In the Court of Kaptaan
By Dr. Seema Arif
Liberty, equality and justice are three basic values of democratic political systems and people living in democracies are in earnest demand of these values. Pakistanis have witnessed hue and cry for justice over past few years, but it is yet to be known if they really tasted a true flavour of justice, equality and liberty. It is ironical to demand true flavour of justice in a country where pure milk, wheat or meat is not tasted by a common man. Such a loss of taste has impoverished our nation and we are forgetting the true flavour of values as well.
It is imperative therefore that we should remind ourselves, what does democracy and its values mean. Rousseau believed that communities were most justly governed by the “general will” or “majority rule” of their citizens. Rule by absolute monarchs and emperors may bring peace and order, but at the cost of personal freedoms, whereas, democratic values support the belief that an orderly society can exist in which freedom is preserved.
Such a freedom though is purely a utopia. Imagine a society in which everyone was perfectly free to do as he or she pleased. How long would it take for chaos to set in? Present chaos in Pakistan is understandable if we purely refer to it in terms of individual liberties and freedoms taken by citizens of Pakistan; terrorists and separatists are free to form associations and act with force; media persons have freedom to question each and every matter of national concern and security; and last but not the least people of Pakistan are free to evade taxes, hold limitless properties and businesses, and transfer money to foreign lands. But isn’t this freedom just another interpretation of globalization and free world order; only terrorism and extremism are unwanted side effects.
It means although liberty is the most cherished value but it is handicapped without provision of order and social justice; order and freedom must be balanced. Order implies a necessary loss of freedom if people are to survive. How much democratic countries may cherish individual freedom, they generally believe that laws should not be repressive; a little order can be sacrificed in the name of liberty, and much freedom can be quashed in name of order. Should democracies claim for balance between order and liberty?
Yes! States and governments are always in effort to achieve these delicate balances — between liberty and order, and between liberty and equality. Their success is reflected in the continuing efforts to refine them. Complete liberty logically leads to inequality. A strong or ambitious person might acquire more goods and property than another, and someone is bound to dominate, Similar is the situation in neo-liberal economy of Pakistan with open borders of trade and limited rights to access to resources like electricity. Which direction will the balance be tilted favouring whom? Should democracies restrict the individual’s freedom to strive for economic success?
This search for balance reminds me of Islamic value “Adl”; Adl as well has two aspects one is acclaimed as ‘justice’ and the other as ‘balance’.
“..and He hath set the measure, that ye exceed not the measure, but observe the measure strictly, nor fall short thereof.” 55:7-8
Balance has three aspects:
1. There are standards against which all things should be measured.
2. Every situation is a balance between opposite factors. The middle way is the best. Excesses in either direction are bad.
3. A human being is not judged by the evil he does or the good he does, but the balance between the two. This balance is perhaps like confluence of rivers in sea, one sweet and the other bitter and a fine line drawing between them as mentioned in Surah Rahman.
Although God made us “… a community justly balanced, that we might be witnesses over the nations…”( 2:143), how are we justifying the claim of God by upholding “Meezan”? I think it is more than appropriation of weights; it is about diversity, plurality and inclusion as well. Regarding Justice Allah has commanded in the Holy Qur’an,
“O ye who believe! Be staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or your parents or your kindred, whether it be a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both. So follow not passion lest ye lapse from truth.” 4:135
Justice is keeping balance between rights and responsibilities. Justice has three aspects:
1. The Principle of Equivalence, that is, the consequences of an act, the punishment or reward, should be equivalent to the act.
2. The Principle of Equality, that is, all actions, which are similar, should be similarly treated. It does not imply that people are equal in their qualities or talents.
3. The Principle of Self-determination, that is, the consent of the individual is required in a transaction. If a person gives away something there is no injustice, but if it is taken away from him, then we have injustice.
The values of freedom, respect for human rights are safeguarded in holding of periodic and genuine elections by universal suffrage not only in a country but in every organization where power over resources needs to be shared among stakeholders. Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”
We know that Pakistan is a transitional democracy marked by poor literacy rates, rise of poverty, ignorance, extremism and violence. What would be the most effective mechanism to restore justice, equality and liberty in Pakistan? Why it is so difficult to achieve justice in Pakistan? Whether Justice is a misnomer everyone trying to attach a personal value with it? Whether the views of people of Pakistan are actually pluralistic as pertaining to human rights or justice? Where is the fairness that was the basic inherent quality of justice? Does anybody talk about it? If general elections were to estimate “public will” and or “public majority”, then what does post election scenario indicates: public will or public majority…?How to substantiate that will or majority… if there is any meaningful majority?
