POLITICS in Pakistan is the death of the imagination. The same scenes repeated endlessly, even some of the directors, as in the case of Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, performing the same role from one generation to the next. The actors of course change but as if in obedience to a higher dramatic law they too stick closely to the ancient script.

Consider the latest circus (for it is a bit more than a play) arranged for the benefit of their lordships of the superior courts. Such a circus was expected because with the Constitution set aside and displaced by the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), it stood to reason that sooner or later this contradiction would have to be resolved. But the need for such a circus also stood on firm historical ground.

In March 1981 a similar exercise was ordained by another benign military figure, General Ziaul Haq, whose protestations to hold elections in 90 days were, if anything, more vociferous than General Musharraf's proclaimed determination to return Pakistan to the fold of 'real' democracy. Barring a few honourable exceptions, most of their lordships, led by the pragmatism which has been the guiding spirit of the Pakistani higher judiciary, preferred discretion to valour by swearing allegiance to General Zia's PCO. The master of ceremonies on that occasion too was Syed Sharifuddin.

As if to prove that while the world may have moved on we remain stuck in the same grooves, 19 years later as Pakistan heroically enters a new millennium, another generation of judges has been called upon by another military saviour to negotiate a similar obstacle course. Again, shunning rashness and opting for pragmatism, the overwhelming majority of their lordships, 89 out of 102, have sworn fealty to another PCO.

In a land where nothing is surprising anymore, it is still not a little remarkable that the moving spirit behind both the circuses, otherwise separated by a distance of 19 years, should be the same eminence grise: Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada. Active in General Ayub Khan's service when many of us were in school, he has raised a monument to longevity by serving another military figure as his principal legal adviser, with a seat in the National Security Council and the freedom to continue with his legal practice. If Pakistan's fate is to remain in the grip of military rule, it is the fate of our military rulers to remain captive to Syed Sharifuddin's beguiling advice. This is the closest thing we have to immortality in this country.

Whether the superior judiciary - its conduct tarnished in many ways - deserves what it has got is beside the point. Of greater relevance is to see the implications of the latest move for the country's immediate future. Since this is a nation where the level of gullibility remains high, it was scarcely surprising if on the morrow of the celebrated 'counter-coup' of October 12 there was no shortage of people who were ready to believe that the promised land had been sighted and a new coming was at hand. In that exalted mood the pronouncements of the Chief Executive were greeted with enthusiasm and criticism of his intentions was considered almost akin to sacrilege.

That was then. Today the feeling is different. The performance or rather non-performance of the military government over the last 100 days (which is the time it took Napoleon to leave the island of Elba and fight the battle of Waterloo) has been such that even some of the fiercest partisans of military rule are a bit down-at-heart. After the judicial drama just enacted in Islamabad this mood can only be strengthened because by now it should be clear even to the congenitally benighted that what we are witnessing on the national stage is not so much a temporary reform movement - which will pick up its tools when its immediate task is done - as the kind of long-drawn-out military rule which (to its grievous cost) the nation has experienced once too often in the past. That General Musharraf seems to be playing for keeps is the real significance of the trauma through which their lordships have been put.

To be sure, judicial freedom and military rule were incompatible from the start. But it is only now that this incompatibility was about to be tested in the shape of the constitutional petitions before the Supreme Court challenging military rule. The critical hour approaching, it was judicial independence which had to submit before the exigencies and higher requirements of military rule.

Nor could it be otherwise. In Pakistan it is not only power which flows from the barrel of a gun. Legality and validation also flow from the same source. Every dictator in Pakistan's history has received approval and benediction at judicial hands. It would have been unrealistic to assume that General Musharraf or anyone else in his place would have allowed this hallowed tradition to be broken. Why after all was Sharifuddin Pirzada hired in the first place? Just for this eventuality.

The trouble is that there is so much else that is incompatible with military rule: fundamental rights as a whole for one, press freedom for another. How long will the saviour in General Musharraf tolerate these deviations from the military norm?One illusion that it is in our best interests to get rid of fast is regarding the American concern for democracy in Pakistan. From Washington Pakistan is just a blip on the world screen and although democracy and human rights are issues with which the US likes to whip other countries when it wants to, of greater concern to the US as far as Pakistan is concerned is a raft of other issues: terrorism, Osama bin Laden and the CTBT.

If we are forthcoming on these issues democracy can take a back seat. The military government also understands this, which is why it has started this wholly unnecessary debate regarding the CTBT. To sign or not to sign it should be our sovereign decision quite uninfluenced by such ephemera as Clinton's forthcoming visit to South Asia. What if he misses Pakistan? Will the heavens fall? We obviously think they will, which is why the likely itinerary of Clinton's visit is such a hot issue in Pakistan.

Anyway, what happens at home is of greater importance. Nawaz Sharif no longer is the issue. If he had overreached himself he has met his just deserts through the operation of those forbidding laws which hold sway over Pakistani politics. The issue today is different. The lack of direction from which the country suffers is only made worse by a regression to militarism because just as judicial freedom and military rule are incompatible, vision and military rule are two different things.

Accordingly, if getting rid of Nawaz Sharif's luckless rule seemed to be the overriding national imperative on the evening of October 12, the imperative today is how to shorten the lengthening shadows of military rule. How do we go about this? How does the nation persuade the military? This is the foremost problem facing Pakistan today.

Tailpiece: Last week while in New Delhi I was visiting the Pakistan High Commission to pay my respects, I felt my heart sink when I saw in the foyer the photographs of President Rafiq Tarar and General Pervez Musharraf, the latter in full military regalia. While it goes without saying that the two together make a striking advertisement for Pakistan, why not simply a picture of Jinnah instead?