Clear and Present Danger
One of the better recognized pronouncements of the widely quoted Oliver Wendell Holmes involved the “freedom of speech” and licence thereof. The most liberal Judge of the US Supreme Court in his time gave an example about a man, who while watching a movie, starts yelling “fire, fire”, leading to a stampede towards the exits of the Movie-theatre with resultant injuries (even deaths) among the cinema-goers. Restraining the man or punishing him would technically violate his freedom of speech, to allow such a “freedom” would result in injuries, even deaths to innocent bystanders, what should be the logical course of justice? Oliver Wendell Holmes said that when any individual misuses any freedom (in this case of speech), endangering others in any manner, the concept of application of justice must recognize the situation as a “clear and present danger” and the individual must be restrained, relying more on the tenets of logic rather than the pure letter of the law.
Deterioration of the law and order situation tends to put economic order in jeopardy, when an economic state of affairs is already in an advanced stage of apocalypse, the problems are force-multiplied by those who take law into their own hands. The emergence of a new breed of sophisticated criminals who misuse democratic power at will to violate the law at will threatens the foundations of our society. The modus operandi is (1) to bribe or coerce the concerned individuals of the law enforcement agencies to ignore their excesses or even collaborate with them (2) if caught in criminal acts, to bribe the concerned individuals in the investigating agencies to so spoil the evidence that the case cannot be brought to trial or successfully prosecuted (3) if in police custody, to seek medical reprieve to be relatively free with facilities of TV, air-conditioners, good food, visitors at will, hard liquor etc, in short all the comforts of home (4) if brought to trial, given that witnesses and evidence are forthcoming, to hire expensive and clever lawyers who can browbeat the courts into accepting their client’s point of view leading to the person’s freedom (5) turn the courtroom into a drama that will coerce the judges by latent blackmail and (6) misrepresent facts aforementioned in the court of public opinion by a sustained media campaign. Direct access to political power by the winning of Assembly seats makes for a combination with money that is lethal. The majority of the citizens of Pakistan are hard-working, honest people, mostly illiterate, who see their meagre salaries dwindling in the face of galloping rise in consumer prices while eking out a miserable existence, while others much less worthy add that runaway inflation by their illegal incomes outside the purview of the law. Everyone has a right to legal cover but justice has become a privilege of the rich, the poor simply cannot afford it. In any society this is a tragedy, in an Islamic State it is a curse, something to be eradicated with a vengeance.
A Mango Republic?
In every country of the world, patronage is built into the system in some form or the other. In the developed countries where democracies are stable and accountability is a part of the system, the potential for favouritism for material or monetary gain may be severely circumscribed but is still very much present. Denis Thatcher was eulogised for being an obsequious husband of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, however son Mark was ostracised by the media for any number of major business deals. In countries of the Third World where leaders depend upon a small coterie of the rich and powerful for the acquisition and sustenance of power, there is virtually no dependence upon the masses. A Client-Patron relationship becomes much more part of the system than in developed nations. The cycle of favours ensures continuation of power, patronage ensures a mutual loyalty born out of the need for survival. The disease of patronage is not confined to Pakistan alone, that it has become rampant in this country over the past two decades does make this country a part of a more select group of nations as far as nepotism and corruption is concerned. We used to poke fun at the “Banana Republics” of Latin and South America, today we are not much different in style as well as content. As nationalists we should use our national fruit as a symbol in being labelled as a “Mango Republic” or at least being well on the way to its becoming.
The most insidious form of patronage in this country is the allotment of plots and the sanctioning of loans. Recently the Lahore High Court has taken suo-moto action to ask for details of all the plots allotted by the Chief Ministers of Punjab since 1985, the Martial Law Administration (1977-1985) having taken care to have all its actions validated and not being subject to questioning (whether any illegal acts of commission by responsible people in public office can ever be so condoned on the point of a gun is a matter of debate and conjecture but not the subject of this article). Given 1985 as a marker for discovering the wholesale gift sale of public property, the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Mr. Tiwana, should at the very least question the CMs about what great public service the beneficiaries performed to deserve the largesse. In order to ensure fairplay, the same exercise should be carried out in the Federal Territory and all the other Provinces. Prima-facie it would seem that many of the allottees do not even have correct addresses or have more than one plot. One wealthy and influential gentleman residing in KDA is the beneficiary of as much as 12 CM-bestowed plots, albeit in different names. It would not seem out of place as to question how such a farce was contrived and enacted by leaders who unabashedly proclaim themselves guardians of public morality and should have known better i.e. if they feel any fiduciary responsibility to the masses they were pledged to serve selflessly. Besides being an act of corruption, it is sheer hypocrisy.