Will President Musharraf of Pakistan step down willingly or will he be impeached, before 9/7 ??

What if he announces that he's stepping down before 9/7 but plans to step aside after this date?

Or, what if the impeachment process begins before 9/7 but doesn't end until afterwards. Impeachment would surely take months (wouldn't it?).

@ swilson -- "impeachment" is usually synonymous with "indictment", in that it is the act of making formal charges. Those charges then are prosecuted and defended in a trial (i.e., Clinton was impeached but not convicted). I don't know for sure if it works that way in Pakistan or not.

Impeaching a president in Pakistan requires a two-thirds majority support of lawmakers in both houses of Parliament. So the impeachment vote could happen quickly.

If comment #3 is also correct in Pakistan, that impeachment is the beginning of the legal process, not the final result, then we'll be okay. As for stepping down, I think we can say that that's a synonym for "resign", and pulling out the trusty Hubdub rules, we find the infamous "Spitzer clause", which says that when a question involves the time at which a resignation takes place, we will use the time of the announcement of resignation as the the time of resignation.

This is what I will "probably" do, if such scenarios arise, but it is not definite. I need to check out how the term "impeach" is used in Pakistan, and I'm willing to hear counter-arguments (via flag) about whether "step down" = "resign".

Here's a list of definitions from Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impeach&x=0&y=0. They all seem to point to a formal accusation, and not the actual removal from office. So that part seems clear. As for the definition of step down: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=step+down&x=0&y=0, it means resign.

Here's the Spitzer clause: "Unless specified otherwise, a question asking when a public figure will resign will be settled on the date the figure announces their intention to resign rather than the date the resignation becomes effective (the Spitzer clause).. You can find it in rule 2.3.1: http://www.hubdub.com/public/goodquestion here.

So, that's the words settled then. Now, what is involved in an impeachment in Pakistan? Here's a useful report from The Times of India:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Pakistan/Impeachment_motion_against_Musharraf_to_be_submitted_next_week/articleshow/3356942.cms
That's almost clear then But the article leaves out exactly what are the steps required. So this remains to be specified.

As a follow-on to what the "impeachment" steps are, in comment #5, above, there's this:

"Musharraf's office said an impeachment could drag on for months because the procedure is not laid out in the constitution and there is no precedent in Pakistan's turbulent 61-year history."

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26216446/>

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 15 -- "The last of Pakistan's four provincial assemblies voted unanimously Friday in favor of impeaching President Pervez Musharraf, leaving him with few options as the threat of his ouster looms."

Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, August 16, 2008; Page A08

Read more to put this in context:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081502694.html?hpid=moreheadlines>

This is from the Sindh Assembly (one of the four provincial Assemblies): And whereas his policies have paralysed the federation and eroded the trust of the nation in key national institutions, this assembly hereby calls upon Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf to take a vote of confidence from his electoral college or resign in terms of Article 44(3) of the Constitution. In case he fails to do so, this assembly calls upon and urges parliament to give notice of impeachment in accordance with Article 47 of the Constitution.”
http://www.dawn.com/2008/08/14/top5.htm

And here is the Constitution: http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/

In particular:
47. Removal [or impeachment] of President.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, the President may, in accordance with the provisions of this Article, be removed from office on the ground of physical or mental incapacity or impeached on a charge of violating the Constitution or gross misconduct.
(2) Not less than one-half of the total membership of either House may give to the Speaker of the National Assembly or, as the case may be, the Chairman written notice of its intention to move a resolution for the removal of, or, as the case may be, to impeach, the President; and such notice shall set out the particulars of his incapacity or of the charge against him.]
(3) If a notice under clause (2) is received by the Chairman, he shall transmit it forthwith to the Speaker.
(4) The Speaker shall, within three days of the receipt of a notice under clause (2) or clause (3), cause a copy of the notice to be transmitted to the President.
(5) The Speaker shall summon the two Houses to meet in a joint sitting not earlier than seven days and not later than fourteen days after the receipt of the notice by him.
(6) The joint sitting may investigate or cause to be investigated the ground or the charge upon which the notice is founded.
(7) The President shall have the right to appear and be represented during the investigation, if any, and before the joint sitting.
(8) If, after consideration of the result of the investigation, if any, a resolution is passed at the joint sitting by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] declaring that the President is unfit to hold the office due to incapacity or is guilty of violating the Constitution or of gross misconduct, the President shall cease to hold office immediately on the passing of the resolution.

I'm leaning heavily toward interpreting "Impeachment" as being the time at which formal charges are read out to "a joint sitting" of "the two Houses" as defined in 47.(5)

Wow! That interpretation would, in my view, declare Musharraf as impeached before any vote to impeach is taken!

