The birth of populism, fanaticism and fascism in Pakistan
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto gave birth to Populists.
Zia ul Haq gave birth to Fanatics.
Imran Khan gave birth to Fascists.
All that would never have happened had they not been bestowed with political power, (via) judicial endorsement and establishment’s backing.…
The perils of judicial populism
Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to the pressures of the times.
– Warren E. Burger (1907-1995), Chief Justice, US Supreme Court.
The best thing that explains the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) July 20 judgment is: it is never too late to mend. As is being claimed, the judgment is historic, it is daring, it is a people’s verdict, and a turning point in Pakistan’s history. Of course, it is all these or maybe more, but things are meaningful only in a context. Without context, they lose their import. This is more so with the SC’s judgment that unanimously reinstated Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan, setting aside the presidential reference against him.
Besides its own significance, what makes the judgment unusually extraordinary are the reservations, apprehensions and
The perils of judicial populism
Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to the pressures of the times.
– Warren E. Burger (1907-1995), Chief Justice, US Supreme Court.
– Warren E. Burger (1907-1995), Chief Justice, US Supreme Court.
The best thing that explains the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) July 20 judgment is: it is never too late to mend. As is being claimed, the judgment is historic, it is daring, it is a people’s verdict, and a turning point in Pakistan’s history. Of course, it is all these or maybe more, but things are meaningful only in a context. Without context, they lose their import. This is more so with the SC’s judgment that unanimously reinstated Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan, setting aside the presidential reference against him.
Besides its own significance, what makes the judgment unusually extraordinary are the reservations, apprehensions and misunderstandings being thrown out from all the quarters concerned,
What’s the game, politically speaking?
Note: I completed this article on December 9, 2014, and wrote: “(Government) ought not to be afraid of martial law the prospects of which are zero presently, rather minus.” Now merely 9 months later the prospects of martial law have grown formidably positive; so what’s the game, politically speaking, let’s try to see:
… What’s the game, politically speaking?
In democracy, only a majority party is allowed to rule, and it may turn out to be a tyranny; no smaller party alone can lay a claim to that privilege. That’s the advantage of democracy one can cite while arguing with its enemies. Pakistan and other countries like it are an exception. In such countries, parties of every size can unleash a rule of tyranny under the banner of populism. Thus all the gatherings and processions of every size which such parties hold are quoted as a referendum against the government. Both