DAWN EDITORIAL Monday,1 June, 2020 by Usman

Resurgent militancy (Resurgent: rising again, revival)

A new rise of Militant Bloodshed in the country:

MILITANCY is again beginning to cast a shadow over parts of the country,
kindling fears of a return to the bad old days. On Eid, three people were shot dead
by masked assailants in an act of targeted killing in Mir Ali, North Waziristan.
Among the victims was an Islamabad-based senior bureaucrat visiting his native
village for the festival. Earlier this month, five people were gunned down in two
separate incidents in the same town. In Wana, South Waziristan, PTM leader Arif
Wazir was shot dead by unidentified assailants on May 2. Attacks on security
personnel are also becoming increasingly frequent. In April alone, 10 of them were
martyred in North Waziristan. In fact, 90pc of casualties in acts of violence during
April were recorded in this particular tribal district. Then, last Tuesday, two
policemen were murdered by unidentified gunmen in Islamabad.

Waziristan; Bloodbath Area since long time:

Much blood and treasure has been expended in fighting militancy, particularly
where the tribal districts are concerned. Its residents endured years of savagery at
the hands of violent extremists, plus the loss of livelihoods and displacement from
their homes during the military operation to eliminate the banned TTP. They have
been warning since several months that militants are trickling back into the area,
and the tenor of attacks indicate that these elements are beginning to acquire a
foothold in North Waziristan, the TTP’s old stomping grounds. A jirga held by
local youth in Mir Ali following the Eid murders accused the government of failing
to maintain the peace secured by the Zarb-i-Azb operation and demanded action
against growing incidents of targeted killing in the district. The state must swiftly
and sincerely engage with the residents, identify and prosecute the attackers, and
ensure that any resurgent militant cells are eradicated. Disenchantment with the
authorities can be a fertile ground for the seeds of militancy to be sown. That is
how the Pakistani Taliban entrenched themselves: they preyed on the people’s
legitimate, and unmet, desire for justice to impose on them their bloodthirsty
regime.

Apprehension Over Unnamed Militants?

Long-standing grievances in Balochistan too have fuelled several separatist
insurgencies in the province, and created conditions in which a slew of violent
extremist and criminal groups thrive. Earlier this month, six Frontier Corps
personnel were martyred when their vehicle was targeted by an IED near the Pak-
Iran border. Allegations that terrorist outfits on both sides slip across the border to
carry out attacks on each other’s soil have often bedevilled the countries’ bilateral
ties. Then, two weeks ago, six soldiers were martyred in an IED explosion claimed
by Baloch insurgents, while another laid down his life in an exchange of fire with
militants in a separate incident the same day. The uptick in violence during a year
when Pakistan is facing multifaceted challenges is very troubling. A sustainable
peace may call for a less security-centric and more people-centric approach.

Assailant: a person who physically attacks another.

Savagery: An act of cruelty; barbarity
Trickling back: a small group or number of people or things moving slowly:
Tenor: character; course, Methodology or speed
Entrenched:establish (a person or their authority) in a position of great strength or securit.
Bedeviled: of a person) torment or harass: he bedevilled them with petty practical jokes.
Lay down one's life: To sacrifice one's life (for someone or something); to die for purpose.
Uptick:( noun US )a small increase.
Multifaceted: Having many faces
Medicine policies
Discouraging Policy-making Of Pakistan:

A RECENT article in this paper has raised some important questions pertaining
to the pharma sector in Pakistan. Indeed, the authorities would do well to
reflect on our predicament — especially in the midst of the ongoing pandemic
— and point to the reasons why we are unable to produce even essential
medications. Why doesn’t the country produce raw materials used to
manufacture medicines? Why does it have to rely on the import of these
products? What will happen if the supply of raw materials and ingredients
needed to make lifesaving drugs faces sudden disruptions for one reason or
another? Since the outbreak of Covid-19, which has upset the global industrial
supply chain by compelling countries across the world to enforce partial to full
lockdown to stop the spread of the deadly infection, these questions take on
greater urgency. But perhaps the answer is not too difficult after all: in a
nutshell, the fault mainly lies with our policies that discourage manufacturing
and encourage imports.

