Many in Pakistan were disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow President General Pervez Musharraf to contest presidential elections in uniform. The majority of the nine-member bench was of the view that the case was not maintainable in the Supreme Court and the matter must be referred to the Election Commission first. Clearly, the bench was unwilling to take a position on a political matter. There might not have been such disappointment had some of the judges on the bench not raised hopes by claiming that the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ was dead. It was not as if people were expecting a lot from the apex court but such statements gave a false impression that the Supreme Court would be able to deliver where all other institutions had failed miserably. Some believe that we should not have expected so much from the highest court in circumstances where the political entities have not done their job. It is tragic that the political leadership has wanted the Supreme Court to fight their political battle with the regime. Since the restoration of the Chief Justice, people had pinned too much hope on the Supreme Court without understanding two factors. First, the restoration of the CJ is owed to the lawyers’ movement and not necessarily because of some exceptional change in the thinking of the Court. The lawyers, in fact, were so motivated in their campaign for the CJ that they would not have accepted any decision other than what came out in the end. Also, the government was not averse to restoring the CJ because by then, the regime’s primary focus was to get rid of the popular movement than the CJ. Second, the courts of law in Pakistan are a fairly conservative institution. Leaving aside constitutional law and related cases, the superior judges are always cautious in making new case law. In any case, there is a history of court cases involving the military’s institutional interests in which the superior courts have either been excessively careful in giving a judgement or maintained tactical silence. In the past, there were petitions in which the courts would let the issue drag to a point where the case would die its natural death. While the condition and attitude of the superior courts was adding to the problem of institutional decay in the country, something totally unexpected happened when the CJ stood his ground in the face of tremendous pressure and refused to back down. This spurred the lawyers’ movement. It marked the second time in Pakistan’s history that a secular middle-class movement, which rose above religious and ethnic considerations, was launched against a regime. The movement was also representative of the frustration of hundreds of thousands of others who could not make it out on the streets. It was Pakistan’s diluted version of what has been happening in Myanmar where the symbolic protest of the Buddhist monks has brought common people out on the streets. Although the comparative quality of protest in the two countries is different, the common denominator is that the movements denote the people’s frustration with lack of possibilities in their countries.So, it was important for the Supreme Court’s full bench to restore the CJ and take the wind out of the sail of the lawyers’ movement. The idea is not that there was any conspiracy between the judges and the government, but that the government was also a beneficiary of the decision to restore the CJ. The immature end of a movement without the necessary mental closure in the minds of those involved resulted in greater frustration and acts of violence as were witnessed against Naeem Bokhari and Ahmed Raza Kasuri. Some analysts believe that violence against these two men denotes the high-handedness of the lawyers’ community, which should have been mindful of rule of law. Furthermore, according to such analysts, harassing Bokhari and Kasuri is like equating a victim with an aggressor. Such aggression was not expected from lawyers who were protesting against the state’s aggression. Notwithstanding the stupidity of such behaviour, the fact is that Bokhari and Kasuri’s rights were violated because these people were seen as agents of an aggressive state that is more powerful than any individual.In fact, the state continues to reiterate the fact that it has more power than any group or individual. So, like in a state of revolution or civil war, people can react harshly even against minor symbols of authoritarianism. Since the power of groups and individuals does not match that of the state, it is the individuals who become targets of street anger. Both Bokhari and Kasuri are seen as conduits of the state and its military regime. One is reminded of the stories of the French revolution when a lot of people were slaughtered due to their association with the exploitative ruling class of the country. The two gentlemen in question should consider themselves fortunate that it was not a revolution in Pakistan and just a movement. Referring to the end of the lawyers’ movement, they explained the situation to themselves in terms of the possible changes that would come due to the relative strengthening of judiciary as an institution. Thus, they felt that they had achieved some of their aims without launching a massive people’s movement. However, this has not happened. The judges were clearly not willing to take the pressure of filling the gap created due to the absence of a popular political movement. At this point, the judges do not even realise that the GHQ, which they seem to have rescued, would always term this act of kindness as the superior court’s lack of strength and courage. Many a retired and serving generals will use such instances to claim that even the judiciary has not gelled into an institution. Not surprisingly, lawyers along with others made it out on the streets in protest against a decision that the Presidency claims is fair. These people have been disappointed yet again and are horrified at the prospects of the strengthening of a coercive regime. The government did not lose time in cracking down on people just to send the message home that it will not tolerate any deviation from the strategic plan which is designed to keep in power an oligarchy that is there to protect the combined interests of its external patrons and itself.At this juncture, nothing is predictable in Pakistan except the power of the General-President. After the Supreme Court’s decision it is not even certain if he would want to share power with Benazir Bhutto or anyone who might challenge his power in the future. More coercion, of course, is always problematic. It sows the seeds of future instability. After all, the people of Myanmar tolerated the military junta for a long time before coming out on the streets. The writer is an Islamabad-based independent defence analyst and author of the book, Military Inc, Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy