The Revolution that Never Was

Rab Nawaz

More than five years ago, when this coun­try was reel­ing in the after­math of Musharraf’s regime, the mes­sian­ic fig­ure of the Chief Jus­tice appeared as the har­bin­ger of a new rev­o­lu­tion. For the first time in our his­to­ry, the judi­cia­ry appeared to have chal­lenged the country’s pow­er­ful mil­i­tary estab­lish­ment; a prospect that led to most of us join­ing the rev­o­lu­tion­ary brigade with all the hopes of a new dawn.

But true to the warn­ings of some vet­er­an polit­i­cal observers of the time, this rev­o­lu­tion was also even­tu­al­ly betrayed, leav­ing one won­der­ing whether it was even a rev­o­lu­tion at all in the first place. The signs of approach­ing fail­ure start­ed appear­ing at an ear­ly stage when the top lead­er­ship of the so-called Lawyers’ Move­ment start­ed dis­so­ci­at­ing them­selves, and in some instances crit­i­cis­ing, the actions of the supe­ri­or judi­cia­ry. Some polit­i­cal par­ties and human rights orga­ni­za­tions fol­lowed suit. While the Supreme Court con­tin­ued to lose sup­port from var­i­ous quar­ters, any remain­ing sup­port it did attract for its judi­cial hyper activ­i­ty and con­tro­ver­sial admin­is­tra­tive inter­ven­tions seemed to hinge on the unpop­u­lar­i­ty of the pre­vi­ous gov­ern­ment. As the vocal polit­i­cal oppo­si­tion and sen­sa­tion­al­ist media car­ried on whip­ping this dead horse, the hon­ourable judges nev­er felt the need for intro­spec­tion. Recent­ly how­ev­er, the tar­get­ing of the mas­sive­ly pop­u­lar Imran Khan on the premise of con­tempt appears to have sig­nalled an end to this par­tic­u­lar show. Imran Khan and his zeal­ous sup­port­ers have rolled up their sleeves, and although an end to this episode is not yet in sight, the role of the Supreme Court as an agent of rev­o­lu­tion is clear­ly over.

With­out going into the details of the reper­cus­sions of the Supreme Court’s judi­cial prece­dents, it is fair to say that it has fall­en far short of expec­ta­tions. The judi­cia­ry is still among the top five most cor­rupt insti­tu­tions in Pak­istan, and the com­mon man remains afraid of any sort of deal­ing with the courts. On the oth­er hand, many dubi­ous and poten­tial­ly dan­ger­ous prece­dents of inter­fer­ing with the exec­u­tive have been set. The charges of selec­tive jus­tice, nepo­tism and bias can also not be ignored. But what has come up as the most deci­sive fac­tor in ruin­ing our hopes in the judi­cia­ry is the issue of con­tempt of court – the way it has been played up is unprece­dent­ed in his­to­ry.

The lessons of this failed ‘rev­o­lu­tion’ are all too explic­it. Pop­ulism is dan­ger­ous; a judi­cia­ry is sup­posed to adhere to the dic­tates of law, not be swept up by pub­lic sen­ti­ment. If judi­cial activism is an impor­tant prac­tice, so is judi­cial restraint. Selec­tive jus­tice is no jus­tice. In a democ­ra­cy, free­dom of speech, includ­ing the free­dom to crit­i­cize the judi­cia­ry, should be upheld at all costs. All polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions are meant to work in mutu­al coor­di­na­tion, and so the true rev­o­lu­tion lies in the respec­tive devel­op­ment of the insti­tu­tions, not in one institution’s super­im­po­si­tion over the oth­ers.

(Edi­to­r­i­al Issue 11)