The bureaucrat is a strange missile: it does not work and it cannot be fired. This saying by a man of wisdom just about epitomises the inefficiency with which governments are run, especially in Pakistan. All over globally, special vocabulary has entered language, like red tape-ism and bureaucracy, to describe how work can be stalled forever following perfectly legitimate “rules of business.” Parodies and satires are made on them; TV comedy shows and sitcoms entertain millions explaining their smooth nothingness; and open discussions are held on the level of corruption in their ranks. Politicians have always been public figures to be thrashed, and bureaucrats have always carried the yes-minister image to become the centre of media attention and public discourse. However, in Pakistan two other pillars of institutional development that are more or less not open to such discourse are the army and the judiciary. Within these two the army has still been criticised for its illegal attempts to rule the country. The judiciary is almost a No-Go area as far as talking about the integrity and accountability of judgesis concerned. Therefore, when anything takes place as a “first” it normally receives more attention than the same act being done repeatedly. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s act of removing 30 judges from duty on the first day of his taking over as the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court is thus history in making. Judges have been the least debated on what is wrong with the judiciary of the country. There is almost a hushed acknowledgement that the “independent judiciary” slogan is just a slogan, and there are as many moral questions to be asked about judges as about any other state government officials, but it is done with utmost discomfort. While Pakistan’s economic problems are heavily linked to bad governance they are also tightly intertwined with a poor justice system. Let us look at the Global Competitiveness Index 2015-2016. Pakistan is ranked 126 of 140 countries. While it has made marginal improvements in some areas and has failed on others, one of the biggest slippage has been judicial independence where they have slipped from 67th place to 82nd position. This 15-point descend in one year is alarming, yet nobody in the media or any other forum is really discussing it at all. There is a strong link between governance and judicial independence. The court is the place of the last resort, the forum of the eventual hope, the zone above political legislation. However, when courts are perceived as lost causes, and where countless appearances before indifferent and biased officials and judges only result in greasing more palms, they become a symbol of fear and avoidance. Perception of lower courts in the minds of the public is equal to the perception of the police. The rural area dominance of the landlord is exercised by the “thana-kachery” (police station-lower court) culture. It is an understood fact that those who have control over these two state organs control the area. In underdeveloped countries the manipulation of law making, law dispensing, or law enforcing institutions becomes the major game of power brokers. By controlling the institutions involved in this process they hoard legal, financial and social power to the extent that they play the role of demigods whose judgments supersede all laws and systems. This in Pakistan has happened through the feudal system and then the political system. The elite have directly or indirectly used all public service institutions for self-interest by politicising them to their advantage. The police are openly branded as being subservient to power brokers, and often come under flak for being politicised and non-functional. The judiciary, on the other hand, has not been openly blamed for becoming politicised, but there are hushed but active speculations that the judiciary also has power brokers. The major blame of judicial system not performing is put on lack of capacity rather than lack of integrity. Programmes to bring judicial reforms have been brought in, but they have mostly failed to come up with any change. The most prominent project was Access to Justice programme funded by the Asian Development Programme; it started in 1999 but failed to achieve anything substantial. The programmes focus was on enhancing capacity but it failed to address inherent issues of politicisation and accountability of the judiciary. Governance in the country is in name only and without accountability. The dilemma of who-will-judge-the-judge exists. An example of this was seen in the 2103 elections. Widespread rigging was alleged by nearly all political parties. The Pakistan People’s Party termed it as a “Returning Officer election” (RO). The ROs are judges. The election tribunals and the judicial commission reported wide-scale irregularities in nearly all areas of duty dispensation by the ROs. Some election decisions were also overturned. Not a single RO involved in these irregularities was punished. Is incompetence that affects the sanctity of the vote of the public not a crime and thus punishable? These are the questions that are avoided and put under the carpet. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s actions would give many the courage to seek answers for these “no-questions-asked” areas. The problem is that when you criticise other institutions it is considered freedom of expression, but when you criticise the judiciary, they may get back to you with a contempt of court order. Pakistanis no longer believe in the audacity of hope. That is why people like General Raheel Sharif and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah are looked with trepidation. When General Pervez Musharraf and former Chief Justice Chaudhry Iftikhar held offices, similar hopes were dashed to ground. But as they say, just because it has never happened in the past it does not mean it cannot happen in the future. The writer is a columnist and an analyst, and she can be reached at andleeb.abbas1@gmail.com