Social justice is about assuring the protection of equal access to liberties, rights, and opportunities, as well as taking care of the least advantaged members of society. Thus, whether something is just or unjust depends on whether it promotes or hinders equality of access to civil liberties, human rights, opportunities for healthy and fulfilling lives, as well as whether it allocates a fair share of benefits to the least advantaged members of society. Can we ever ensure that the murderers of lynching of a couple in suburbs of Lahore will be punished? If inequalities will remain persistent in the society we can never uphold justice.
In a transitional democracy we are facing transitional justice, both at judicial and non-judicial levels. At judicial level we are demanding judicial commissions to seek either judicial or non-judicial mechanisms, including prosecution initiatives, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reform, or a combination thereof. The inquiry should be incumbent upon the commission rather than claiming party, but it is the direct opposite. The accuser is buried under the heavy load of its accusation and the judiciary system does not share the burden. Does that imply the principle of equivalence, in case of Surrey Palace or Swiss accounts, Hudabia scandal, Ayan Ali’s vandalism, and many more? Does the same principle was applicable to the blasphemy case of Mir Shakeel & his GEO lot and Junaid Jamshaid as it has been applicable to any non Muslim in Pakistan.
However, conforming to the principle of equality with its emphasis on “similarity of cases” it is said that inequalities in society are acceptable as long as they meet two conditions. First, as per the “equal opportunity principle,” inequalities are acceptable if every person in society has a reasonable chance of obtaining the positions that lead to the inequalities, such as equal opportunity to achieve any job. Moreover, David Miller posits a pluralistic and circumstantial theory of social justice which is much broader than distributive justice as well as retributive justice or a justice of punishments. In a society rift apart by injustice we also need awareness how to apply these justices in the right context.
Miller’s concept of need is applied for solidarity among communities where members of society feel collectively responsible for the fulfillment of basic needs of all members; this concept is applicable to small closely knit units like family. Miller’s concept of desert is applicable to organizations where instrumental needs are met by competing on resources and people expect rewards on better performance. Miller’s concept of equality also addresses rights and concedes that inequalities may practically occur in certain conditions.
Furthermore, it is important to note that need, desert, and equality all refer to outcomes requiring its distinguishing from procedural justice. Miller claims that procedural justice is important (and it is for criminal justice processes), but also points out that just procedures will not necessarily produce just outcomes. I wonder it is just procedures… only procedures do not bear just outcomes just like JIT for Model Town… or there are no just intentions and display of fairness accounting for just outcomes. The hot debate is on the way as Judicial Commission is about to close its hearing on the case of 2013 General Elections. Before the commissions results are announced we hear another uprising about potential anomalies in the intra party elections of Pakistan Tehreek i-Insaf. The tribunal in presidency of Justice Wajih ud Din has given its own verdict transgressing the limits of a commission offering procedural justice of punishment to the leading members of PTI, namely Jahangir Tareen, Parvez Khattak and Aleem Khan.
Leaving aside the outcomes of this verdict, and the legality of the verdict, we address the aspirations of PTI workers and supporters; some are so obsessed with the principle of equality that they do not see even chairman above this principle and they are not mindful of the possible outcomes regarding “order” and “stability” in the party. They take stability as “status quo” in every meaning and sense of the word. The others are jubilant winners of the “desert” and won’t mind slashing few heads out of PTI like Javed Hashmi. Who is right and who is just, the dilemma is in the court of the Kaptan, and it is yet to be seen whether he clean bolds the “justice” or strikes out the trouble shooters. His move will not decide the fate of PTI but the public reaction to that move. Whatever the case, the media is all set to play with the just narcissist egos again. In the last match the justice won and the judiciary lost as it failed to keep balance between order and liberty. Let’s wait keenly what hails now the bright sun of justice or the dark knight of egotism. I hope people can make right associations for the sake of liberty, equality and justice. The balance is in the hands of people of Pakistan and if they wish they can seek Adl.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Dispatch News Desk. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of Dispatch News Desk.
