the Pakistan of today is being operated as a presidential system of governance where the head of state calls the shots. Also being a uniformed general, he wields the real powers -- ordering and fashioning policies that he deems are fit for the country. Even though President General Pervez Musharraf refuses to annually address the parliament to spell out the government's policies, the simple majority of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League and its coalition partners are happy to endorse them on the general's behalf, thus keeping both itself and the president 'legitimate'.

Originally a 'reluctant' military coup maker (in 1999) who was awarded three years (until 2002) by the Supreme Court to serve as 'chief executive' to 'save' the country from itself under a 'doctrine of necessity', Musharraf got himself 'elected' as the president through a referendum in 2002 -- predictably he was the only candidate -- and then held parliamentary elections. He was 'confirmed' as head of state until September 2007 by a parliamentary two-thirds majority cobbled up with support from the alliance of Islamist parties, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal through a Legal Framework Order that gave legal cover to his 'unelected' rule. In return for this crucial MMA support, he promised in a nationally televised address that he would quit as army chief by the end of 2004 and become purely 'civilian'. He never did.

Now he feels his agenda for Pakistan is far from finished and he wants at least another five-year term as president through 2012, which will have kept him in power for 14 years. He is on record as having said he wants to personally see through the completion of five major dams -- a major obsession with him -- that would be built at the earliest by 2016, envisaging a minimum of 18 years at the helm.

Triggering a national controversy, the government this month formally anointed Musharraf as their presidential candidate and has announced the election as being held between September 15 and October 15, 2007 -- just ahead of the expiry of the five-year tenure of the current National Assembly and the four provincial legislatures. The controversy stems from two aspects of the proposed election -- one, that Musharraf wants to be re-elected by the current, not the next, legislatures, and second, that he wants to continue doubling up as the army chief also. The re-election of General Musharraf as president, as proposed by the ruling party, is fraught with both constitutional ifs and buts and moral and ethical imperatives.

Article 41 (2) states: "A person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim of not less than forty-five years of age and is qualified to be elected as member of National Assembly." Article 41 (3) states: "The president shall not hold any office of profit in the service of Pakistan or occupy any other position carrying the right to remuneration for the rendering of services." While Musharraf is a Muslim and over 45, he is not qualified to be elected as a member of National Assembly, which requires that the candidate not be a holder of an office of profit (he is a government servant as a serving soldier) and at least two years need to have lapsed between his government service and retirement (he is still army chief).

Musharraf's aides argue that the LFO gave him permission to keep his army uniform but the MMA argues he promised to shed that by end 2004, which he did not. Even if the argument is inconclusive, what is conclusive is that the Army Act, which requires an oath to the effect that a soldier will never take part in politics while in service, has not been amended and still applies to Musharraf as he is a serving general.

Significantly even mainstream opposition parties are not opposing Musharraf offering himself up for re-election, including Pakistan Peoples Party, Jamiat Ulema Islam-F and Awami National Party. What they urge, however, is for him to quit as army chief and let parliamentary elections take place first, arguing that legislatures which themselves have a life of five years cannot elect someone for a period greater than this time limit. In response, Musharraf's aides refer to constitutional provisions that do not allow the head of state to either extend his five-year tenure or leave the position vacant. Under Article 41 (4), the president must be elected not earlier than 60 days before end of term but also not later than 30 days of expiry of term.

The same constitutional article, however, provides an indirect solution that provides a way out of this impasse: "[If the President's] election cannot be held within the period aforesaid because the National Assembly is dissolved, it shall be held within 30 days of the general election to the National Assembly." Musharraf can dissolve the assemblies now and call for general elections which will return assemblies that will elect a head of state for which he can offer himself up for re-election. All opposition parties want early general elections but Musharraf is resisting this option because he does not want to surrender a simple majority in current assemblies of parties that can elect him and subject himself to the risk of an uncertain composition in the next assemblies.

