This writers is correct when she says in respect to the lawyers torture of Dr Sher Afghan that Actors on the ground, in this case lawyers of the Lahore Bar present at the Lahore High Court that day, saw an opportunity to draw attention to a cause that they believe was failing and losing attention amid the euphoria of democratic transition.
The law and the lawyers
The Pakistani people, long wearied by grand promises and weak returns, are struggling to shake off the disenchantment brought on by the devolved tactics of a movement increasingly marred by frustration and defined by the very disorder it was supposed to eliminate. Since the beginning of the controversy over the initial sacking of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry over a year ago, the “lawyers’ movement” has seen a series of tumultuous ups and downs. While the release of the judges from house arrest per the order of the new National Assembly was a pivotal success, the recent manhandling of former minister Dr Sher Afgan Niazi and the ensuing riots in Karachi have raised many questions about whether or not the movement, in its current form will be able to achieve its objective of getting the sacked judges reinstated. Some clues to the questions of why the lawyers’ movement has followed such a trajectory and been unable to translate its mobilisation capacity into achieving the judges reinstatement can be found in analysing its basis and composition. As Sid Tarrow argued in his book Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (1998), the biggest challenge faced by movements is not the ability to mobilise affected parties but rather the social aspect of co-coordinating, unorganised, dispersed and autonomous populations of people into common and sustained action. In the case of the lawyers’ movement, the basis of organisation was provided by the bar associations which in various provinces became the hub of activity and a convenient point of initiation for marches and other activities initiated by the lawyers. The other essential ingredient in the recipe for successful mobilization is political opportunity. As Tarrow says: “people join social movements in response to political opportunities and in doing so create new ones, these opportunities that translate the potential for movement into mobilisation.” Tarrow’s theorisation provides a useful framework for understanding how the lawyers’ movement, which started as a protest movement against the sacking of the Chief Justice, grew into a larger political movement and gave impetus to political forces that eventually led to a democratic transition.
While the lawyers’ movement was not the only factor in precipitating democracy, it was nevertheless instrumental in preparing the ground conditions that set events in motion. With the political opportunity provided by the sacking of Chief Justice, lawyers emerged on the streets and were mobilised. Their collective action, the first significant street protest and incident of anti-state aggression in Pakistan in the Musharraf era, emboldened other political actors to emerge with their demands thus creating new political opportunities for others with pro-democracy agendas. It is at this juncture, when the basis of political contention in Pakistan changed from lawyers protesting against the sacking of the chief justice to the emergence of political pro-democracy activists on the scene that the lawyers’ movement, was unable to translate its ideological goals for a free judiciary into political goals that would be ensured success regardless of which political party won democratic elections.** The failure to translate a successful mobilisation of thousands of lawyers into an achievement of the political goals of the movement portends the possibility that the sacked Supreme Court justices may never be reinstated.** Added to this the roughshod tactics of blackening the faces of political opponents and the physical manhandling of foes is a further manifestation of growing resentment within the movement about this very inability to achieve its objective. As mentioned before, the ultimate challenge of movements such as these it to continue to remain organised and target a particular goal. However, the irony lies in the fact that the larger the movement gets, the more difficult it is to control by its leaders.
The recent manhandling of Sher Afgan Niazi is a perfect example of this dynamic. Actors on the ground, in this case lawyers of the Lahore Bar present at the Lahore High Court that day, saw an opportunity to draw attention to a cause that they believe was failing and losing attention amid the euphoria of democratic transition. Their act, a travesty not only of decorum but of political strategy, managed to garner attention but for all the wrong reasons; a movement whose very point is to create an ordered society where the rule of law is paramount devolved to using lawless tactics of thuggery and public intimidation.
The inability of the lawyer’s movement to remain sustainable in terms of presenting a political challenge to the new administration is compounded by the fact that its platform represents an ideological position that has had little support in Pakistan’s history. Whether it is in the intermittent spurts of democratic rule or decades of military dictatorship, the courts have routinely been co-opted and misused to legitimise all manner of illegal political activity. The patrimonial nature of even supposedly democratic regimes, built on the personality of one leader or the other are further evidence of a larger sociological inability to understand and truly respect the value of institutions as mediators of conflict. In this sense, the devolution of the lawyers’ movement from its brave beginnings rife with images of lawyers being beaten up has given way to an embittered stalemate where the future of the reinstatement question hangs uncomfortably in the balance. The lawyers are increasingly becoming an embattled minority fighting for an institution that is meant to rise above politics and guarantee Pakistani citizens some predictability and accountability. The politicians, these leaders of a new democratic order, perhaps see the emergence of a truly independent judiciary as an unwelcome check on their own power. And finally, the Pakistani people, long wearied by grand promises and weak returns, are struggling to shake off the disenchantment brought on by the devolved tactics of a movement increasingly marred by frustration and defined by the very disorder it was supposed to eliminate.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\04\12\story_12-4-2008_pg3_5