Rule of law?

[Kaptaan]

Thoughts @Saiyan0321

 

[Saiyan0321]

Thoughts @Saiyan0321

He is right. Rule of Law is essential in Pakistan however Pakistan is a lawless society. Here is a thing. I theorize that there are two types of societies. Lawless and Lawful societies and these societies are not determined on whether one has law but whether one has respect for law.

A lawful society is one where the populace is central in making sure that law is followed and the state is not in a continuous battle with its populace in trying to create a rule of law. In such societies the law is not in conflict with the populace but works with them and in this manner the state is not in a constant battle for the implementation of law but can focus on the few miscreants that dare to challenge the rule of law. Against those miscreants the state and the populace, both are able to throw their entire might on the miscreants, displaying the power of law.

A lawless society is one where the state is in a constant conflict with its populace on creating its rule of law and in this constant battle between the two, the miscreants are able to abuse the law since the law is not taking power from the populace and is not supported by them thus the law is not working with the people but is seen as something that is against the people.

Now in legal study, we have come to know two very important things. First that man is a social animal which means that it is in the nature of a human being to live amongst its peers and its compatriots. It finds comfort and security in such and we create families as well for this purpose. Secondly that each society has some form of law whether this law is from Taboos or Mores or Customs, there exists a set rule of guidance in a society. We see this in Tribal societies to ancient civilizations. The modern concept of legal codification demands a lawful society codify its law however, as we have seen in history, codification is not necessary for the creation of a lawful society.

By going with these definitions, we can determine that societies which we consider to be unlawful like the Tribal societies in FATA or the pashtun belt in Afghanistan, may perhaps be. the most lawful of societies if they are following a legal system and are working with that system rather than against it aka there is not conflict with that legal system. Pashtunwali and tribal system find massive support among their populace which means the people are not in conflict with the system. Yes we can argue that the system is in parallel to Pakistan, an unacceptable notion, but that doesnt mean that they were lawless.

So where does Lawless come in. Well it comes in Pakistan. Pakistan is a lawless Society simply because the people are in constant conflict with the law. The very statement that Pakistan should have Shariah Law, despite the islamization of Pakistani laws, is a declaration of war against the Pakistani law which means that those that advocate such are in constant conflict with law rather than working with law. The constitution should be changed to secular one. You are again fighting against the rule of law. The very bod of governing law and if you are in conflict with something then you are in a constant state of battle and the process of empowerment that the law takes simply doesnt happen since the law is being weakened in its civil war and we see miscreants use this to take advantage. The military takeovers, the political dharnas and protests, the open questioning of results, the open declaration of wars and ofcourse the religious protests and threats. All of them are due to the fact that Pakistan is a lawless society and it is lawless not because it doesnt have a codified law. It has but because the law is in constant conflict with the people and the people are in constant conflict with the law. The government is thus forced to expend extreme ability in implementing the most trivial of laws.

Rule of law can only happen if we, the people, respect law and not fight against it.

Well its just a theory

 

[VCheng]

I theorize that there are two types of societies. Lawless and Lawful societies and these societies are not determined on whether one has law but whether one has respect for law.

An interesting concept, but please bear in mind that lawful societies have followed an evolutionary path to where they are now. Respect for the law is important, but what is more important for such a transition is establishing the rule of law so that it is respected.

For example, what would you say about respect for the law in British India, compared to the lawless society that Pakistan has now become? The people are still the same.

 

[Saiyan0321]

An interesting concept, but please bear in mind that lawful societies have followed an evolutionary path to where they are now. Respect for the law is important, but what is more important for such a transition is establishing the rule of law so that it is respected.

For example, what would you say about respect for the law in British India, compared to the lawless society that Pakistan has now become? The people are still the same.

ofcourse will of the state to establish rule of law is equally important and is another factor in lawful societies. The lawful societies, that i mentioned i.e Tribal societies also witnessed a period where the central authority made sure that such laws were followed.

