Hail the Lawyers
To the undergrads on Friday, I suggested that to gauge the health of a nation-state and the health and justice of its political system keep your eyes on the losers. The losers will tell you about the Rule of Law, the essential pillar of any just state.
The Rule of Law is our social compact before which we submit and acquiesce because we know that if we do not, all Hell breaks loose. We submit to the Law because we have a duty to everyone else, and we act swiftly and, hopefully, fairly when a member of our society defies the Rule of Law. The losers are the best diagnostic tool.
Do the losers acquiese and submit to an adverse outcome? If so, why? If the losers acquiese because they trust a legitimate system, then the Rule of Law is likely strong and just. If the losers submit from fear of oppression, the Rule of Law is likely corrupt. If the losers are afforded additional recourse, the Rule of Law likely is functioning with the trust of the governed. If the losers march, protest and refuse to accept an outcome, the Rule of Law likely is suspect because the losers have no faith in its machinations.
If the government rounds up the lawyers and surrounds the judges' homes with military police, the Rule of Law is maimed, crippled and gasping for breath on the floor of a Pakistani jail.
All hail the Pakistani lawyers, operatives of the Rule of the Law, and their courts, standing in the breech against tyranny.
The Rule of Law is our social compact before which we submit and acquiesce because we know that if we do not, all Hell breaks loose. We submit to the Law because we have a duty to everyone else, and we act swiftly and, hopefully, fairly when a member of our society defies the Rule of Law. The losers are the best diagnostic tool.
Do the losers acquiese and submit to an adverse outcome? If so, why? If the losers acquiese because they trust a legitimate system, then the Rule of Law is likely strong and just. If the losers submit from fear of oppression, the Rule of Law is likely corrupt. If the losers are afforded additional recourse, the Rule of Law likely is functioning with the trust of the governed. If the losers march, protest and refuse to accept an outcome, the Rule of Law likely is suspect because the losers have no faith in its machinations.
If the government rounds up the lawyers and surrounds the judges' homes with military police, the Rule of Law is maimed, crippled and gasping for breath on the floor of a Pakistani jail.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry -- fired by Musharraf Saturday -- in a phone call to a gathering of lawyers urged them to go to "every corner of Pakistan and give the message that this is the time to sacrifice."
Musharraf's declaration noted a "visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks" and it blamed a judiciary that was "at cross purposes" with his government's efforts "to control this menace."
All hail the Pakistani lawyers, operatives of the Rule of the Law, and their courts, standing in the breech against tyranny.
posted by JRB at 9:57 AM
8 Comments:
Amen, amen, and amen. It is not often we get to see our oft reviled vocation in the heroes light. Truthfully, it is not often that it is deserved. But now, in this moment.....hail the Pakistani lawyers indeed!!!
Thanks for teaching the class on Friday; you got rave reviews from the students.
You should really consider teaching for a living.
And any lawyer who has the guts to stand up to the man when the penalty is a few nights in a Pakistani jail is a hero in my book too.
Thanks, Mark, for the invitation or for indulging my request for an audience with the students. I was excited to stand in for you, my unwitting mentor, and the students, as always, were impressive.
In this situation, I would spot Musharraf as the loser, threatened with an adverse decision, who topples the Rule of Law with mere power to avoid the unwanted outcome.
We are complicit as we stand by. I recall our good President only a a couple of weeks ago condemning Myanmar's military government for rounding up pacifist monks who marched, yet we sit attentively by as another military government decimates its own judiciary. The Bush Doctrine is just too complicated for me.
Oh yes, the Bush Doctrine of "I'm not really sure what I'm doing but I am going to damn well do it" is very nuanced.
I'm certainly not a big Busher supporter but I think that his administration has been pretty clear in opposing this: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/07/sarkozy.congress/?iref=mpstoryview
Here's an even earlier article right after it happened: http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-30317720071103
Ultimately, a big difference between Pakistan and Burma is that the possibility of Islamists taking over Burma is not nearly as dangerous as this instance. Meaning that, while it must be opposed, the situation contains many more nuances from a geo-political perspective.
All that said, it is heartening to see the bravery of the Pakistani barristers.
Apparently the second link isn't working well. Here's the day after U.S. statement:
"In a televised address Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999, appealed for understanding from the international community.
However, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the measures "highly regrettable" and urged that parliamentary elections planned for January should be held.
"The U.S. has made very clear that it does not support extra-constitutional measures as they would take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule."
Just so long as Musharaf understands that the President understands and ensures that the Secretary of State understands that the protesters must understand our clear and simple message, then everything will be okay. Understand?
Makes sense to me.
Since Pres. Pervez is considered an ally, I suspect they are handling their comments somewhat more diplomatically than in the case of Myanmar.
After all, we don't really share many global terrorism issues with the Burmese crew.
That said, I think the message has been clear from day one (in fact, Pres. Pervez talked about doing this last summer but reports indicate the West talked him out of it): a return to the rule of law.
Post a Comment
<< Home