Question

In Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf led a MILITARY COUP in October 1999. He overthrew a democratically elected government and

declared himself the Chief Executive of the country. Later he changed his designation to the President and in 2002 held a referendum in the

country that granted him a five year extension. According to the media and democracy activists the referendum was based on malpractices and

fraud. In August 2002 he issued a LEGAL FRAMEWORK ORDER that amended the Constitution of Pakistan. According to this Order, the

President could dismiss the National and Provincial assemblies. The work of the civilian cabinet is supervised by the National Security Council

which was dominated by the military officers. After passing this law, elections were held to the national and provincial assemblies. Elected

representatives got some powers. But the final powers were in the hands of military officers and General Musharraf himself.
.
.
. Question. “In a democracy the final decision making power must rest with those elected by the people”. In the given situation, can we call

Pakistan as a truly democratic nation? Yes/no. Why? (Answer in 70-80 words). ​

Answer 1

Answer:

No

Explanation:

Prevez Musharraf overthrew a democratically elected government in October 1999 through a military coup and declared himself the president of the country. In August 2002, Musharraf issued a 'Legal Framework order ' that amended the constitution of Pakistan. After passing this law, elections were held to the national and state assemblies. So Pakistan had elections, and elected representatives had some power. But the final power used to rest with military officers and with general Musharraf himself. They were not elected by the people