The opposition also cites Article 41 (2) arguing that Musharraf is ineligible to be re-elected president as he will breach term restrictions. The Article states: "Subject to Constitution, a person holding office as President shall be eligible for re-election to that office, but no person shall hold that office for more than two consecutive terms." The opposition says Musharraf first took oath of office as president when he sent President Rafiq Tarar home in 2001 and then after the presidential referendum in 2002.

Musharraf's aides protest and argue that the 'second' instance was actually his 'first' full term and he had only 'filled in' for Tarar in the earlier term. On the same yardstick, the two-term bar on Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif being elected prime minister for a third term appears superfluous as neither completed either of their two terms each as prime ministers. The opposition also argues that if it's a question of oaths and terms, Musharraf has had administered at least four oaths: as a soldier in the army, as 'de facto martial law' chief executive, as president after deposing Tarar, as president again after the referendum. The oath that gave him presidency-in-military uniform, under the 17th Amendment, was a one-off, argues MMA, but Musharraf's now-declared candidacy for a repeat presidency-in-military uniform is an attempt to stretch that into an extension of his conditional legitimacy.

Musharraf supporters also defend the implication of a virtually life-term presidency by pointing out that the likes of Benazir Bhutto, Altaf Hussain and Nawaz Sharif have instituted mechanisms for likewise long periods. That there is a difference between political parties electing to do so and the armed forces who want their man overseeing the political system is conveniently ignored.

Musharraf's attempt at re-election cannot be upheld on either principled or practical grounds. He does not want to play by rules he sets for others. He wants Bhutto and Sharif neither to be parliamentarians nor prime ministers but he wants himself to be both army chief and president. He wants term limits on political leaders but an open-ended tenure for himself both as president and as army chief. He cut short the tenure of the previous parliament but does not want the current or next parliament to outlive him. He changed three prime ministers to suit him but does not want prime ministers change army chiefs to suit them. He sends former elected prime ministers into exile but awards himself extension as army chief.

If Musharraf cannot have a new parliament elect him, he shouldn't oversee election of the parliament. But the problem with Musharraf is that he wants to make all the rules but does not want to follow any rules. Not even his own (remember his promise to play golf after retiring as 'chief executive' in 2001 or to shed off the uniform in 2004?).

It was, I suppose, one of the very first tokens of our independence, and so we revelled in it. It was 1948 and we'd been a free nation hardly a year, and already our own international state visitor was with us. It was the Shah of Iran. This was early days, before he had earned the odium of people, and he was just a young Muslim monarch, resplendent in flashy uniforms, and an even more resplendent young Queen, Soraya, in tow. And you cannot imagine the kind of enthusiasm he generated and the reception he got, everywhere he went.

Later on it was the turn of Indian Premier Jawaharlal Nehru. He was in any case going to be a special case being a neighbour and old antagonist; also he was fair and smart and good looking and elegant in a white sharkskin Sherwani with a blood red rose dangling from his buttonhole. He drove down the Mall in Lahore in an open car and the crowds were so thick and so happy that he dragged himself off his seat, stood up and leaned forward to shake extended hands.

The more sedate Queen Elizabeth also came and drove down the same Mall to Governor's House, and every so often the car had to slow down to let the crowds have a good look and a regal wave. She too did all the tourist spots, the Mosque and the Fort and whatever, and great crowds were there to greet her everywhere.

Then they all came. To the 'Islamic Summit' in Lahore, 44 heads of Muslim States, and they included all the people we admired, Yasser Arafat and Anwar Sadaat and Qaddafi, and the others we had just heard of.

This included Idi Amin of Uganda, all nine feet or so of him in an elaborate Field Marshall's uniform jangling all over the place because he wore enough medals to serve for three world wars. As far as I know his own soldiering experience consisted of accusing Britain of plotting to invade his country 'By land, sea and air'! When a reported pointed out that Uganda is land-locked and can't be invaded by sea, he merely scoffed, "Shows how dumb they are", and carried on.

Amin had brought his young son with him, five or six but with his own replica of a Field Marshall's uniform complete with miniature medals exactly like his father's. He was cute and bright and a manageable size and he created a riot wherever he went. And he went all over. To Anarkali Bazaar where the whole Bazaar stopped working to attend to him. Then with typical Lahori panache they dubbed him 'Piddi Amin' to go with his father's name!

