Three-legged democracy

The February 18 verdict of the people, despite some instances of rigging as reported by the observers of EU, by and large, heralded the emergence of democracy, which would ensure the empowerment of parliament and the robustness of other pillars of state - executive, judiciary and media - functioning freely within their prescribed orbits. Contrarily, in the present paradigm of governance, one leg - the judiciary - is functioning on an artificial limb provided by the general (retd) through the illegal process of proclaiming "emergency" and by summarily dismissing the learned judges of the Supreme Court, whose conscience did not allow them to obey the illegal orders of the military ruler.

No constitution is worth the name if it provides a general (retd) absolute freedom to impose emergency, and remove the learned judges of the Superior Courts, dismantling the democratic order and appointing judges of his own choice, and above all amend the constitution at his will. Is this the system we wish to perpetuate?

If a government servant is so sacrosanct to modify the constitution, theoretically he can take other steps also, like dismissing the whole lot of executives suspected of not being loyal. Media is the usual casualty of authoritarian rulers, who have very low threshold of tolerance for dissent. One of the worst impacts of the dictatorial governance is that it never promotes "culture of consensus," which is the distinguishing feature of democracy. A culture has to learn to be democratic, it is never an inborn trait of a society. Like typical Mughal darbars, some politicians, under dictatorship master the art of sycophancy notwithstanding intellectuals and writers, who barter their pens for utilitarian interests.

It is unfortunate that some constitutional experts are insisting that the restoration of judges can be made only through a two-thirds majority of both the Houses. An act, which the president himself acknowledges was "unconstitutional" why can't it be righted by one executive order, is hard to comprehend. The previous cases where the judges succumbed to the pressure of the gun, are being constantly cited to justify as legal precedence for the continuation of the same legal aberration, which the nation should get rid of and sooner the better. What did the nation do to reward those conscientious judges who refused to take oath under PCO?