The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday clarified a news item that appeared in some sections of media regarding remarks attributed to the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali during the hearing of the Orange Line Train Project. A press release issued by the Supreme Court on Friday said that the news item that was reported as “People should stand up against the rulers” was totally false, baseless and misleading. In fact, the CJP had remarked, “People should carefully assess the situation and prudently use their right to vote while electing their representatives.” However, the press release did not disown the CJP’s observation that “Pakistan is being run as a monarchy in the name of democracy and bad governance under the guise of good governance.” Almost all newspapers carried it; some printed it as monocracy while others as monarchy in their titles. Some called these remarks unusual, but that is not true. It would be pertinent to quote CJP’s similar remarks on more than one occasion. On September 3, 2016, addressing the orientation programme of the Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto University of Law (SZABUL) the CJP had stated: “Bad governance, corruption and a lack of merit were the basic problems of the country.” On November 15, 2015, addressing the District Bar Association the CJP asked: “What could happen when the poor got poorer and the rich richer and jobs were sold to the highest bidders? The education, health and environment sectors had become a picture of bad governance.” The fact remains that the majority of the people have been living in the gloom of brutal poverty, squalor, want and deprivation for over six decades. Economic disparity, socio-economic injustice, rampant corruption, a rising crime rate, energy crisis and an ineffective criminal justice system, especially in lower courts, are some of the challenges facing the nation that must be met. If measures are not taken to improve the lives of the teeming millions, the rulers could meet wrath of the people. The general thinking among politicians is that nobody should question them during their five-year tenure in the government, taking the plea that people will reject the party if it fails to deliver. But holding elections after five years does not mean that people cannot ask the government to fulfill the promises made in the manifestos during elections. It should be borne in mind that the concept of democracy and human rights dates back to the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution, which was the revolution of capitalists against feudalists, and in its ‘time and space’ was indeed a step forward in the development of human society. The Encyclopaedists led by Voltaire and Diderot had prepared the ground for Enlightenment, which inspired people to carry out the French revolution. The slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity tolled the death-knell of Louis XVI. It also ushered in a new era in which masses became the determining force of history. However, capitalism emerged with the Industrial Revolution and its super structure was democracy. Under this system, the people of the US and Europe had a new social contract with the rulers, whereby the former surrendered a part of their sovereignty by casting their vote to the rulers, and in return got guarantees for fundamental rights, equal opportunities and promise for socio-economic justice. In Britain and France, feudalists had put up a bloody resistance to the change but they could not stand before the capitalists’ democracy. This concept had reached America with the settlers from Europe who were mostly traders or skilled workers. Since capitalists in North America needed labour for their factories they voiced against slavery, which led to civil war, a war between the North and South America. In Pakistan, eminent personalities talk about democracy, justice, rule of law and constitutionalism, but such discussions have taken place in the past too. One dialogue had taken place in 4th century BC. The venue was the house of Cephalus, a wealthy aristocrat, and in the group were the brothers of Plato and Thrasymachus, a gruff and excitable Sophist who was provoked to commit himself to a definition. He thus stated: “I proclaim that might is right; and justice is the interest of the stronger. Different forms of government — democratic, aristocratic or autocratic — make laws with a view to protecting their interests, and these laws so made by them serve their interests; they deliver to their subjects as justice, and punish as ‘unjust’ anyone who transgresses them.” In other words, all public institutions are meant to serve the plutocrats. In Pakistan, amendments to the constitution have been made with great fanfare. At least, two clauses in the 18th amendment made top leaders of political parties as virtual dictators. One was the deletion of sub-clause four of Article 17 that stated: “Every political party shall, subject to law, hold intra-party elections to elect its office-bearers and party leaders.” In fact, this article should have been further strengthened by incorporating the provision that party elections be held under the watch of the Election Commission of Pakistan to put an end to sham intra-party elections that are held just to comply with the formalities of the political parties act. This was an effort to hoodwink the people because there is a marked difference between the requirement in the political parties act and a provision in the constitution adopted by two-third majority of parliament. The second one was an amendment to Article 63-A with regard to disqualification of a member on grounds of defection; before amendment it read as: “He may be declared in writing by the head of the parliamentary party to have defected from the political party, and the head of the parliamentary party may forward a copy of the declaration to the presiding officer.” That right had been taken away from the parliamentary leader and given to the party head. The problem is that political parties of Pakistan are being run as dynasties or family enterprises. More often than not, different party officials are nominated by party heads. The self-styled custodians of democracy are in fact authoritarian leaders who dictate party policies. The Supreme Court should take suo motu of this aberration because it takes away the right of the elected member to say things or vote as dictated by his conscience. The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com