Muammar Qaddafi had such a following that he was actually invited to address a public meeting in Lahore's stadium, in Arabic, with the last Arabic professor from Government College simultaneously translating for the crowd. He was such a hit that we ended up naming the stadium after him.

The authorities did not have enough rooms in the 'Rest Houses' or even the hotels, so months before they had asked private people with 'Well appointed' houses to volunteer to put up some of the guests and their entourages. They did and most of the heads of state ended up living with families. The point is that any 'Security' was at best tentative, mostly consisting of a lone policeman loitering around the gate, and everyone going and coming as they pleased.

Which is to remind you of how things have changed since then. Recently, in Lahore the Marathon was being run, and there were no heads of state actually running, but they had policemen from all over standing guard. The word got round that Hillary Clinton was coming for it too. She is a former First Lady, a sitting Senator and a hopeful for the next elections in 2008. And no one knew of her coming or what she did and where she went! If Clinton becomes the first 'First Gentleman' come elections, many in Lahore are not going to be pleased they never got to meet the Senator!

The legal and moral side of financial institutions hiring private staff to impound the cars of those who have defaulted

By Ahsan Zia

For Rabia, a mother of two, it was like a bolt from the blue. At least six to seven people carrying automatic weapons waylaid her on a busy Islamabad road in broad daylight. Two of them walked briskly towards her, dragged her and her two frightened children out of her car. Terrified, she could not put up a resistance and acted exactly as told.

The men took away her car and told her they represented one of the international banks running operations in Pakistan. Her vehicle, he said, had been impounded due to non-payment of installments of the loan her husband had got from the bank for the car. As she made desperate appeals to let her contact her husband, they took the car with them, leaving her and children on the road.

"I didn't know that my husband, a trader, had got this car financed by the bank," says Rabia. "I cannot forget the humiliation I had to suffer at the hands of the bank staff."

This incident is not the first of its kind. Scores of customers who have got their cars financed by banks and financial institutions have had similar experiences. The retrieval of vehicles started soon after the banks started softening their policies related to car in 2001-02.

With a lot of recent incidents like the one mentioned above, what people fear is that this may sometimes lead to an exchange of fire because more often than not the customers mistake the bank representatives for robbers. People also question if this indeed is a proper way to deal with defaulters on the part of the financial institutions involved in the business. Also because they are known take post-dated cheques from the customers in advance, and can lodge an FIR against him in case of default of payment (A dishonoured cheque is now a non-bailable offence).

Noman Ahmed, an employee of a local bank, divulges the banks hire the services of private staff, mostly consisting of roughnecks to impound the vehicles of those who fall short of paying the third installment. "The private staff, usually equipped with automatic weapons, in return receives a commission of Rs.15-20 thousand for each vehicle seized by them."

"The bank authorities assure us that in the event of any altercation with the clients, the bank will come to our rescue and pursue the case if the matter is taken to the police," says Khalid Khan, a young man who works with a squad of private local bank in Karachi. However, he says, the bank authorities frequently betray us and do not fulfill their promise to help us out in the hour of need, leaving us at the mercy of police and clients. "Time and again we find the clients too influential and powerful to deal with. Yet we do our job because of the huge commission we receive from the bank every month. On an average, we confiscate 20 to 30 cars of defaulter in a month."

Lawyer Sumaira Awan says the modus operandi employed lately by the banks to repossess the car is totally unlawful and extremely offensive. "The banks already have an edge on the clients because of the legal cover they have on the amount of loan they give to their customers for purchase of cars. The banks remain the genuine owner of the vehicles they lease out or finance to their clients unless the whole amount of the loan is not cleared."

"With the post-dated cheques, the financial companies can lodge an FIR under section 489 F against the customer if a cheque is dishonoured. As this offence is compoundable, both the police and the courts can settle the dispute, making the customer pay the amount in question. The banks should opt for the first option."

"If the customer thinks his/her life is under threat or he is manhandled or injured, s/he has the right to loge an FIR against the bank squad under section 506, 324, 226 of PPC in accordance with the circumstances."

