Dr. Khalil Ahmad

A lawyer representing the Pakistan government recently tied himself in knots, when commenting on the Supreme Court’s order to restore the chief justice to his post. The court also quashed a presidential reference against the judge. This lawyer said: "One side has to lose and the other has to win." In the same breath, he added, "It's a victory for justice, the rule of law, and General Musharraf." Regardless of what this lawyer would have said had the government won the case, it's worth pondering where the Pakistan government stands now.

If privatisation needs to be done, it has to be done because it is the decisive step in transforming the economic system. Regarding foreign help Dr Klaus is very blunt: I think that the typical foreign help was sending would-be advisors and consultants. It became one of the most profitable businesses in the 1990s - to become a consultant and advisor in the transforming societies.

Changing the economic system is not an easy task. And, of course, it is more complex when carried out half-heartedly. As privatisation is only a part of this process, it may not succeed if done in an isolated manner. It needs certain other changes and a competitive environment to bear fruit.

This article argues that what is always required of a government is the writ of law that must be established and maintained without any relaxation and dilly-dallying. In the case of Lal Masjid, by ignoring what was happening in and around the Lal Masjid the government acted unlawfully. But in forcing the Lal Masjid brothers and occupiers to abandon their unlawful activities government acted lawfully. It tried, though belatedly, to establish the writ of the law. It tried to protect the people from the usurpers of Lal Masjid who used force, the monopoly of a government, to encroach upon the inalienable rights of the people.

This article argues that after a suffering of sixty years there is a silver lining that Pakistanis want an inviolable Constitution, rule of law and an independent judiciary to survive with and Pakistan to be run with. They want their rights and freedoms to be protected by the judiciary. That's a good omen.

New booklet titled “The Greatest Battle for the Rule of Law in Pakistan” was published last month. It dwells on the importance of the ongoing struggle of lawyers’ for the rule of law in Pakistan.

We have views about the world, and what exists in and beyond the world. We have views about man, his nature, his destiny, and his place in the society and the world. We have views about society, about people and about the things people believe in and do not believe in and about things people do and do not do. We have views about everything. Sometimes we are aware of the implications of our views and sometimes not. But most of the time we are never aware of the theory of knowledge lying behind our views.

The business of life depends on a healthy life of business. A healthy life of business requires an environment conducive to its establishment, smooth running and flourishing, and protection of its income and property. It is because of this that many indices that measure in fact various business factors place rule of law at the top.

The greatest affliction that can happen to a nation is that its institutions brazenly indulge in activities other than what they are supposed to be involved in by general consensus or assigned to them by law or constitution. Thus, they defy their own raison detre. One such institution is government.

During the 1970s, Pakistan went in for wholesale nationalization of its private enterprises, taking even educational institutions into the state’s hands. This was a move laden with far-reaching and unforeseeable consequences. Some are still being unveiled today. It changed not only the economic and political, but also the social, intellectual and moral landscape of the country for generations to come.