What needs to be done about Pharma, challenges and solutions:

Pharma raw material manufacturing is a capital-intensive effort as it requires

acquisition and continuous upgradation of technology that is not available in the
country to produce quality products. Being a science-based industry, it also
requires substantial investment in research and continuous development of
products and technology. Additionally, it demands years of hard work, and
consistent, supportive government policies to become commercially viable.
Unless all these are in place, investors will always be looking towards the
government for subsidies, which is not a sustainable way of developing any
industry, least of all a highly sophisticated one like pharma. In recent decades,
India and China have emerged as two leading global suppliers of low-cost
pharma raw materials because their governments helped their respective
industries every step of the way. India, for example, has invested enormous
resources in research and development to bring its pharma industry to a point
where it can synthesise even high-end products using indigenous technology
and expertise. Although a couple of firms have invested in pharma raw material
production in Pakistan, despite the discouraging attitude of the drug regulator
and other government agencies, few investors consider it profitable business
given the costs involved and competition from Indian and Chinese suppliers.
Nevertheless, the country still has a chance to enter the pharma raw material
industry by encouraging the manufacture of plant-based products, especially for
the global pain management drugs market. That could be a start.

Pharma sector: . a company or org that makes and sells pharmaceuticals, drugs
Predicament: a difficult, unpleasant, or embarrassing situation
Capital-intenseve:(of a business or industrial) requiring the investment of large money.
Viable(adj): capable of working successfully; feasible.
Synthesise: combine (a number of things) into a coherent whole
high-end:[ ATTRIB. ] denoting the most expensive of a range of products.
Keeping history alive
Linking Public-Fun to Pandemic, Area most neglected.

MUSEUMS provide a window to the past, allowing visitors to understand and

interact with history. However, ever since the novel coronavirus dismantled the
world as we know it, museums and other cultural institutions have had to close
their doors to the public to play their part in controlling the rapid spread of the
virus and save lives. According to a Unesco report, approximately 90pc of
museums around the world have been closed indefinitely since the pandemic,
while 10pc may have to shut down permanently, depriving many people of
memorable, educational experiences, and others their sources of income.

Considering Pakistan Potential lead in tourism Sector:

Even though Pakistan inherited some of the world’s oldest civilisations, we

never truly developed a museum-going culture, perhaps not valuing our own
rich histories, or seeing the potential they held to attract tourists from around the
world. Despite this lack of interest, there are some interesting museums
scattered across the country that have welcomed people from all walks of life at
relatively low entrance costs. A report in the paper last week mentioned that
there are 46 museums in the country; out of these, 37 have now been closed. But
even the best among them did not pull large enough groups of local or
international tourists before the pandemic, when compared to other countries in
the region. So while we may not lose revenue in the same way tourist-friendly
nations are doing in these times, perhaps it is time to reflect on the importance
of museums and the preservation of history to promote a positive national
narrative.

Conclusion:

This government, in particular, has been keen to promote tourism in the country,
taking steps to that end like easing the arduous visa application process.
According to the Cultural Heritage and Museum Visits in Pakistan report by
Gallup Pakistan, tourist traffic at cultural sites increased by 317pc between 2014
and 2018. The pandemic has hit the global tourism industry hard, and local
museums are surely a part of it.

Museums:
a building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and
exhibited.

Dismantled:
verb [ with OBJ. ] ( often be dismantled ) take to pieces: the engines were dismantled a
nd the bits piled into a heap | figurative the old regime was dismantled.

Alla walks of life(idiom): from every profession, every cornor

Arduous: involving or requiring strenuous effort; difficult and tiring: an arduous journey.
DAWN OPINIONS

Navigating an unsettled world

Maleeha Lodhi

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.

TOPIC: Pakistan's Foreign Policy; Current challenges

1. Introduction

2. Four Key Areas which needs immediate attention;

✓ Navigating the US-China Confrontation

✓ Dealing with occupied Kashmir and managing relations with an

implacably hostile India

✓ Helping Afghanistan win the peace but also preparing for less
hopeful scenarios.

✓ Balancing relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

3. Afghanistan Issue and American Wwithdrawal

4. Conclusion
Introduction:

IN an unsettled world where strategic tensions between big powers are

mounting, Pakistan faces daunting foreign policy challenges in a turbulent
global and regional environment. The pandemic has injected greater volatility
into an international landscape already afflicted by threats to multilateralism,
trade and technology wars between big powers and attempts by regional powers
to reshape the rules of the game in their neighbourhood.