Said differently, if at 47 (8), members of Parliament don't pass a resolution to impeach -- (which would mean Musharraf wasn't impeached), your interpretation would already have him impeached!

"If, after consideration of the result of the investigation, if any, a resolution is passed at the joint sitting by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership... the President shall cease to hold office immediately on the passing of the resolution."

Like most parliamentary procedures, nothing changes/happens until a vote is taken.

One last quotation. This one is from the dictionary.com link in comment 5.

Usage Note: When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace.

This is why I say in comment 10 that I am leaning toward the reading of formal charges before the joint sitting of the two Houses, which is the body that will determine his guilt or innocence as in 47.(6), 47.(7) and 47(8) of the Constitution.

In my view, this is not about "an irate citizen" -- rather it is the interpretations of world leaders, mainstream media, and the decision making process of Musharraf himself that ought be used to "define" impeachment for this question.

In a similar manner, the House of Representatives voted and passed Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. Nixon's decision was, from one point of view, could he resign and get Marine One before the Articles reached the Senate?

In my view, Musharraf faces a similar-in-sentiment decision about resigning ... or not.

The point of quoting the Usage Note is to make clear that the legal meaning is different from the popular usage.

In this case, a similar vote to the House of Representatives one you cite is covered in 47.(2). Had the Articles in your example reached the Senate, Nixon would have been impeached, which is not to say however that he would later have been found guilty and removed from office. That was the rush to the helicopter. In this case I am suggesting that the "moment of truth" is when the "joint sitting" begins.

As you'll notice, the words "impeach" and "impeachment" are not to found in 47.(8). The resolution you mention in comment #11 would not be one of impeachment, but rather one stating that the President "is guilty of violating the Constitution or of gross misconduct". This resolution is effectively cause of the vote which renders the judgement. The impeachment.itself must precede the hearing of evidence.

There is, however, a significant distinction between the two examples. The impeachment process in the US involves the affirmative action of two legislative bodies (House and Senate), acting independently, while the parliamentary model in Pakistan appears to use a combined process (47.(5) "The Speaker shall summon the two Houses to meet in a joint sitting...")

The distinction is significant.

In my view, using your time line of the process would be analogous in the US to a bill being read out before the House, and declaring that because 39 Articles of Impeachment are pending in the House Judiciary Committee, which were presented to Congress by Rep Dennis Kucinich, that President Bush has been impeached.

While I appreciate your attempt to thread the needle of "defining the moment of impeachment in Pakistan", at the end of the day, impeachment has never been done in Pakistan.

I have no doubt whatsoever that numerous, varied and authoritative mainstream news sources will report if Musharraf has resigned, or if he has been impeached, or if he remains in office. As those are the settlement details that govern how this question will be settled, is there any need to try to apply a Hubdub definition that may result in being at odds with the rest of the world? ;-)

We have watched Zimbabwe President -- much loved ruthless dictator for life -- Robert Mugabe wiggle out of more impossible situations than this one.

I think Musharraf and Mugabe took "wiggling" classes together: I'm sticking with "any other outcome"...

From 47.
(2) Not less than one-half of the total membership of either House may give to the Speaker of the National Assembly or, as the case may be, the Chairman written notice of its intention to move a resolution for the removal of, or, as the case may be, to impeach, the President; and such notice shall set out the particulars of his incapacity or of the charge against him.
That's not equivalent to Dennis and friends. That's equivalent to the House vote. "One-half of the total membership of either House" agreeing to give the written notice to the Speaker is not just a lone voice. That's the basis of my making the two examples equivalent.

The problem I see is that the meaning or usage of the word "impeachment" has changed since pre-Watergate days, from "formal accusation" to "the successful prosecution of such an accusation." The decision to make is whether the popular modern usage has superceded the older one, which boils down to the question, "Was Clinton impeached or not?" If you say he was, then you are preferring the "formal accusation" sense, and if you say he wasn't, you are tying impeached to removal from office or at least finding of guilt.

Further, is impeachment a process one undergoes, a type of trial, or is it a synonym for "removed from office by being found guilty"? As you say, the media will have its way with the word, and trying to pin it down beforehand is perilous. But as some of our other markets have demonstrated, so is not pinning it down.

...wiggle, wiggle, wiggle...

Pakistan's ruling coalition tightened the screw on President Pervez Musharraf Sunday, saying that it had readied impeachment charges against him and was giving him two days to stand down.

Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar told AFP that "the charge sheet will be presented in parliament by Tuesday". Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said a day earlier that Musharraf had to decide on quitting "by today or tomorrow."
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUiNFCJZGXQcIyzVBhBP22e8V03w

Looks like he's going...somewhere?