Zafar Alam Khan Sumbal, Director Askari Commercial Bank, Karachi does not agree that banks don't have the authority to confiscate a vehicle in case of non-payment of installments. "Under the agreement with the bank, a customer is bound to pay the installment in time."

Saeed Furqan, Sales Officer, City Bank Car Financing Department, Lahore denies the allegations that squads meant for confiscation of vehicles misbehave or manhandle the customers at the time of repossessing the vehicles. He says: "We hold special training sessions for the staff to make them remain polite with the customers. Moreover, we don't hire the services of roughnecks to help the bank confiscate vehicles. It may be true for some car leasing companies but not us.

"Whatever method we adopt to impound a vehicle is strictly taken in accordance with the directions we receive from the State Bank of Pakistan. We impound a vehicle in case of default of three consecutive installments by a customer. Before seizing a vehicle we contact the customer twice by telephone and insist upon him to pay the installments. When the bank sees that customer is not paying heed to its requests and not solving the matter, we trace out the vehicle and confiscate it."

We do take post-dated cheques, Furqan says, but the banks exercise this option, only after they fail to trace out the defaulters or vehicles. "We use this option as our last not the first recourse to get our payment back from the defaulter."

Are the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the establishment well on their way to a detente? The top leadership of the PPP has contradicted reports that a deal is in the making or already reached and termed such 'rumour mongering' an attempt to weaken the alliance of the opposition parties. It cannot be denied that the PPP has softened its anti-establishment stance. For instance, while the other major opposition party -- the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) -- has declared not to take part in elections if president Musharraf remains at the helm, the PPP is keeping its options open by not making such declarations. Additionally, the PPP is being careful that its criticism of the government spares the 'establishmentarians'.

Why would the PPP and the establishment deem it necessary to reach a compromise? And what are the possible arrangements on which the two can agree? We take the first question first. For the PPP, the reason for a patch-up with the establishment is simple -- to capture power. If the past is any guide, the quest for political power in Pakistan is doomed to end up in failure without a nod from the establishment -- the power behind the throne. Unpleasant and hard, but a fact nevertheless.

Probably none knows this better than the top leadership of the PPP, and that too by personal experience. In 1988 general elections, the PPP, despite all odds, had emerged as the single largest party and the only one which won seats from all the four provinces. But that was not enough for the party to form the government. The PPP had to reach a compromise with the establishment -- that it would support the then acting president Ghulam Ishaq Khan in presidential elections which were due a couple of months later -- before its chairperson Benazir Bhutto was appointed prime minister.

The decision to support Ghulam Ishaq Khan must have been a very hard one for PPP leadership, because he was an establishment icon with which the party had been at loggerheads during last one decade. But then that was the price the PPP had to pay to enter into the corridors of power. The party leadership preferred power to principles. It was the same Ghulam Ishaq Khan, who dismissed the PPP government less than two years later. But then that was on the cards as such marriages of convenience are always on the rock.

Whether the decision to support the candidature of Ishaq Khan for the office of the president was correct or incorrect is besides the point. What is to the point is the fact that a party can get mandate from the electorate to govern but the same is not enough for it to form the government if it does not get a certificate from the establishment that it is fit to govern. And one should not forget that the same certificate can be withdrawn any time.

Thus in August 1990, when the PPP government headed by Benazir Bhutto was four months short of its second anniversary, the establishment felt that as the baby was trying to stand on its own feet, it was high time to strike its head. Through presidential orders, parliament and the prime minister were dismissed. That was the end of the second PPP and the first Benazir Bhutto government.

In 1993, Nawaz Sharif, the erstwhile blued eye boy of the establishment, fell out with his mentors and had to pay the price in the form of his dismissal. Nawaz Sharif's fall from grace once again forced the establishment to court the friendship of the PPP, which itself was desperately trying to get back in the saddle. Elections were held, which the PPP won. This is not to suggest that the election results were manipulated. The electoral exercise was reasonably fair. But it cannot be denied that but for the establishment's approval, the PPP would still have been in the opposition.

