In Pakistan constitution General Pervaiz Musharraf introduces the NRO (2007)and in other countries it’s a possible to give NRO to the politicians ?? And if it is possible how many countries have been implemented this ordinance??

closed as unclear what you're asking by ohwilleke, Alexei, JJJ, agc, Rupert Morrish Nov 18 '18 at 21:08

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.


It is not entirely clear what is being asked in this question, but it seems to be asking about whether there is a power to grant mass amnesties for crimes in other countries, following a breakdown of the constitutional order or an insurgency whether or not it is successful, and if so, whether this has actually happened in other countries. I am answering the question with this understanding of what it is asking.

What Was The NRO?

The National Reconciliation Ordinance of 2007 in Pakistan was "was a controversial ordinance issued by the former President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, on 5 October 2007. . . . that granted amnesty to politicians, political workers and bureaucrats who were accused of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, murder, and terrorism between 1 January 1986, and 12 October 1999, the time between two states of martial law in Pakistan. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 16 December 2009, throwing the country into a political crisis."

Mass Amnesties In General

Many countries have granted mass amnesty, or broad categorical pardons, at some point in their history, as a means to bring an end to a period during which there was an insurrection or revolution or regime change, sometimes to the "rebels", sometimes to the old regime that was replaced, and sometimes to both, in a manner similar to that of Pakistan's NRO, although the precise terms of these amnesties and the legal authority for these actions has varied from country to country and from conflict to conflict.

Generally this is done for a couple of reasons.

First, often the people who took the bad actions for which they were granted amnesty are considered less culpable and not an ongoing threat to society because they either believed subjectively that their acts were legal at the time (at least if their side won the conflict), or because the circumstances put ordinary people in a situation where this kind of misconduct was pervasive and only "saints" refrained from it.

Secondly, the number of offenders is often so great in cases of a mass breakdown of legality and the rule of law as imposed by the legitimate government, that it lacks the capacity now to fairly try everyone who is guilty, and to punish the guilty appropriately, without doing grave harm to the economic well being of the country going forward.

For example, if all members of the upper class in a region are punished, there may be not enough people left who are qualified to carry out the essential functions in society that the members of this class once carried out.

There is no reliable count of how many times this has happened. But, broad amnesties of this type granted in order to end military conflicts or to resolve periods of constitutional breakdown, are probably almost as old as wars by organized states with legal systems (i.e. they go as far back at least as far as the late Chalcolithic era a.k.a. Eneolithic a.k.a. the Copper Age, in the Fertile Crescent ca. 3500 BCE).

Recent Historical Examples of Mass Amnesties

For example, following the U.S. Civil War, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was adopted which stated:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This provision excluded many thousands of people in the former Confederate States of America after it lost the U.S. Civil War, including pretty much every Southern politician, judge, military officer, or senior governmental administrator (basically the entire Southern political class including almost all of its plantation owning de facto aristocracy) from holding any elected or appointed governmental office of any kind at any level from dog catcher to President. And, it would have been legal and constitutional to try every single one of them for treason and execute everyone who was found guilty as a result. But, in short order, all but about 500 of these people were given amnesty by Congress on the sole condition that they publicly swear allegiance to the United States of America again, and the President utilized his pardon power to eliminate the risk that any of these people would ever face criminal charges for their conduct during the U.S. Civil War.

Earlier in U.S. history, pardons granted by President George Washington were one part of his successful effort to end the Whisky Rebellion (mostly in Western Pennsylvania from 1791 to 1794).

The President of the United States still has the power to issue mass pardons, most notably exercised in recent history by President Carter in 1977 to pardon about a hundred thousand Americans who had fled to Canada to evade the draft during the Vietnam War and many more hundreds of thousands of people who had violated laws related to the draft during the Vietnam War in the United States.

Another more recent example, was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa established in 1995 in the wake of the end of apartheid, after many decades of struggle during which black and "colored" South African sought full political and legal rights. In most cases, people who came before the Commission, confessed their past wrongdoing truthfully, and expressed remorse, were granted amnesty for the actions they confessed to by the Commission.

