Dr. Khalil Ahmad

It takes more than 25 years for our politicians to agree upon a constitution and to have it enforced, and then through the next 35 years they tried their best to betray it. Prior to 1973, we were living in the wilderness of a constitutional anarchy; after that, we are living in the wilderness of a constitutional graveyard.

This article discusses the fate of the Rule of Law movement after the betrayal of Pakistan People Party. After attempting a SWOT analysis of the movement, the article concludes that this movement is like a sieve. It is separating wheat from chaff. The latest chaff is PPP. Now the formula for the success of this movement is ‘Move on minus PPP!’

American people create abundant wealth. So, they are prosperous and happy. It is only because they are economically freer than many nations on earth. In consequence, that makes them politically freer.

Self-interest runs supreme. It is natural and logical. However, it is market that discovers and maintains a beautiful balance between clashing self-interests. Voluntary exchanges in the market where all the parties involved seek their own interest ultimately benefit all the parties. Otherwise, if any one fears to incur harm or loss, the exchange does not take place. This is how self-interest of one individual takes care of other individuals’ interest. It is in this perspective that the science of economics has been defined as the study of how and how not we fulfill our mutual needs.

The article, Defeatism – A New Factor, discusses the ‘post-long march’ moment of lull in the rule of law movement. It contends that after eight years' dictatorial rule the democratic dawn has proved false.

The article, Long March - The Aftermath, discusses that the Long March has concluded, but a number of questions still haunt the lawyers’ leaders? The most important of which is what did the Long March achieve. The article argues that can we achieve anything by protesting peacefully in a thoroughly un-civilized society of Pakistan? Or for that matter, even by un-peaceful means?

‘It was the 1947 movement of independence which got us freedom from the rule of foreign masters, and now the lawyers’ movement for an independent judiciary aims at getting us freedom from the rule of local masters.’

Under an intensely charged situation like this where the Lawyers’ Long March is creating an amorphous perspective with no positive signals from any quarters, if one can afford a moment of unconcern, he will appreciate one move of General (Retired) Musharraf as far as the game of Pakistani politics is concerned.

The article, Packaging it maliciously, argues that the constitutional package brought in by the Pakistan Peoples Party at best seems to be a ploy to fizzle out the rule of law movement by creating uncertainties, confusion and useless debates hovering around the real issue, dragging the issue to an ad infinitum where it loses its force. The package is an attempt at amending the constitution maliciously. Supposedly if this package goes through the parliament in its original form, what will it achieve? Nothing of the sorts needed at this time. Will it resolve the issue of judges’ restoration to the satisfaction of the lawyers’ associations and civil society? More importantly, will it resolve the judicial crisis to the dictates of the constitution? Also, it is just unintelligible how reducing the term of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry will help reform the judiciary!

This article dwells on fundamental issues defining a constitution especially in the context of Pakistan. It argues that constitution is never like a political document. At best, it is a theory of conduct both for individuals and institutions. In this sense, it is a moral document.