In the early days of Netflix in Pakistan, people tuned in to watch hit television shows centred around drug cartels like Pablo Escobar, such as Narcos, Sicario, and Queen of the South. Due to the extreme corruption that permeates all governmental departments, including the police, people developed questionable opinions regarding Mexico and Colombia. Because of the lawlessness and street crime in these countries, friends and family in the US were also hesitant to travel there.
Renowned scholars, such as Francis Fukuyama in his "Political Order and Political Decay", Peter Andreas in "Smuggler Nation: How Illicit Trade Made America," David G. Cardenas in "The Rise and Fall of the Medellin Cartel," Carlos Castresana in "Cartels and State Collapse: The Political Economy of Organized Crime in Central America," and Paul J. Smith in "The State and the Cartel: Political Influence and Organized Crime," have thoroughly examined the circumstances under which a state loses its grip on power to cartels, allowing these criminal organisations to dominate. After revisiting their works, I was struck by the unsettling realisation that we are experiencing a similar trajectory to what we once associated with Colombia and Mexico.
The recent past of our cherished "Land of the Pure" is replete with instances where wealth and influence have effectively manipulated the state apparatus, leaving ordinary citizens like us feeling powerless and voiceless. We are often reminded that we are merely here to serve those in power, as if we are insignificant creatures with no role in the grand scheme. This feeling is reminiscent of what our biology teachers might say, comparing us to certain maggots with short memories, living in the moment and oblivious to the broader context. It's high time we recognise the importance of not just knowing, but truly remembering the lineage, the bloodline and the genealogy of our elites, ensuring we never forget who their forebears are.
Fukuyama posits that law consists of a set of behavioural rules that enjoy widespread societal consensus, binding even the most powerful political figures. He further argues that if these rules are manipulated to favour the elite, the true essence of the rule of law is lost, and the rule of law does not exist, regardless, even if it is applied to the general populace
Reflecting on recent events, one cannot help but recall the controversial acquittal of the senior government official, who struck a traffic warden, Haji Attaullah, at Quetta's GPO Chowk in June 2017. Despite the glaring evidence captured on CCTV and widely shared on social media, the lack of "sufficient proof" led to his exoneration. Similarly, the case of Shahrukh Jatoi, acquitted in the murder of Shahzeb in December 2012, was marked by his brazen display of victory signs in the media. Now, with Natasha Danish's intoxicated reckless driving murder case making headlines, her own gestures of triumph (Editor's Note: an image of Natasha Danish circulating on the internet where she is allegedly seen making victory signs outside of court was an AI-generated image and not a real image nor did the event of her waving victory signs outside the court ever take place) send a chilling message to all of us as how meaningless and powerless we are and the family of the victims deciding to forgive Natasha, expressing no objection to the bail request in court speaks volumes on the power of the powerful in our "Mumlikat-e-Khudadad". These displays of arrogance from Jatoi and others serve as a stark reminder of the injustices that persist, leaving many to question the integrity of our legal system.
My esteemed colleague raises a valid point regarding the academic tone of my writings, and I acknowledge this as a limitation on my part. I tend to view societal issues, particularly social disorder, through the lens of insights provided by earlier scholars. Max Weber, a prominent German sociologist and jurist, categorises states into two main types: "Patrimonial states" and "Impersonal states." In Patrimonial states, the government and its institutions are treated as personal assets, often managed by family and close associates. In contrast, an Impersonal state operates on the principles of skill and merit, ensuring that administration is based on objective criteria. Since its founding, our "Land of the Pure" has predominantly functioned as a Patrimonial state, with only brief periods—such as the tenures of Prime Minister Junejo and the dictator, President Musharraf—offering glimpses of merit-based (sic) governance within the administration.