Understanding the dynamics of a world in disarray where unilateral actions and

rejection of international norms by big powers and populist leaders hold sway is
important as they have implications for the pursuit of Pakistan’s foreign policy.

Four Key Areas of Foreign Policy: Four key policy areas pose immediate
challenges and have to be simultaneously addressed: 1) Navigating the US-
China confrontation 2) Dealing with occupied Kashmir and managing relations
with an implacably hostile India 3) Helping Afghanistan win the peace but also
preparing for less hopeful scenarios 4) Balancing relations between Saudi
Arabia and Iran.

US-China Tension and their relationship with Pakistan, its applications

Rising tensions between the US and China have a direct bearing on Pakistan.
Even as Islamabad does not want this stand-off to affect its relations with either
of the two countries, that is easier said than done. What has been described as a
new cold war will intensify in a US election year when President Donald Trump
has made China-bashing a central plank of his re-election campaign. He is both
playing off a bipartisan political consensus and fortifying anti-China public
sentiment that preceded the pandemic and has been strengthened by it.

The pandemic has also reinforced US plans to reduce economic dependence on

China by reconfiguring or diversifying global supply chains and pursuing a
more overt contain-China policy. When this gets underway it may result in India
emerging as a stronger economic partner of Washington. This will also bolster
the longer-standing American strategy to project India as a strategic
counterweight to China especially as India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi
seems willing to play that role.

The implications for Pakistan of the US-India entente are already evident by
Washington’s tepid response on Kashmir and continuing augmentation of
India’s military and strategic capabilities. Thus, closer US-India relations will
confront Pakistan with a regional environment of greater strategic imbalance.

Concern about CPEC and China’s Belt and Road Initiative has prompted
frequent US criticism of these megaprojects. A White House report sent last
month to Congress is more explicit, asserting that BRI will give China “undue
political influence and military access”. Statements by American officials that
CPEC will impose a heavy debt burden on Islamabad represent unsubtle though
vain efforts to drive a wedge between Pakistan and China. While Islamabad will
want to avoid getting in the cross hairs of US-China friction it is obvious that
Pakistan’s strategic future lies with China. CPEC is emblematic of China’s aim
to strengthen Pakistan, economically and strategically, and must be our
overriding priority.

Pakistan’s relations with China remain on a positive trajectory but will need
regular reinforcement. Close consultation with Beijing on key global and
regional issues, including Afghanistan, will be important.

Ties with the US have improved, but lack substantive content. For now, the
main commonality is Afghanistan. That too will be tested in coming months
when hurdles are encountered in the fragile Afghan peace process. Nevertheless,
it is important to keep engagement on a positive track while accepting the limits
of the relationship.

Afghanistan: Taliban vs America, What should Pakistan do?

On Afghanistan, Pakistan should extend whatever assistance it can to the much-

delayed peace process, still facing a host of challenges. The recent Eid ceasefire
between the Taliban and Kabul and the accord between President Ashraf Ghani
and Abdullah Abdullah have however brightened prospects. What Pakistan’s
establishment must come to terms with is President Trump’s intention to pull
out US troops regardless of whether intra-Afghan talks advance or produce a
negotiated end to the war. The latest indications of this are the US military
withdrawal proceeding ahead of schedule and Trump’s reiteration that it was
time for Afghans “to police their own country”. Washington’s stance is unlikely
to change if Trump loses the November election to Joe Biden as they have
similar views on disentangling the US from its costly involvement in
Afghanistan.

Islamabad thus needs to think long term and prepare for different scenarios that
might emerge in Afghanistan keeping in view machinations by regional
countries acting as spoilers in Afghanistan’s peace effort.

India And Kashmir: What should be the Pakistan Stance.?

Pakistan’s most imposing challenge however will remain managing relations

with India where the Modi government is bent upon crushing the Kashmiri
resistance by unprecedented levels of repression and orchestrating anti-Muslim
sentiment and pogroms in India. Dialogue with Delhi is ruled out by its brutal
and illegal actions in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, where even medical
services have been denied during the pandemic, and India’s refusal to discuss
the issue. Aggressive moves by India on the Line of Control and covert actions
in Balochistan represent a toxic mix that have sent tensions soaring with
Pakistan. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s repeated warnings about a possible false
flag Indian operation underlines the growing danger.