Similarly, there is the example, of the Latin American country of Columbia, the Columbian Peace Process culminated in agreements were finally ratified in 2016 after four years of negotiations and a narrowly defeated ratification vote of an earlier version of the deal between the Columbian government and the FARC, an insurgent group that had been fighting the central government since 1964 (with corresponding extrajudicial death squads flourishing among government supporters) which controlled of large swaths of Columbia's territory for an extended period of time. The first version of this agreement was rejected in a national referendum, mostly because many victims of the conflict felt that the mass amnesty deprived them and their deceased loved ones of justice for the wrongs committed during the conflict. But, ultimately, an important component the deal that was finally adopted in 2016 was a broad, but not entirely unconditional and complete, amnesty for otherwise illegal conduct committed during the course of the conflict between the FARC and the Columbian government.

Alternatives To Mass Amnesties To End Conflicts

The fact that there have been many mass amnesties to end conflicts does not, however, mean that this is alway the way the insurgencies and periods of constitutional breakdown end. The main alternatives to mass amnesties are mass executions and seizures of property in retribution for past wrongdoing during a conflict.

For example, during the Iron Age, many conflicts in the Mediterranean region and West Asia ended with the victors imposing a duty to formally submit themselves to the victors and pay tributes to them.

More dramatically, Vlad the Impaler in the 15th century CE, who would become part of the historical seed from which the story of Dracula the vampire emerged, earned his "Impaler" designation with the mass execution, in a gruesome fashion, of hundreds or thousands of local aristocrats, called boyars, "who had participated in the murder of his father and elder brother, or whom he suspected of plotting against him," starting around 1456 CE at the beginning of the second of three different time periods during which he was the ruler of Wallachia (located in what is now part of the country of Romania).

Similarly, the English Civil Wars in the mid-1600s CE, involved mass executions and property seizures from members of the defeated factions for their disloyalty and supposed crimes.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, can be contrasted with the Land Reform program in Zimbabwe that began in the late 1990s to address the situation that has lingered since it secured independence from colonial rule and democratic self-government by the black majority in 1980, at which time almost all agricultural land in the country was owned by white colonists who operated large plantation style estates, causing economic apartheid to persist, despite the fact that the black residents of Zimbabwe had received full legal and political rights when the former British colony secured its independence. As Wikipedia explains in the link above, following the end of U.K. funded voluntary purchases of white owned farms in the late 1990s:

Zimbabwe responded by embarking on a "fast track" redistribution campaign, forcibly confiscating white farms without compensation.

The government's land distribution is perhaps the most crucial and most bitterly contested political issue surrounding Zimbabwe. It has been criticised for the violence and intimidation which marred several expropriations, as well as the parallel collapse of domestic banks which held billions of dollars' worth of bonds on liquidated properties. The United Nations has identified several key shortcomings with the contemporary programme, namely failure to compensate ousted landowners as called for by the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the poor handling of boundary disputes, and chronic shortages of material and personnel needed to carry out resettlement in an orderly manner.

As of 2011, 237,858 Zimbabwean households had been provided with access to land under the programme. A total of 10,816,886 hectares had been acquired since 2000, compared to the 3,498,444 purchased from voluntary sellers between 1980 and 1998. By 2013, every white-owned farm in Zimbabwe had been either expropriated or confirmed for future redistribution. The compulsory acquisition of farmland without compensation was discontinued in early 2018.

The biggest unintended consequence of this policy in Zimbabwe, which, in part, informed South Africa's decision to take another approach to the issue, was that the new owner's of the previously white owned farms didn't know how to run the farms efficiently, leading to a catastrophic decline in agricultural production there. As Wikipedia's explains in this regard:

Because the primary beneficiaries of the land reform were members of the Government and their families, despite the fact that most had no experience in running a farm, the drop in total farm output has been tremendous and has even produced starvation and famine, according to aid agencies. Export crops have suffered tremendously in this period. Whereas Zimbabwe was the world's sixth-largest producer of tobacco in 2001, in 2005 it produced less than a third the amount produced in 2000. Zimbabwe was once so rich in agricultural produce that it was dubbed the "bread basket" of Southern Africa, while it is now struggling to feed its own population. About 45 per cent of the population is now considered malnourished. Crops for export such as tobacco, coffee and tea have suffered the most under the land reform. Annual production of maize, the main everyday food for Zimbabweans, was reduced by 31% during 2002 to 2012, while annual small grains production was up 163% during the same period. With over a million hectares converted from primarily export crops to primarily maize, production of maize finally reached pre-2001 volume in 2017 under Mnangagwa's "command agriculture" programme.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.