The present circumstances remind me of the Classical era in Ancient Greece, a time when great thinkers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle grappled with the pressing issues of law and order amid the intricate political, social, and intellectual dilemmas of their time. The turbulent shifts in governance and the advent of democratic ideals prompted profound contemplation on the organisation of society and the maintenance of justice. Our current landscape mirrors that of pre-Renaissance Europe, characterised by the fragmentation of centralised authority, the rise of feudalism, and the establishment of localised power structures, where Lords and elites exercised selective legal and judicial practices. However, as we transitioned into the late Middle Ages, the Church emerged as a significant force, championing moral integrity. Francis Fukuyama posits that the foundations of the rule of law are deeply connected to religious influences, acting as a check on even the most powerful political leaders. In Western Europe, the rule of law became firmly established, largely due to the Roman Catholic Church's role in framing law as essential to the development of the state.
The murders of Haji Attaullah, Shahzeb Khan, Noor Mukadam, and the recent tragedy involving Natasha Danish, compelled me to revisit Fukuyama's insights on the rule of law. As I delved into his analysis, I found myself grappling with a whirlwind of emotions, torn between laughter and tears. Fukuyama posits that law consists of a set of behavioural rules that enjoy widespread societal consensus, binding even the most powerful political figures. He further argues that if these rules are manipulated to favour the elite, the true essence of the rule of law is lost, and the rule of law does not exist, regardless, even if it is applied to the general populace. To prevent such a distortion, he advocates for an independent judicial system that operates autonomously from the executive branch. If any reader can identify elements of this explanation of the rule of law within our current system, I urge you to enlighten me. It appears we are in a situation where "Rule by Law" is a more accurate characterisation than the rule of law itself.
The intense public outcry surrounding this case reveals a growing dissatisfaction with a legal system that the general public believes is failing them. While the public struggles to navigate the complex legal system, the wealthy use their wealth to postpone legal proceedings or reach out-of-court settlements
Natasha Danish exemplifies the troubling reality of how the privileged elite in our society frequently evade justice through their wealth and influence. Allegedly under the influence of drugs, Danish reportedly struck pedestrians, leading to tragic deaths. What should be a straightforward case of reckless manslaughter has instead become entangled in the inefficiencies of Pakistan's legal framework, revealing the disturbing connection between affluence, authority, and the legal system. This incident brings to light the persistent issue of the elite escaping accountability for grave offences. In Pakistan, those with financial resources and political connections can skew legal proceedings, from securing bail to evading prosecution entirely.
Such cases often entail strategies like bribery, witness intimidation, and evidence manipulation, which pose significant barriers to the administration of justice. Not only has the tragic case of Natasha Danish garnered attention because of its tragic (but expected) ending, but it also serves as a reminder of the widespread problem of impunity enjoyed by the powerful. The intense public outcry surrounding this case reveals a growing dissatisfaction with a legal system that the general public believes is failing them. While the public struggles to navigate the complex legal system, the wealthy use their wealth to postpone legal proceedings or reach out-of-court settlements. This striking disparity reinforces the widely held belief that Pakistan has a dual justice system, with the wealthy escaping punishment and the poor bearing the brunt of the consequences.
The Diyat clause, originally intended to provide compensation in cases of accidental loss of life, has become a loophole exploited by the influential to avoid legal consequences. Instead of being reserved for circumstances where omission is at the backdrop rather than commission, it is now used to pay compensation and allow the
perpetrators to continue with their lives, showing an indifferent attitude towards the tragedy. The wealthy and powerful have found an easy way to evade punishment for serious crimes like murder. This misuse stems from the ability of influential individuals to manipulate the system with wealth and power. This situation diminishes the deterrent capacity of the legal framework and fosters a culture of impunity among those with financial means. Such misuse highlights more extensive problems of class disparity and the inadequacies of the legal system in Pakistan, where the rich and influential frequently avoid consequences through monetary agreements, ultimately denying victims' families the justice they deserve.
It is essential to understand the consequences of a compromised legal system in a society. The rule of law serves as the cornerstone of a fair and orderly society. In its absence, a state risks descending into disorder, where criminal enterprises, cartels, and warlords can operate unchecked. Such conditions breed corruption, violate human rights, and threaten the very structure of society and state foundations. When a robust legal framework is lacking, power dynamics shift to favour the strong, resulting in instability, violence, and a breakdown of trust in public institutions. By maintaining the rule of law, we promote accountability, equity, and the safeguarding of individual rights,
which are crucial for the health and sustainability of the state.