A reading of a column in our press last week left me as flabbergasted as was the young writer. He had previously written on the plight on a group of Lahore schoolgirls seeking sponsorship to contest the finals of a competition in the USA. He received two phone calls - from the prime ministerial mansion and from the minister of information, both offering help. Truly, a remarkable occurrence. Now I desperately need help to clarify a puzzled mind and would appreciate a phone call, or even an email, from anyone in his or her official capacity. It could be any old minister, prime or information, or preferably law. Farook Naek was made a senator as a reward for the legal assistance rendered to Asif Zardari. His latest moment of fame came last Monday when in the most honourable but useless national assembly he stated that "only six Pakistanis" had been killed in the Danish embassy suicide bombing. However, in between his dashes to Dubai and other parts of the world where his client is to be found, a spot of legal advice from him may (though doubtful) put my agitated mind to rest. Under the constitution, and the parliamentary system of government, and any other relevant and prevalent laws, what is it that allows Mr Asif Zardari, a simple co-chairman of a political party, to be the sole ruler of this Islamic Republic dedicated to constitutionalism? How and why is it that "all roads lead to Zardari House" when we have in place a prime minister, a cabinet, a government and a parliament? Zardari is unelected, as are some of those whom he has appointed to official and constitutional positions. The entire political community, the legal community and what is known as the civil society are up in arms making strident noises about upholding the constitution and re-amending it into a form which may turn out to be even more obtuse and convoluted that it now is, yet a man who is entirely extra-constitutional holds all the cards and calls all the shots. The other day even a delegation from the Karachi Stock Exchange wound its way up the Zardari House pathway This situation is becoming ridiculous in the extreme. What has changed since President General (retd) Pervez Musharraf had his one-man rule? At least he had some constitutional and legal cover - no matter how contentious that may now be. And he did make attempts to camouflage his one-man rule by shovelling matters down to his appointed and bogusly elected prime minister or the elected insalubrious chief of his bogus party. But Zardari, an unelected party co-chairman, and that by default, accident and sheer luck, makes no bones about the powers he holds. Had his wife not been so brutally removed from Pakistan's political scenario he would not even have been in Pakistan. Well before the assassination, it was said by what is known as an "unimpeachable source" that Zardari's role in life was to be strictly restricted to activities outside Pakistan. He must be felicitated, not only on his remarkable luck, on his successful dealings with the mighty USA and Musharraf, on the gift to him of the NRO (the most despised and hated bit of illegal unconstitutional legislation wrought by Musharraf), but also on his miraculous return to the pink of health (and wealth). For years, when incarcerated by various governments of Pakistan for his perceived sins, he was so ill with heart, neck, back and what have you health problems that he had to spend most of his time in hospital. When released, the poor chap was still so precariously unwell with the same old problems plaguing him that he was unable to travel to various countries to be present at court cases to which he had been summoned. He is happily now hale and hearty, brimming with confidence, glowing with health, and seldom without a huge grin on his face. Sadly, a rather blistering blow was given to Zardari and the reconciliation ordinance in last Sunday's New York Times by none other than the hugely popular Aitzaz Ahsan. He is on record, when questioned on the justification of the corruption cases brought against Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari, as having stated that "Most of them" were justified, as "the type of expenses that she had and he has are not from sources of income that can be lawfully explained and accounted for." He should know. He has defended both clients "in 14 cases, including, he says, 'corruption against both,' and in Zardari's case, 'kidnapping, ransom and murder'." Aitzaz's subsequent grumble to the NYT that he was misquoted is unconvincing. At the risk of being boring, and before breaking point arrives, I await clarification from some bright spark as to how it is that unelected Asif Zardari (and to a certain extent unelected Nawaz Sharif and unelected Pir of London Altaf Hussain) supersede and override constitution and parliament. Email: arfc@cyber.net.pk