It was again time for presidential elections. Prime ministers in Pakistan do not complete their terms but presidents do. With Nawaz Sharif out of the establishment's book, Benazir Bhutto was in a stronger position than in 1988 as Ishaq Khan again announced to run for the office of the president. Hence, this time she resisted the attempts to get the PPP support Ishaq Khan's candidature. Another reason may be that the establishment had possibly decided that Ishaq Khan had enjoyed power enough and therefore did not press too hard for him.

The election of the PPP's own stalwart Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari as president strengthened the party's position and the government seemed to be well set to complete its five-year term, which had never happened in Pakistan before. But that proved an illusion. In reality, the establishment was as strong as ever before. And when it decided to strike, President Leghari dismissed his leader's government. That was on November 6, 1996. Since then the PPP has remained in the opposition and its top leadership in exile or behind the bars. With President and COAS Musharraf in full control of the situation, there is no question of the party once again tasting power without reaching some understanding with him.

But why will the establishment seek an understanding with the PPP? There is more than one reason for that. Notwithstanding all its powers and clout, the establishment needs strong political support to get things moving. Whether there is a military regime or a civilian government, the establishment needs to have a political constituency. That explains why every military government in Pakistan cultivates relations with some political forces and tries to cobble together a political arrangement to further its interest. This also explains why military governments do not live up to their promises of an across-the-board accountability. The very people who have to be made accountable for their acts of omission and commission are needed to provide political support to the regime. In the present government, for instance, there is more than one person who in case of fair accountability should have been in prison rather than in the Minister's Enclave.

After coming into power, President Musharraf looked to the Muslim League, the party known for serving military rulers, for political support. It was in exchange for that support that the regime ensured the party's return to power. So far the Leaguers have served their master loyally, even accepting an outsider as the head of their government. But loyalty, though an admirable quality, is not enough. Political influence also matters. The problem with the ruling party is that in spite of all state support, it does not command much political influence and is certainly no match for the PPP's popular credentials. In any test of political power, the League can hardly get the better of the PPP.

Secondly, the views and policies, particularly those pertaining to foreign policy, of President Musharraf and the PPP converge in many respects. Both are pro-West, especially pro-US, and have a liberal outlook. With war against religious extremism at the top of its foreign policy agenda, the least the US wants is a conservative government in Pakistan. Both the PPP and the military regime advocate friendly relations with India. Since India is America's strategic ally and Pakistan is a frontline state in its counter-terrorism campaign, US interests dictate at least normal, if not warmer, relations between the two South Asian nuclear powers.

Thirdly, because of his personal confrontation with Nawaz Sharif whom he had dethroned, the president will prefer an alliance with the PPP to that with the PML-N. And finally, a patch-up between the PPP and the military will create dents in the PPP-PML-N alliance and further weaken the latter.

Now take the second question. The PPP would want fair elections, with Benazir Bhutto allowed safe return to Pakistan and to take part in the political process without let or hindrance. While the president may agree to fair polls, he is not likely to approve Bhutto for the office of the prime minister. This is not because she is facing corruption charges -- many members of the present government are doing so -- but partly because he will not want a prime minister larger than him and partly because the establishment does not have much liking for the Bhutto family.

Hence, the PPP may be allowed to get back to power without Benazir Bhutto at the helm. In exchange for that, the party will have to give full support to president Musharraf including facilitating his re-election this year. Benazir Bhutto can be persuaded to accept such an arrangement in return for the freedom for herself and her family.

A few days ago, AFP, under the New Delhi headline "2007 a good year for Pak-India relations: Astrologers", published delightfully vague predictions by Indian astrologers. It took me back to my first ever encounter with an astrologer.

While awaiting the results of our B.A. Final examination in Hong Kong nearly seventy years ago, my Chinese friend and I went to see a film in a local cinema theatre. When the performance was over, a request was made over the theatre's public address system: "Please remain seated for a free demonstration by Professor Argus Copeland, world-famous astrologer!"

