Approaching impasse

Deadlocked organs of the state

An example typically used to explain the term ‘deadlock’ in computing is a law passed as recently as the early 20th century in the United Sates, which says, unbelievably, that when two trains come to a crossing, neither shall go until the other has passed. This is strongly reminiscent of today’s near impasse: that damned unwritten letter, contempt of court, parliamentary bills and legal rulings…all so obviously biased and self serving that this country has come to a standstill. As though there were no other problems to deal with, no power crisis bludgeoning the economy to death, no high risk of infectious disease, no deplorable literacy rate, no dreadful infant and maternal mortality, nothing else whatsoever crying for attention. What do such court decisions and bills passed by the Parliament achieve but contempt for government and court?

It is said that nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. Or else, laws which if enforced would cause (further) chaos.

There was a statement about the contempt of court bill by the chairperson of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf last week where he said that that bill was in violation of the Holy Quran and Hadith. And in case anyone failed to figure it out, he added that the bill was aimed at protecting the new prime minister.

Yes dear, we know. But then the courts may also be said to be indulging in what could be called ‘target killing’. The gun, in short, is loaded and stuttering rat-a-tat-tat-a-tit-for-tat both ways.

Someone asked who I’d support if the rental guy finds himself out of a job shortly because he won’t write letters as ordered. It’s hard to decide, they’re all such cads. On the one hand I do agree that the contempt of court bill where some individuals are above the law while holding certain positions is ‘un-Islamic’, or just plain wrong. For those who’d rise up as one at that statement and accuse me of being a female Mullah Omar, let me say that, well it is. The concept that ‘the King can do no wrong’ is a doctrine rooted in constitutional monarchies where the monarch, as the source of all law is the creator of courts of law, and as such above the law. This doctrine finds no support in Islam where no one, not even the head of state, is above the law. Remember, we are called the ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’, so theoretically this law should not apply in this country. But neither, since this country considers itself a democracy and a Republic, is the Supreme Court above the legislature, and its claim to be so is absurd.

On the other hand, any talk of ‘Islam’ here smacks only of mullah-ism and everything un-Islamic, so if you don’t mind, I’d like to give a wide berth for now to people who make such statements.

We are not Islamic in any actual way, shape or form. So we’d appear to be at a deadlock here, unless you take the next thing into account, which is the law. So I’d support whoever upholds the constitution and the law, whatever it is. Here, let’s amend that perforce to: whoever breaks the law the least, or else there’d be precious few candidates.

The time to challenge a law is not once it has come into force. In a working democracy the place to challenge a law is the parliament at a time while it is under debate. The way to ensure this process is by electing effective representatives, persons aware of the views of the people they represent, willing and able to represent them. To chuck a wobbly anywhere outside of that process is to invite chaos which is where we are now.

Loaded as it is, the ‘contempt of court bill’ okayed by the parliament and signed into force by the president, is passed by a majority. Too bad, but that’s how it is.

While the Supreme Court…well, they’re supposed to mete out justice, aren’t they? Impartially.

Sending this prime minister the way of his predecessor will create an impasse much like those trains at their crossing.

The chairperson of the PTI meantime would do well to curb his predilection for the bearded side of the fence. He may not have noticed but the folks there tend to be armed to the teeth and interested only in blowing things up. With bombs. That is the least constitutional of all these options, and in keeping neither with the Quran nor the Hadith, nor certainly with themselves, given that they blow themselves up as well in the process.