The concept of rule of law is ill-conceived

The contempt of court against Yousuf Raza Gilani has proven, if there was ever any doubt, that the rule of law is nothing more than the contempt of the people. (We shall come to the alternative in a minute.) 

Take the complete picture to understand that Yousuf Raza Gilani can continue to rule us despite his conviction, while still remaining under the law.

 The Supreme Court issued a short order on April 26 and the full judgment 12 days later but does not restrain him from remaining in office until final judgment on his appeal. (No law says it should, although every order the Prime Minister issues now on as the Chief Executive will be of doubtful legality.)

 The full judgment goes to the Speaker and she does nothing (being within the law). After 30 days, the matter goes to the Chief Election Commissioner. You can’t blame him if he takes full three months to decide the matter.

 When the Chief Election Commissioner does, there will be an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court (under the law). The court may take a long time. (It took two years to note that its judgment on NRO case had not been implemented.)

Then count on Aitzaz Ahsan to get postponements (under the law). The contempt case took 20 hearings. In one case against Benazir Bhutto, he is said to have as many as 150 postponements to save her from conviction.

Asma Jahangir says the contempt case may take as long as a year and a half. (The law will take its course.) So, don’t be shocked if Gilani is still the Prime Minister when Parliament completes its term. Everything will be in accordance with the rule of law. Even if he had got imprisonment for full six months, he could still continue to work as Prime Minister from jail, as Aitzaz claims. After all, which law says he can’t?

Don’t make noise about morality. You want nothing but the rule of law and there is no law to enforce morality.

What is law to begin with? The Constitution does not require that Parliament should pass every law with a majority of its total members. Under Article 55, the National Assembly needs only “majority of the members present and voting” to pass a law, as long as at least one-fourth of the total members are there in the house (at least 86 out of 342). Only 51 per cent of them are needed to pass any law. In practical terms, whatever half of them (44) say is the law. And you want the entire country to obey whatever these few members decide?

Suppose 43 MNAs get together to pass a law to allow same-sex marriages? You will jump to protest that they cannot do it because Article 227 requires that “no law shall be enacted which is repugnant” to the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah.

Now, here lies the rub. You are saying that the provisions of the Holy Qura’n and Sunnah overrule all laws. In other words, you want the Islamic values to be superior to any law that goes against it.

Now, Islamic values do not allow the ruler to do anything improper. No immunity for anybody, however high. No misuse of public funds. No lickbacks, no bribes. No nepotism. No appointment against merit or in violation the rules. No permission for objectionable behavior by anyone. No ostentations life style. No obscenity or vulgarity on the media or in public.

Life is already quite difficult with ban on gambling and drinking. It will be unbearable with the enforcement of all these values. So, you will continue with “the rule of law,” however outrageous and absurd it may be.