The Professor was blindfolded and seated on the stage with his back to the audience. His assistant went around, asking questions which the Professor answered, apparently correctly. Sample responses:

"The lady is worried about her soldier son fighting at the front. But she needn't worry. She'll hear from him soon." (Cheers)

"The young man's gold wrist-watch is five minutes slow." (The watch owner rose and acknowledged. Clap. clap, clap)

"The girl has a blue skirt and a blue bandanna." (Wild clapping and cheering)

After a dozen or so similar confederate tricks, the Professor rose and went away while his assistant stood at the exit selling printed forms at a dollar each. An attached slip advised:

"Fill the form up at home and post it to the address given. Write your date of birth and one question in your own handwriting. Within one week you will receive by post the answer to your question and a 1000-word horoscope."

True to promise, I received by post two sheets, one being the answer to my question -- the same asked by millions all over the world: "What will be the result of my examination and the prospects of a job thereafter?" (I had rolled two questions into one!) The other was my horoscope.

Ladies and gentlemen, over to Professor Copeland!

Sheet 1: "I see you passing your examination and doing well in the future." The crystal-gazing Professor must have got on to the trick but had kindly rolled both his answers into one!

Sheet 2: Excerpts from my horoscope, with my comments.

"The sun was in the sign Virgo at the time of your birth." (Nonsense, as you'll discover at the end of this column).

"The ruling planet for that sign is Mercury which denotes that you like harmony in your surroundings and are fond of home life." (True)

"Famous people born under this sign are Queen Elizabeth I, Lord Nelson, Leo Tolstoy" (Aren't there any famous Asians, Africans or Latin American with whose names mine could be bracketed for flattery?)

"You have an excitable disposition." (Only partly true. Normally I am as sane and sober as most others, but if and when suitably provoked, I am occasionally capable of exploding, registering 6.5 on the Richter Scale).

"Virgo people are very tactful and will sometimes use too much diplomacy." (Absolute rubbish! I like calling a spade a spade).

"These people are best matched with those born in January, April, May and December." (Shhhh! Don't let my Chairperson hear that. Her birthday doesn't fall in any of those months).

And so on and so on and so on. The Professor talked about my lucky number, lucky day of the week, lucky stone, lucky colour -- all of which I have so far luckily ignored without any particular setback or disadvantage in life. But give the devil his due, goes an old saying. I concede that in spite of all the bullshit by Professor Copeland, one part of the horoscope he concocted has turned out to be correct. He said that people born under the sign Virgo succeed best as teachers, secretaries and writers. Success, however, will come late in life.

Hear, hear, hear! I started off life as a teacher and made a good job of it until the world around us crashed when the Japanese wiped out the units of the US Navy in Pearl Harbour in December 1945 and bulldozed the whole of East Asia, Years later after the Axis Powers had been defeated by the Allies, 1 took up a secretarial career that lasted over 3 decades. Finally, as mentioned in the horoscope in correct sequence, I turned an old hobby of mine, writing, into a profession that, as you plainly see, I am still pursuing.

DPA in its London datelined column 'Zodiac star signs are no longer valid,' was reproduced in The News on January 21, 1995. The report said that Jacqueline Mitton of the Royal Astronomical Society had put forth the claim in the newspaper the Daily Telegraph that the signs of the zodiac, which millions of people all over the world believe influence their lives, are all wrong. "The earth's axis had changed direction since the signs were worked out between 2,000 and 3,000 years ago and many people are no longer in the constellation they have always believed themselves to be in," said Jacqueline Mitton.

Jacqueline's iconoclastic claims were expected to spark a row with astrologers and cause consternation for followers of newspapers astrology columns. The BBC was reported to have said it had informed Britain's tabloid newspapers about the new zodiac. The BBC spokesman said: "But they would not touch the story as they didn't want to discredit their highly-paid astrologers."

According to Jacqueline Mitton, the sun now also passes through a new 13th constellation, Ophiuchus, in the first half of December.

Therefore, I am no longer a Virgo but a Leo! How now, Professor Copeland? Do you and your brotherhood still insist on encroaching on what is purely a divine prerogative?