Daily Times

It was a fateful day in the year 399 BC. Socrates sat outside his home, ready to drink a cup of poison to which the Athenians had condemned him for allegedly misguiding the town’s young people. Friends urged him to escape, saying that all necessary arrangements had been made: the guard had been bribed, a large enough hole in the prison wall had been made, a coach with horses and driver waited outside to take him out of harm’s way. Socrates declined their offer. He argued that the Athenians had tried and convicted him in accordance with their law, which must be obeyed. For if it became customary to disregard or violate the law, cities would come to ruin.

More recently, in the early 17th century, Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of England (1613-1616) advised King James that he could not make the move he had been contemplating because it would be contrary to the law. Furious, James asked if he was to be under the law. The chief justice offered the observation that while the king should not be under any man, he is under the law. The working hypothesis in the more recent British practice has been that the king can do no wrong, which is the case because he cannot do anything except on his prime minister’s advice.

Most of the politicians in Pakistan, particularly those in the opposition, insist that the rule of law must prevail. The “king” and his prime minister do not tire of proclaiming that they honour the verdicts and directives of the judiciary, and that they are committed to implementing them. But this is not what they actually do. The Supreme Court has repeatedly protested that the present government ignores its directives and that it is on a collision course with the court. Observers agree that such is indeed the case. President Zardari and his prime minister, Mr Yousaf Raza Gilani, appear to have decided that their own wishes and preferences are more important than the rule of law, and so much the worse for the judges if they do not like it.

The constitution requires all organs of state to help implement the court’s decisions. Note that it is easier said than done. The process of bringing the court’s order into effect can be a long and tedious process. Let us suppose the court has ordered the arrest and prosecution of a certain individual accused of crimes. It will take weeks before the court’s order travels from the prime minister’s office to the police inspector who is to send constables out to arrest the person in question. They may come back and report that the wanted man has left the country and is now living in London beyond their reach. There are numerous other instances in which the executive authority has ignored the court’s order or professed its inability to carry it out. It is likely that the executive authority does not really subscribe to the doctrine of the rule of law, its professions to the contrary notwithstanding. Rulers in this country believe that their wishes must prevail, and that if law is in the way it may be set aside. It seems that authoritarianism has deeper roots in our political culture than does accountability for the government’s policies and actions.

A dictator wants to be above the law even if it is one that he himself had made. He wants to act as the spirit moves him in response to the situation at hand, and he does not want to be accountable for his choices to any external agency. It may appear paradoxical that a dictator in Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, made newspapers and the electronic media free. He may have figured that words of caution and criticism would not keep him from acting arbitrarily. In this he may have been mistaken. Following his moves against the judiciary, the people at large and various organs of civil society, more notably the lawyers, did rise against him and forced him eventually to resign.

It is not the rulers alone who are wanting in respect for the rule of law. The people at large and many of the dignitaries in politics are the same way. It is a known fact, for instance, that many of the National Assembly members do not file tax returns, not to speak of paying taxes. There is greater willingness to obey rules and regulations that the people themselves have made in village councils and town meetings. Law made by distant authorities is remote from those who are to obey it. Its acceptance decreases further if its makers do not have much of a rapport with citizens.

There is little affinity between the people and their lawmakers in Pakistan even when the latter are their own chosen representatives. There is then the possibility that law will be received as an agency of coercion or as needless meddling in their affairs. The inclination to ignore or evade it is therefore considerable. The fear of penalties that may be visited upon its violators works as the main inducement to submission. These penalties may however be avoided by bribing those whose duty it is to impose them.

The guardians of the law have an interesting attitude towards their commission. As mentioned above, they have little use for the law if it stands in the way of the attainment of their personal objectives. They remain undaunted by the criticism of their conduct voiced by the media. They are persuaded that while “sticks and stones will break their bones, words alone won’t hurt them”. Their opponents have stored their “sticks and stones” in their warehouses and declared that they have no intention of bringing them out and deploying them. They assure us of their deep and abiding respect for the rule of law, but they will do nothing to compel its observance.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics