He read from the preamble of the Constitution to demand that before the election the government must establish an order that is consistent with the constitutional ideals; and that the candidates for the assemblies must be fully vetted to ensure they measure up to qualification/disqualification conditions contained in Articles 62 and 63. In other words, he contended that the government had failed to fulfil its responsibilities, (no matter if the purpose of the electoral exercise is to let the people hold rulers to account for their acts of omission or commission) and the integrity of politicians was questionable. That prepared the ground for the real objective of the entire exercise: postponement of the elections and replacement of democratically elected dispensation with a technocratic setup. To strengthen his argument he gave the example of Italy where an economist Mario Monti just ended his 13-month tenure as a technocrat prime minister. The Allama also indicated that the caretaker setup, which is to replace the present government to oversee the elections, would be acceptable if the 'other stakeholders', that include the Army and the judiciary, are also consulted, arguing that just two parties had no right to make that choice.
The fact of the matter is that the method and composition of a caretaker setup is covered by the 20th constitutional amendment and hence not open to question by any individual or organisation. As per this provision, the issue is to be decided not by two political parties, as Qadri has been wrongly portraying, but by two most important components of the democratic dispensation: the government and the Opposition. The Army and the judiciary have no role in political affairs; they have their own designated roles to play. As a defence force, army has to act in aid of the executive if called upon to deal with an emergency situation like coping wit a natural disaster or to quell a disturbance. The judiciary's job is to dispense justice and ensure adherence to the constitution.
As for the argument for a government of technocrats, in the case of Italy, economist Mario Monti became prime minister at the head of a technocrat government with wide political support including that of the scandal-ridden Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's party. He took unpopular austerity measures to lead the country out of a serious economic crisis, and resigned a few days ago after Berlusconi's party withdrew support, paving the way for fresh elections. Pakistan has had more than one technocrat government, albeit imposed by the establishment rather than supported by elected representatives of the people. Despite having all the power at their disposal to take much needed tough measures, such as widening the tax net to raise the tax to GDP ratio from being the lowest in the region to a decent level, they have no notable achievement to their credit. The issues of inter-provincial disharmony also remained unaddressed, until the present elected leadership created a consensus on a new resource distribution formula, and led the passage of 18th Amendment, abolishing the concurrent subjects list to devolve greater autonomy to the provinces. This country has suffered much on account of extra-constitutional interventions. Spoilsports like Qadri must keep their old habits in check, letting democratic institutions to gain strength to put this country on the road to peace and progress.