The resignation of the Senior Puisne Judges of the Pakistan Supreme Court is perhaps a rare example of standing up to the abuse of Parliamentary might (not supremacy) in systematic destruction of a nation’s existence and slow but definite assertion of indirect dictatorship in the garb of democracy.
Existing democracies are being used as a tool to introduce future legislative dictatorships. The source of the “future legislative dictatorship” is by first gaining legislative majority, which becomes a tool in the garb of democracy to eventually and ornamentally substitute democracy. In the entire process, the first level of pawns are the citizens, who are systematically misled into a created belief of nationalism, by inciting hatred on various lines; religion, caste, economic status. The second level of pawns are the legislators or parliamentarians, who constitute the numbers described as “majority” and nowadays “brute majority” who aid and abet in lending to the process called as
“legislative exercise of authority achieved through the result of democratic process”.
At the culmination of the entire “process” of democracy and legislation, are the main, hidden and silent beneficiaries. But of course, the topmost hierarchy, would definitely be beneficiaries in some form or manner; yet, these would also be not less than the pawns at the first and second level, who finally contribute to the unfathomed benefits to the MAIN, HIDDEN and SILENT BENEFICIARIES.
Coming back to the resignations by two Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (which now becomes only a “Supreme Court”), and having read Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah’s resignation, what needs to be understood is that Judges are to necessarily swear by the Constitution. Unlike the Indian Constitution where the Basic Structure Doctrine guides all or any amendments to the Constitution, Pakistan has never had the discipline specifically with regards to the Constitution. On a side note, leave alone the Constitution in Pakistan, the word “democracy” itself feels devoid of any semblance to the real meaning of democracy. This subject in itself needs no discussion considering the turbulent history of that country. But the act of resignation by the two Justices from what now becomes not the highest Court of the land is a clear adherence to their Constitution as was framed in 1973 and a strong and bold refusal to submit and be subservient to the irrational abuse of legislative authority by a propped-up Parliament.
As I have mentioned, this trend of replacing “democracy” with “ornamental democracy” to aid in “legislative dictatorship” is on the rise across various countries. Notable to observe are the leaders of the so-called democracies; they are either themselves politically and financially strong, or leaders who are backed by financially strong men, entities or groups. In the latter category, there would be an element of quid pro quo; the money dictates while the occupant of seat of power fronts the efforts-in-gain for the “investor”, if I may say so.
Judiciary, as one limb of democracy, as envisaged by founding framers of Constitutions of various countries, has always been the wall of resistance to the adventures of other limbs of democracy. We can and should always hope that the Judiciary shall always resist threats not only to the Constitution but also to the genuine citizens who duly and diligently swear by it in their solemn observation of the Constitution.
