Robert Rotberg warns that nations fail when they cannot provide security and essential services to their citizens. Adding to this, I assert that nations falter when the parliament weakens, and the courts fail to follow the law and the constitution because of their political and personal bias. This is seen in cases such as Bhutto’s judicial murder, the conviction of Nawaz Sharif, and most recently, in the petition of the Sunni Ittehad Council. This case saw the court grant seats to PTI – neither a party to the petition nor an elected entity in the parliament – rewriting the constitution in an act of ultra vires. The military’s counter-terrorism operations, such as Operation Azm-e-Istehkam, are undermined by judicial decisions that attempt to rewrite the constitution and dictate parliamentary proceedings, creating an institutional deadlock, which may lead to the collapse of the state, as indicated by one of my research papers in 2015.
As we explore the current power dynamics, the struggle between GHQ and JHQ becomes increasingly apparent, with “digital terrorism” adding a new, dangerous dimension to the crisis in Pakistan. Many people don’t fully understand digital terrorism because it does not involve physical violence to harm individuals, making its dangers less apparent. Digital terrorism (also coined as cyber-terrorism), as described by DG ISPR Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif in a recent press conference on 22nd July 2024, involves the deliberate spread of false information through digital platforms to destabilise societies, erode public trust, and incite chaos.
This malicious activity is as destructive as physical terrorism, aiming to impose a will through fear and misinformation. Lt Gen Sharif highlighted the rise in propaganda and fake news against the Pakistan Army, stressing the critical need for accurate information to maintain national security and calling for stringent actions against those perpetuating false narratives. International regulations have already recognised the gravity of this situation years before. But in Pakistan, effective measures to counter digital terrorism and judicial overreach are crucial to prevent further destabilisation.
The rhetoric of “an inevitable demise” serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of continued institutional decay.
Laws can be formed like other countries that have faced similar challenges. For instance, Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), also known as the Fake News Law was passed in 2019 to help protect the public from online harm by countering the spread of false information. The UK and EU have also implemented stringent laws holding digital platforms accountable and imposing severe penalties for spreading false information. These measures underscore the importance of a balanced approach that safeguards freedom of expression while swiftly curbing the spread of false information.
The catastrophic impact of digital terrorism is far-reaching, as seen during the Arab Spring when social media-fuelleduprisings led to widespread instability and regime changes. Adding to this turmoil, a recent example at the UK Parliament on 23rd July 2024, where an event organised by PTI leaders and hosted by British parliamentarians misrepresented an opinion by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention as an official UN report to demand Imran Khan’s release. This highlights the international dimension of PTI’s misinformation campaign where they succeed to even lobby at US congress for Imran Khan. Such actions not only undermine Pakistan’s diplomatic integrity but also strain bilateral relations withfriendly countries like the US and UK. In Pakistan, this has manifested in events like the May 9 riots, where PTI’s digital propaganda led to unprecedented violence and destruction of military installations. In Bannu, over 10,000 people, waving white flags and calling for peace, gathered to protest last week. The demonstration turned violent when some armed protesters fired on others, inciting a mob that, fuelled by misinformation, attacked military installations. This led to further gunfire and the death of at least one protester. The rally, initially sparked by a terrorist attack that killed eight Pakistani soldiers, escalated into a chaotic confrontation marked by slogans against the army. This incident underscores the perilous influence of digital misinformation, which is currently the most grave concern in Pakistan. In a glaring example, a JI senator shared a two-year-old photo of an Iranian child on Twitter, falsely claiming it depicted a child bled in the Bannu riots, further inflaming tensions. The unrest in Bannu exemplifies how quickly misinformation can ignite violence, highlighting the urgent need for effective measures to combat digital terrorism and ensure accurate information dissemination to prevent further instability.
The fragile security situation, exacerbated by frequent terrorist attacks by the TTP on armed personnel, coupled with the criminal negligence of PTI’s provincial government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, has further strained the nation.
Hence, Pakistan emerges as a unique case study where the judiciary’s overreach and political activism have led to a scenario where legal decisions attempt to rewrite the constitution, dictating terms to the parliament and creating an institutional deadlock. The government remains constrained and almost handicapped by the judiciary’s overarching influence, which frequently overturns executive measures intended to maintain order. Recent judicial decisions have further complicated matters by overstepping constitutional boundaries by releasing 9th May rioters, prompting a debate on the extent of judicial overreach and its ability to paralyse parliamentary powers. This activism has fostered an environment where misinformation can thrive, unchecked by any authoritative correction. The ineffective prosecution of those responsible for the May 9 riots and other violent incidents further exacerbates the situation. The government’s inability to implement robust measures due to judicial constraints highlights the pressing need for a unified approach to restore institutional balance.
The question is: why is the judiciary doing this, as it is not aiding the parliament and has pushed the country into a perilous deadlock? Why would they want to jeopardise the nation, the economy, and the society? Why is their support for Imran Khan so overwhelming when he clearly isn’t fighting for civilian supremacy, but rather for his power struggle with the establishment?
The answer triggers the conspiracy theory that the judiciary’s actions are because Imran is projected and protected as an international asset against the interests of Pakistan as a state, with the judiciary acting as a new deep state, clashing with GHQ to overthrow them and position themselves as the new establishment. This perspective is supported by state theory beyond a normative social contract, where scholars like Robert Rotberg argue that internal power struggles, such as those between the judiciary and military in Pakistan, prevent effective governance and the provision of essential services.
This power struggle creates a governance vacuum, leading to instability and potential state failure. The judiciary’s overreach and the military’s resistance erode public trust and institutional integrity, further destabilising the nation where Imran was projected by the military establishment and is now being protected by the judicial establishment in the power race between the GHQ and the JHQ.
In my academic dissertations, I have warned that judicial overreach could lead to the imminent collapse of Pakistan’s institutions. This judicial activism, favouring one political entity, poses a significant threat to national stability. The phrase ‘two bodies, one grave,’ which I used rhetorically in previous articles, illustrates the dangerous consequences of Khan’s vendettas against the Army chief.
This vendetta intertwines the fates of the country’s institutions, pushing them toward a potential collapse due to internal conflicts and undermined governance, which has to be apprehended by the parliament and the state collectively. Otherwise, this relentless pursuit of power will further entrench and expand the hybrid plus system beyond emergency or martial law, an outcome that politically motivated judges fail to adequately assess. Their support disrupts the institutional balance, endangering the nation’s governance.
As Pakistan navigates this tumultuous period, the need for strong, unbiased institutions that uphold the rule of law and provide security and essential services to its citizens is paramount. Without such a foundation, the promise of prosperity will remain unfulfilled, leading to (god forbid) an inevitable demise. The rhetoric of “an inevitable demise” serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of continued institutional decay. May Allah safeguard Pakistan from further turmoil. Pakistan Zindabad!
The writer tweets @ShamaJunejo