A state must ensure that its law is implemented and force its populace into accepting that law however for this process the state itself must believe in the rule of law. How can the state function or create a rule of law when half its executive and legislative i.e. two institutions that make and implement law, dont believe in the law. That for them another legal system is far superior and should be backed. In the example of the British Empire, the British drew their power from their populace which means that the populace of the British saw their law as superior and backed their government in the implementation of that law so when that law was implemented in a colonial state, a conquered territory, any resistance was fiercely put aside and the people came to understand that this entitiy would not tolerate any resistance to its legal system. They surrendered because for them a foreign entity was bringing foreign law despite the fact that the British introduced more Islamic laws than Pakistan did and this was in accordance to the Islamic Council of Zia in 1980s. The clergy took refuge in their mosques and the people saw it as foreign system being implemented by a foreign power. Pakistan is not seen as a foreign entity by the people but the people see its legal system as foreign or the rule of law as foreign. They resist the implementation of the law and the state itself fights against the law itself. It repeatedly tarnishes it, it fights against it for its own survival and ofcourse this is by design but the impact of a lawless state by design is that it becomes a lawless state from the top to bottom. You cant have the top structure as lawless and expect the bottom structure to remain lawful. Whatever semblance of evolutionary process that we had from the British lawful society fell apart from the constituent assembly became lawless and then 1956 and then 1958 and so on and so on. Even Bhutto subverting his own constitution was the highest example of Lawless. The top has been lawless since 1947 and the bottom is now equally lawless. Chaos and unpredictability rules the country.

 

[Nilgiri]

Pakistan is a lawless Society simply because the people are in constant conflict with the law. The very statement that Pakistan should have Shariah Law, despite the islamization of Pakistani laws, is a declaration of war against the Pakistani law which means that those that advocate such are in constant conflict with law rather than working with law. The constitution should be changed to secular one. You are again fighting against the rule of law.

I agree overall with the conclusion you come to overall, but this process you take I have a slight problem with.

I don't think having a statement (that you want another legal system) necessarily is unlawful or declaration of war. Unless shariah is so egregious in existence to the very concept of having law and order, which I do not think is the case as it exists within bounds in lot of countries in middle east for example...in the end it just depends on compatibility to underlying culture (and how that reforms/changes with time).

Simply put, the existing law system can be something that is bad or suboptimal w.r.t one's opinion on the better structure for it....and the voicing of that is not necessarily by itself a bad thing (its the actions past that).

Within countries with strong respect for rule of law, you can still have lot of (non-violent) dissent and discourse about the specific system or if even the system is the correct one compared to others elsewhere (or systems not found yet...to be innovated).

Of course calling for violence or a violent revolution to overthrow a current legal system is where you run into conflict of consequence....and that should (arguably) be nipped in the bud (if aligned to enlightened ideals that have logically accomplished judicial weight all over the world).

 

[Kaptaan]

Pakistan is a lawless society

I would argue differantly. I think it's not case of Pakistan being 'lawless' but rather that we have "societies" and not one society that you imply. That is where the problem is and everything else is the symptom.

A state rules with [1] monopoly over force and [2] assent. The proportion of each can vary but this is requirment for a law abiding society. Citizens must feel part of and identify with the state whilst also be aware of the "sharp teeth" every ready to bite.

Generally speaking authoritarian states rely more on monopoly of force than assent. In UK vast majority of the population has been tamed over centuries and now accepts and is loyal to the rule of the crown. However the British state always has "teeth" waiting to bite if anybody dares challange the state.

With such a strong state rule of law is established. In Pakistan the problem is first with assent. Vast numbers of people do not identify with the state with many refusing to give assent. This might not matter if the Pakistani state was able to bring to bear absolute monopoly of force but it can't do that either. Meaning the Pakistan state lacks the "bite". So no 'bite' and little 'assent' means a lawless country.

This is best seen how the state reacted to Rizvi of TLP when he blocked the Faizabad entry to the federal capital Islamabad. The state looked weak and pathetic. It ended with Ranger general heading wads of cash. This sort of cowardly or spineless reaction reaction is quite common in Pakistan. The reason is those in power know that in a fractured polity like Pakistan assent of the people is weak and to compound the problem the state lacks the "teeth" to enforce it's writ.

All this has nothing to do with lack or otherwise of democracy. If we look at Turkey military coups traditionally brought to bear their "teeth" and 10,000s would be incarcerated and 100s killed or missing. Such draconian purge is beyond the ability of the Pakistan state.