Faced with this, Pakistan will have to avoid any engagement for the sake of
engagement with India unless Pakistan’s concerns are accommodated in future
talks. This is hard to see under Modi.

On Kashmir, Pakistan needs a strategic approach and a sustained diplomatic

campaign — not an on-off approach. Tweets are not a diplomatic strategy.
Noise is not a policy. A strategy for a changed global environment should
preserve our principled stance while mobilising international support for a
peaceful Kashmir settlement. This means pushing the boundaries at the
international level. For a start, a virtual meeting of OIC foreign ministers should
be sought, taking advantage of the rising concern among many OIC countries
about India’s anti-Muslim actions. Once the situation permits, Pakistan should
also seek a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council exclusively on occupied
Kashmir to refocus world attention on the egregious human rights violations
there.

Conclusion: Space limits detailed consideration of policy towards the Middle

East. Most importantly, Pakistan should deftly balance its relations between
Saudi Arabia and Iran, who remain locked in a tense stand-off, and stay the
course on a policy that avoids being drawn into their rivalry, however
challenging it may be given Pakistan’s increased financial reliance on Riyadh.
Gender inequalities
Huma Yusuf

They writer is a freelance journalist.

TOPIC:The Anti-feminist Pandemic; Its Misogynistic Social and

Economic Impact on Women in Pakistan.

Highlighting key areas how pandemic hit women in Pakistan

1. Introduction
2. Health Impact
3. Domestic Violence
4. Economic Impact
5. Misogynistic Approach
6. Job-Loss and Workforce anticipation
7. Gender Inequalities and Pay gap
8. What should Govt do, Solution.?
9. Conclusion
Introduction:

THE coronavirus pandemic is anti-feminist. This seems a strange statement

given that evidence suggests that men are worse affected by Covid-19. But in
terms of broader social and economic considerations, the pandemic globally is
expected to set women back decades. Pakistan’s deeply entrenched misogyny
means we’re unlikely to do enough, if anything at all, to stop this backward
slide.

Health Impact on Women:

The pandemic affects women at multiple levels, starting with significant health
impacts. Health workers — 70 per cent of whom worldwide are women — are
among the most vulnerable to being infected by Covid-19. But the health toll for
women extends beyond the coronavirus itself. Previous health crises, such as the
Ebola epidemic, have shown that resources are typically diverted to lifesaving
health measures from women’s health and reproductive services. The UN has
already highlighted that Covid-19 will disrupt its programmes providing family
planning support and countering female genital mutilation and child marriage,
resulting in millions of unwanted pregnancies, higher maternal mortality rates
for years to come, and millions more girls being cut.

Domestic Violence:

The Covid-19 crisis has also put the spotlight on the frequency and intensity of
domestic violence around the world — the UN Population Fund in April
estimated a 20pc increase in violence during a three-month lockdown period.
One can only imagine how much higher this figure would be if accounting for
permissive societal attitudes towards domestic violence in countries like
Pakistan.

Economic Impact on Women, Details:

The immediate effect of the virus on women will be in terms of workforce

participation. Societal expectations globally means women will be likelier to
give up or be fired from jobs as they take on additional caring responsibilities
for out-of-school children, the elderly and sick along with mounting housework.
Sadly, in patriarchal societies such as ours, this trend will not even be perceived
as problematic.

There are sad reminders of how deeply rooted misogyny is.

It doesn’t help that women’s current positioning within the global economy will
force them to opt out faster than men. The ILO reports that globally women
represent 40pc of total employment, but make up 57pc of the cadre of part-time
workers; 69pc of low earners are women. In South Asia, over 80pc of women
who don’t work in agriculture are in informal employment, including domestic
work and piece-rate manufacturing jobs. These are the workers most likely to
lose their jobs and fail to qualify for government job protection schemes.

Women in formal employment also dominate in sectors worst-hit by the

pandemic: air travel, tourism, retail, hospitality, catering. Citigroup last month
estimated that globally, 220 million women are in sectors vulnerable to massive
job cuts.

This does not mean that women’s economic contribution is expendable.

