There is an ancient Native American story that tells of a wolf being hunted. The hunter, wanting to avoid direct confrontation with the dangerous creature, stuck a blade in the ice and coated the blade in blood. When the wolf came upon the blood-soaked ice, he began licking the blade, thinking that he was eating, when in fact he was cutting himself and slowly dying. The only way the wolf was able to survive was to understand its self-destructive behavior and turn its sights on the hunter who wished to exterminate it.

This was the tale of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, which historically licked the blade stuck in the “ice” by the military establishment. The “wolf” court supported the interests of the military establishment by maintaining an aggressive enmity toward democratically elected governments.

This was a trap set to make the court believe it was “eating,” or guaranteeing its survival through military support, even though its long-term legitimacy and independence has always indelibly been tied to a civilian government rather than military rule. However, under Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, the Judiciary seems to have recognised the trap ahead of time; but they must continue to remain vigilant as the Army is adopting more sophisticated methods of ensnaring the court.

The Pakistani military establishment did not invent the blade trap for democratic institutions like courts, but learned it from their colonial masters. The English used this technique, to repress popular movements that could challenge their totalitarian rule in the Indian Subcontinent. The Crown’s chosen executives continually attacked the growth of democratic progress in colonies and the courts gave ultimate deference to this unelected imperial representative. Not only did this limit the credibility of the Courts amongst the native people, but it was an autocratic practice that became legal precedence for post-colonial Pakistan.

This was clearly evident from the Federation of Pakistan v. Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan Case, where the Supreme Court validated the dissolution of a democratically elected government by the Governor General. The Governor General was not an elected individual, but acted as a liaison to the Crown after independence. In the case, Justice Munir famously explained the “doctrine of necessity,” stating that such appointed stewards of the nation could not be held liable for illegal acts they take because, “that which is otherwise not lawful, necessity makes lawful.”

Thereafter, Pakistan’s home-grown imperial masters, the Army, took notice of how the court fell victim to this trap and began placing more blades in Pakistan’s political “ice.” By accepting the Doctrine of Necessity, the Supreme Court set a slippery slope for its own demise, which was capitalised upon by the military. The Doctrine has been used exclusively by military autocrats to leave the Constitution and Parliament powerless whenever they arbitrarily wish to declare necessity, or create the necessity by sabotaging civilian governments.

Time and time again, the Supreme Court licked the blade by legitimising coups, and each time it came closer to its own death. This is because judicial credibility is founded on equality and upholding the constitutional order above all else. The more logical missteps the court took to justify the acts of their military masters, the less credible they became amongst establishment outsiders and the public. This changed with the recent movement led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who was put under house arrest for not following the directives of the military as a Supreme Court justice. It was Chaudhry who seemed to first signal that the judicial “wolf” had realised that it was licking at the Army’s blade and killing itself. The “wolf” then set its sights on sinking its jaws into its hunter — the military despot, Pervez Musharraf.

The attack was vicious, as thousands came out into every major city, and the “hunter” Musharraf was vanquished by the court and its supporters. Since then, the Supreme Court has taken the military to task with several major cases. The most recent is the Asghar Khan case, where a former military officer challenged a payment to Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, from Mehran Bank.

The allegations are that the ISI distributed the payment to political opposition of the then-serving Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, in order to sabotage her government. The Supreme Court has broken its mold by taking such a brave step in re-opening this case and exposing the military to scrutiny over its manipulation of Pakistan’s democratic order.

However, as the court develops its capability to stop the crimes of the Army, the Army brass is evolving as well. Musharraf made a grave mistake as a hunter in attempting to directly confront the judicial wolf by sacking the Supreme Court justices, and he lost. So, his successors realise that they no longer have the ability to remove noncompliant judges, and must create more sophisticated blade traps. It seems that General Kayani and Pasha have become more adept at hiding the blade, as evidenced by the Memogate controversy.

As the dust settles on this political drama, it seems more and more apparent that the military was able to manipulate the nation’s political opposition and Supreme Court to lodge a proxy attack on the civilian government by removing a sitting ambassador. The crime Ambassador Husain Haqqani committed was not in the form of a memo, but through a book he wrote several years ago criticising the military’s control over the nation’s affairs.

To exact revenge on Haqqani for his belief in the supremacy of democracy, the Army conducted unauthorised investigations and presented its biased evidence before the nation’s apex court. The court, rather than turning a speculative eye to the Army, prohibited Haqqani from leaving the country and implied that his actions amounted to treason. Thus, while the court has made historical strides in confronting the illegal acts of the military, they must remain cautious for traps being set before them.

While the court should prosecute elected officials who violate the law, they must realise that an all out enmity and attack on Parliament is a trap that will limit their own survival. Further, the Court must continue to pursue its hunter by confronting the military on issues like sabotaging civilian governments in order to attain long-term credibility and independence.

The history of Pakistan’s judicial wolf, the insufferable blade, and its Army hunter leads one to a simple conclusion: the wolf must remain vigilant, as the hunter adopts new ways to trap it. The survival of the wolf and the court lies in its own hands.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.