THE rule of law has been lying low for so long that we have forgotten that in civilised societies, both politics and governance have to be conducted according to the law and not above and beyond it. The carnage in Karachi on May 12 has further exposed the dangers of conducting politics and governance without respecting the bounds of law.

Close to 50 people were killed and many times more injured. Besides, severe damage was inflicted on private and public property in Karachi. The lawlessness displayed in open defiance affected people across the country. But it has not yet moved the government to order a full and impartial judicial enquiry to know how and why the largest financial, industrial and port city was subjected to daylong mayhem and what needs to done to stop this from recurring.

This is supposed to be an election year also. If politics and governance are to be conducted like this, what hope can realistically be entertained for open and honest elections to ascertain the free will of the people and for democratic governance to emerge?

Law is a human practice and has to be defined, understood, interpreted and applied not just by lawyers and judges within the courtrooms. Human practices according to the law have also to be visible in the conduct of all actors, especially in that of ruling members of political and official establishments, including the makers of the law. It is only then that respect for the law can spread out to citizens at large.

Gone are the mediaeval days of rulers claiming the obedience of citizens by pretending that the law to be followed was the commands of the sovereign. For law to claim legitimacy and obedience from citizens in the contemporary world, it must incorporate and exhibit five features which are defined as following:

(1) Moral content: by reflecting values cherished by a broad section of society.

(2) Welfare content: being the instrument for the greatest good of the greatest number.

(3) Neutrality and impartiality: being blind to colour, creed, origin, sect and ethnicity.

(4) Consistency: being the same for all people at all times.

(5) Transparency: being open to all in its making, interpretation and application.

It is these values that count as justification for the authority of law and obedience to it. These characteristics also provide the distinction between a legal system and the commands of a gunman: both the legal system and the gunman ask for compliance, but only the former represents its claims as legitimate and justified.

Repeated aberrations in the implementation of the law have been extracting a heavy price from society in the public policy domain. Economically, the failure of the rule of law leads to sub-optimal decision-making and misallocation of national resources. In the political arena, as the law is forced on the back-foot, violence fills the void and influences human practices. Socially, as the law loses its moral authority, sectarian, ethnic, parochial and other considerations take larger than life roles in the nation’s body politic.

Economic development may or may nor have been trickling down to the lower strata of society but our long tradition of aberrations certainly has and is taking root in the culture of politics and governance spreading across Pakistan.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land and defines the guiding principles of the governance of a sovereign state. But even before independence, when this part of the subcontinent was a colony without a constitution, it was a much more law-abiding society. From traffic laws to municipal laws, from criminal laws to laws on food adulteration, people obeyed them all, especially because they saw their superiors in authority and status abiding by these.

But it is difficult to develop a culture of obedience to less superior laws in societies where superior laws are themselves not respected. Seeing repeated deviations from superior laws by the more powerful, the smaller fries of the state and society also feel free to flout the less superior laws of the land.

That is also the argument being advanced by the masters of the Hafsa brigade in Islamabad. By all accounts, their strategy seems far more successful than, for instance, that of the peaceful ladies of the Women’s Action Forum who got thrashed in Lahore recently for doing for much less.

Have we then been nurturing a culture where obedience to laws is synonymous with weakness — where only the weak and the meek are left to be law-abiding citizens who can neither bully nor buy their way out of law?

We should also disabuse ourselves from another habit which has crept into our polity. For so long have national affairs been conducted by governments bypassing the law that we have forgotten it is always the writ of law that is sought to be enforced by governments and not their own writ. Governments have no mandate other than to enforce the writ of law in their jurisdiction and not the wishes of individual players in their ranks. Without the rule of law guiding them, politics and governance often get reduced to exercises in self-perpetuation as was witnessed in Karachi.

By the way, since when has anybody, including MNAs and MPAs, acquired the right to deny freedom of speech and movement to other citizens — much less to the Chief Justice of Pakistan? It was this attitude and the measures to enforce it with ‘non-functional’ law-enforcement machinery that ushered in the mayhem of May 12.

Sick with manipulations and shenanigans, people have been standing in rallies for hours during hot summer days and nights to record their anger and protests, not only in favour of the CJP but to also urge that this government should conduct politics and governance, according to the law and respect judicial independence.

The fact that they did not come out in similar numbers when elected governments and parliaments were overthrown also tells of their disillusionment with unfulfilled promises of the rule of law, with equal opportunities for all and managing national resources as a trust for their wellbeing, free from cronyism and corruption.

In the upcoming months, it is incumbent on everyone — more so the people in authority — to let the rule of law and judicial independence guide the politics and governance of the country so that the ship of state can safely navigate through the stormy seas ahead. Both internal and external forces would be keeping a vigil to see if the rules of the game are being observed.

Pakistanis must rid themselves of models of medieval governance. Neither men on horseback who want “unity of command”’ over everything in the domain nor civilian leaders pretending to be ‘ameerul momineen’ and lording over all things temporal can deliver them from crises.

They must realise that governance is conducted by ordinary mortals who are agents of the people and accountable to them through periodic elections and answerable to the laws of land, not by anyone pretending to be guided by a divine mission or possessing supernatural attributes.

That is where the significance of the lawyers’ movement lies and the need for a strong and independent judiciary to hold politics and governance accountable to the law.

Will they deliver, be hijacked, undermined or overwhelmed? The next few months will tell. But the movement has captured the imagination of the masses because in their heart of hearts they feel that it is trying to finish the incomplete agenda of the struggle for the independence of Pakistan, which must become a republic of the law if it wants to become a peaceful and prosperous republic of the people.

The writer is a former head of Board of Investment and federal secretary.
smshah@alum.mit.edu