Citigroup has also estimated $1 trillion could be lost from global growth as a
result of women falling out of the workforce. The cost will be palpable in places
like Pakistan, where the labour underutilisation rate for women pre-pandemic
was already as high as 80pc, and where the IMF has estimated GDP would
increase by one-third if women’s labour participation equalled that of men.

The world — especially emerging economies like Pakistan — cannot afford the
inevitable gender inequalities and pay gap that will result from this pandemic.
That’s why development agencies are urging governments to take a gender-
sensitive approach to managing the pandemic and its economic consequences.
This means focusing on saving jobs in the health, education and hospitality
sectors (that employ women) and not only in male-intensive sectors such as
construction.

Govt Responsibility:

Governments are also being asked to extend support to informal, part-time and
seasonal workers, who are mostly women, and revisit maternity, flexible
working, and sick pay policies, which could help retain women in employment.

This is asking a lot in a country where the prime minister recently sat silently by
while a cleric blamed immodest women for causing the pandemic by eliciting
God’s wrath. Or where in March the Aurat March was accused of obscenity. Or
where parliamentarians routinely use sexist and threatening language to address
their peers.

Closing Para:

Two social media scandals this week have been sad reminders of how deep-
seated Pakistani misogyny is. One especially disgusting meme suggests that a
property tycoon will give a model who has filed harassment charges against his
daughters a plot in a residential development — the accompanying image is that
of a grave. Another Twitter firestorm depicts rape as a punishment for
adulterous women. Such casual references to gender-based homicide and sexual
violence seem acceptable in our public sphere, and indicate the low stature of
women in our society. The socioeconomic ravages of the pandemic layered over
entrenched patriarchy threaten to designate women as a permanent under-class.
Will our government take action to prevent this?
Responsibility and norms

The writer teaches politics and sociology at Lums.

OVER the past few weeks, healthcare professionals and establishments have
come under severe pressure, and in a few cases, actual harm, from relatives and
associates of deceased Covid-19 patients. Recently, a hospital in Karachi
witnessed significant damage by a crowd of 70 enraged people. What stood out
was their insistence that the virus is actually ‘nothing’, implicitly suggesting that
the doctors and the hospital were to blame for the tragic outcome.

Reactions to such episodes of ‘lawlessness’ often end up blaming the public at

large. Commonplace analysis, which in its entirety expects and ascribes full
agency to every actor, will usually result in such conclusions. ‘Why is our
public so emotional/uneducated/lacking in discipline’ becomes a commonly
held sentiment, especially for those who prefer to distinguish themselves from
the rest of the population on the basis of their credentials and common sense.

Unfortunately, this sentiment is quite misplaced; doubly so in the midst of

uncertainty and tragedy.

To clarify before proceeding further, this is not to suggest that those rampaging
in emergency wards are somehow free from any blame. To argue so would also
be an analytical and moral disservice. People need to be held accountable for
their actions and their reliance on conspiratorial crutches, especially if they have
every opportunity to know better.

When observers posit that the Pakistani population is not equipped to

follow SOPs, what are they alluding to?

Yet what we saw in these hospital wards is not particularly distinct from the
general attitude of the public towards the pandemic as a whole. What we need to
question is whether this attitude is somehow unique to Pakistan’s urban masses?
When observers posit that the Pakistani population is not equipped to follow
SOPs or is too ill-disciplined to maintain isolation and distancing requirements,
what exactly are they alluding to? These questions need to be answered because
they carry policy relevance for the fight against the pandemic in the long run.

The least valid premise (and yet unfortunately a very common refrain) is the one
that echoes some essentialism, either biological, geographic, or cultural. In this
line of argumentation, Pakistanis are somehow uniquely — sometimes said to
be genetically — disposed to flouting laws and regulations. This is obviously
not true, given how the same individuals behave very differently in a range of
similar or different circumstances. There’s nothing unique to the climate or the
genetics of this place that make SOP adherence less likely.

A more valid line of inquiry would be to look at patterns of mass socialisation

and individual responses to existing incentive structures. People’s ingrained
responses to particular settings — whether they adhere to rules, their risk
assessments, what they consider valid or invalid in any given situation — is
embedded through lifelong learning practices. People learn different ‘codes’ to
engage with different situations, often from households, schools, extended kin
networks, workplaces, and mass socialisation instruments like news and social
media. This is true all over the world and it is as true in Pakistan.

