In the opening scene of Top Gun: Maverick, Tom Cruise's character test-flies a hypersonic jet beyond its speed limits. "He wants Mach 10, let's give him Mach 10," he says as he throttles up the machine. The aircraft roars and shudders and reaches top speed. Maverick has done it. But then – no surprise – his ego takes over cockpit control. He pushes it faster, and faster, and faster…
We don't see the actual crash. The inevitable just happens.
As it always does, often enough. Big egos can trigger big problems that do big damage in the big-ness of things. We have learnt this quite so. But have we?
Two back-to-back judgements in the past week may put this question to the test. Former prime minister Imran Khan stands vindicated in both. This came at a time when he and his party were on the ropes defending themselves against a barrage of punches being thrown furiously by the establishment and its posse. The Supreme Court judgement awarding reserved seats to the PTI has buoyed the party beyond just parliamentary numbers. The sessions court acquittal of Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi in the shoddy Iddat case has forced the government to slap random charges against the couple so they remain incarcerated. In both cases, Khan's opponents look desperate. And weakened.
But tactical weakness needs to be seen from a strategic perspective. Beyond shrieking headlines and breathless analysis, and beyond hyper-partisan commentary echoing across the landscape, there lies the hard reality of power. The exercise of state power against citizens has always been a one-sided contest. These traditional dynamics, though, have come under significant strain since Imran Khan started weaponising populism against the establishment. The results of the February 8 elections and the ensuing panic within the power structure afford plenty of such evidence.
Populism, though, has its limits. It cannot spring Khan from jail. It cannot bring the streets to boil. It cannot strengthen fractured PTI ranks. And it cannot – for now – overturn the reality that the government in place is in no mood to go away any time soon. The hard state triumphing over soft populism is, therefore, no real surprise. Predictability can breed complacency. It can also generate hubris.
Such hubris, perhaps, led to ill-advised rashness against the judiciary. It is now fairly well known inside the Red Zone that the letter penned by the judges of the Islamabad High Court detailing pressures from the agencies was a culmination of a long series of incidents that were intensifying with time. The IHC judges' request to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for an institutional response was deeply considered one. It had taken into account the option that the judges could themselves initiate proceedings against those who were putting them under pressure, but the logic went that such action would not have the broad impact that was required for an effective pushback.
The letter birthed a series of events that reflected the escalatory nature of what was rapidly transforming into an institutional confrontation. The fate of the actual letter still awaits a final judgement from the Supreme Court, but ensuing developments may have already overtaken it.
Is then the judiciary pitted against the establishment?
Populism has limits. It can't spring Imran Khan from jail. It can't bring the streets to boil. It can't strengthen fractured PTI ranks. And it can't – for now – overturn the reality that the government is in no mood to go away any time soon
A straightforward 'yes' might simplify what is a complex – and often deliberately ambiguous – entanglement between the two. Judges do not make decisions based on a perceived conflict. That's the judiciary's formal position if asked. Makes sense, in a formal way. But then, as the Shakespearean cliché goes, if you prick them, do they not bleed?
"We are not black sheep," one SC judge remarked during a hearing. "We are more like wasps". He was reacting to coordinated press conferences by a handful of parliamentarians who were – as per their critics – trooped out to heap some scorn on the judges. All of them ended up throwing themselves at the mercy of the court when hauled up for contempt (and forgiven) but the damage had been done. Once the battle lines were drawn, judges from the lower courts – often most susceptible to pressures – also started to report on such incidents.
Things continue to escalate.
It is a shadow war, this. No one will say anything, acknowledge anything, or admit to anything. But shadows loom larger even as whispers get quieter. Nothing is connected—until it is. And amid all this, something deeper and scarier has happened: the conflict between power and populism has pivoted towards becoming a conflict between power and power.
So, what happens now?
Option 1: System goes into a self-correction mode, and power is re-balanced within the institutional framework. This means the establishment takes a few steps back, eases the pressure alluded to in the IHC letter, engages with the judiciary to address genuine concerns, and pushes for a re-set as a new chief justice prepares to take charge at the Supreme Court.
Option 2: Contestants continue to climb up the escalatory ladder in the belief that this has now become a zero-sum game. The protracted and live-broadcast hearings of the reserved seats case in the Supreme Court amplified the mood – and divisions – of the top court in clear terms. The final judgement has reinforced such perceptions. The ladder of escalation can only go so high before something snaps. You can climb and climb till there is nothing left to climb. Then someone falls.
Which option will be exercised?
We are whizzing across the highway to the danger zone. The engine is overheating. Mach 10 is approaching. Avionics are flashing red. But egos are throttling up for altitude and speed. In Top Gun, Maverick's ego crashes the plane, but in the end, he prevails against all odds and smiles his way to the box office.
Ours ain't a movie.