Faith in armed forces: Political parties demand re-election in Karachi

MQM, ANP fail to attend meeting while PPP opposes joint resolution.

Noman Ahmed May 27, 2013

KARACHI: Apart from the three former coalition partners in Sindh, all political parties reached a consensus on Monday for re-elections under the army’s supervision in Karachi.

A consultative meeting of all political parties was called at Avari Towers by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) for post-election analysis and the city’s law and order situation. The meeting was chaired by PTI vice-president Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi. The party’s provincial president Nadir Akmal Khan Leghari told The Express Tribune that his party had sent ‘across-the-board invitations’ but the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and the Awami National Party representatives preferred to stay away.

Though Pakistan Peoples Party’s provincial general secretary, Taj Haider, became part of the meeting, he refused to become a party to the joint-resolution despite efforts to win him over by the PTI leadership. Haider told The Express Tribune that his party did not agree with certain points included in the resolution.

“By asking for re-elections under army supervision, these political parties are attempting to rollback the election process,” he said. “Such a demand will ultimately bring the army back to reign over, like it did in 1997 scenario.”

The resolution, demanding re-elections under army supervision, was, however, approved by around 15 political parties, including the PTI, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid-e-Azam, Pakistan Muslim League-Functional, Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Pakistan, Pakistan Sunni Tehreek, Majlis-e-Wahdat-e-Muslimeen, Sindh United Party and others.

In the resolution, the representatives of the political parties also unanimously demanded for legal and disciplinary action against all those responsible for discrepancies in the electoral process. Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was asked to take a suo motu notice of extensive rigging across the country, especially in Karachi.

“Karachi’s case is different because the people’s right to vote was sabotaged in a systematic and organised manner,” complained Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s Nihal Hashmi. “The provincial election commission and the caretaker government played a shameful role despite incessant warnings on what might happen in the absence of security.”

They also asked the election commission to increase the number of election appellate tribunals and appoint in-service judges at the tribunals in place of the currently appointed retired judges. Dr Arif Alvi, the PTI’s newly-elected member of national assembly from NA-250, said, “Karachi cannot afford to remain in the hands of terrorists for even the next few years.”

Pakistan Sunni Tehreek’s Matloob Awan said that, “For Karachi’s future, both the PPP and the PML-N are advised to not join hands with the ‘blackmailing forces’ for another five years.”

Published in The Express Tribune, May 28th, 2013

Our Publications


JAVAID KHAN | 7 years ago | Reply

@fus:Its not the job of a governor to carry out development work in the city.Developmental work in the city is the responsibilty of the elected local bodies.Both PPP and MQM never bothered to bring local bodies in the province during their 5 years in goverment.Law and order in the city is far more important than building roads and bridges.A neutral governor is the key to bring peace in the city.

fus | 7 years ago | Reply

@JAVAID KHAN: Do you even know about the responsibilities of a governor? Atleast governor got some development done during the last 5 years since the CM was most incompetent in history of Sind and ongrats he will be the CM againb for next 5 years. The governor was the only sane voice in the governement. It CM responsibility to take care of the law and order and strong legislation related to the governance, not governor's.

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