Earlier in August, we heard Raza Rabbani, Chairman of Senate, urging for an inter-institutional dialogue — mainly involving the judiciary, military, executive and legislature — to salvage the country out of its prevailing crisis and tackle ongoing issues. He insisted on this multiple times before media and in the Senate sessions he chaired. His statements were obviously seen in the backdrop of the removal of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif through a Supreme Court verdict in Panama Papers case where Prime Minister’s name was featured indirectly. While Sharif’s political rivals hailed the verdict as historic, others found the decision of the court marred by lack of due process, and controversies around the thin basis for his disqualification, formation of JIT via secretive ‘WhatsApp’ call, and the inclusion of members from two military intelligence agencies. Mr Rabbani’s appeal for inter-institutional dialogue has also been considered important in view of the impression that it was military establishment, which had connived with judiciary to oust Nawaz Sharif. It can obviously not be said with certainty — such impressions make their way among public and political analysts since democratic governments and politicians have suffered at the hands of overt and covert actions of these institutions. Starting from Justice Munir’s ‘doctrine of necessity’, which legitimized dissolution of Pakistan’s constituent assembly in 1955 to court’s validation of all military coups later; and from the tragic hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to the sentencing of Nawaz Sharif in ludicrous hijacking case following his removal through military coup in 1999 — all reminds us of a deplorable nexus between judiciary and the military establishment. From the tragic hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to the sentencing of Nawaz Sharif in the ludicrous hijacking case that saw him removed by a military coup in 1999 — this only serves to remind us of a deplorable nexus between judiciary and the military establishment So when one sees removal of yet another popularly elected prime minister in the circumstances where civilian supremacy of elected parliament and its leader is only an elusive dream, the situation demands not an inter-institutional dialogue but introspection and will amongst politicians to fight it out for for the primacy of civilian supremacy which is so naively just desired. In democracy, a system of checks and balances is incorporated so that not only different institutions can work without any intrusion but also so that they function within the constitutional bounds. Wherever this system of checks and balances is weak or needs amendments, it’s only the electorates through their representatives in the parliament who can rightfully make those amendments. However, if our politicians think that this can be done through inter-institutional dialogue, they are short of understanding on how power and authority work in society and polity. Why would a text-book definition of patriotism and respect for constitution motivate those institutions, that enjoy relative power and liberty to coerce and influence one another, to withdraw from such a powerful position? The situation in Pakistan is completely in favor of judiciary and military at the expense of political offices and leaders. Over the decades, the capture of power by the courts and military bureaucracy has only expanded; with courts ordering the executive what to do, and military calling shots not just in defense, security but in foreign policy matters and even capturing space as much as formally welcoming the wrestlers, cricketers coming to Pakistan as well. Therefore not dialogue but as the saying goes ‘to acquire power you must possess or control a form of power currency’, political leadership will have to first be power literate in institutional terms as the prime movers and shakers in any democracy, and then govern beyond personal greed. Primacy of political institutions in a democracy comes with a huge responsibility. Although a lack of that doesn’t legally justify military takeovers and judicial hyper-activism, it makes such institutional incursions palatable to gullible masses and anti-democratic forces. More often than not our political governments have opted to appease the two institutions by keeping them underscant, parliamentary oversight and functional accountability. Politicians have also failed to neutralize the constitution of unjust amendment by dictators; the article of the constitution under which Nawaz Sharif was disqualified is just one of the draconian changes the military dictators inflicted upon our constitution. Likewise, isn’t our system of recruitment in judiciary the most bogus? Who’s responsible to fix it? Surely, politicians sitting in parliament have to do it. And if the military establishment has drawn itself beyond its contribution in defense and national security matters, who is to fix it? Of course, it’s the politicians’ responsibility. In order to see civilian supremacy, the political leaders need to show maturity; have a dialogue among them to formulate and commit to a political contract of democratic pledges. Unfortunately, that’s nowhere on the political horizon as even now political leaders aren’t ready to stop conniving with powerful state institutions against each other. The writer is a sociologist with interest in politics and history. He tweets @ZulfiRao1 Published in Daily Times, August 31st 2017.