Once ingrained dispositions are in place, they are reproduced or curtailed based
on existing external incentive structures. For example, someone has the urge to
cross a red light, but fear of reprisal limits their desire to act on that impulse. Or,
conversely, socialisation induces mistrust of a particular act, but the offer of a
pecuniary or non-material incentive lets someone move past their hesitation.

Socialisation and incentivisation rarely happens so neatly or automatically, but

the broader model to explain variation in social action remains valid. There is
thus no reason to think that it cannot help us understand why Pakistanis are
reacting to the virus the way they are.

What is particularly deserving of our attention, especially from a policy

perspective, is that both socialisation and the development of incentive
structures that penalise or reward particular behaviour are at least partially
shaped by one particular set of institutions — the state. The state is the only
organisation or entity large and resourceful enough to reach most households in
the country. It is also the only one that carries the moral-legal authority to do so.
It can direct communication, it can shape messaging, it can coerce and cajole
individuals. Not every state has an equal amount of capacity for such purposes,
but if a state survives and reproduces itself, it surely has some capacity for each
of these tasks.

What this framework throws light on is the Pakistani state’s unreasonable

expectations from the public at large, without any adequate use of its resources
to actualise those expectations. In a recent piece written for dawn.com, public
health technologist Saba Gul highlighted the government’s failure on the
communication and demonstration front, which lies at the heart of the broader
mess of social action that the country finds itself in. Senior bureaucrats and
elected representatives from all parties have routinely flouted distancing rules,
appeared in public wearing masks as chin straps, and made ludicrous claims
about the trivial nature of the virus itself. These are not irrelevant acts in a
country that consumes politics and current affairs as a visual and acoustic good.

In an assessment of ascribing responsibility for this flippancy, it is hard to move

past the prime minister himself. The country was accorded sufficient time to
direct an effective communication campaign that could both socialise and
incentivise people to adhere to particular regulations. It was accorded a prime
minister who enjoys significant public approval, is seen as a moral role model
by sections of the public, and was quick to voice his concern for public welfare.

Yet it ended up with muddled messaging, fatalism and conspiracy, and a skewed
conversation around the economic consequences of lockdowns, with actual
public health measures and norms cast aside. With government indifference,
cases, and deaths escalating in tandem, it is hard to apportion too much of the
blame on the people themselves.
Why intervene?

Saad Amir
RECENT interventions made by the Supreme Court in pandemic-related
government policy offer a glimpse into the court’s understanding of its role in
these times; one it may be drawing from a past that does not call for re-
enactment.
On May 18, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court hearing a suo motu
case on measures taken to deal with the coronavirus crisis directed the Sindh
government to seek approval for the opening of shopping malls in the province,
and proceeded to set aside the decision to enforce a countrywide lockdown of
shops, markets and businesses on weekends, as being unconstitutional.
These interventions, which reinforce the centre-led push to ease the lockdown,
drew a mixed response, heavily skewed along party lines. But when all is said
and done, the interventions are of an incremental and circumspect nature,
especially when compared with those that the court had sought to make in April,
including a push to open OPD wards in hospitals across the country. As pointed
out by the bench on May 19, neither small markets nor the large malls were
being opened on account of the court’s orders, the decisions to do so having
already been reached by the various governments.
But if the order of May 18 is to be viewed as a light-touch intervention, or
simply as a rationalisation of policy across the country, it begs the question:
‘Why intervene at all?’ Has the threshold of “questions of public importance
with reference to the enforcement of the fundamental rights” been watered-
down to such an extent that it now accommodates one’s individual right to
indulge in weekend leisure activity at a mall, in the midst of a global pandemic?
Or is it simply naïve to think that the textual underpinnings of the court’s suo
motu powers have more weight than the paper on which they are printed?
Suo motu interventions have altered perceptions of the judiciary.
Or might these tepid yet highly visible interventions be early signs of the latest
iteration of a court which has since the days of Iftikhar Chaudhry shaken off its
traditional moorings and set off in search of wrongs that it may right; no matter
how seemingly inconsequential they may be, even in the court’s own eyes?
To elaborate, the Supreme Court’s suo motu interventions have over time
altered public perceptions of the judicial branch, and its sources of legitimacy.
The very act of choosing what to take suo motu notice of can be viewed as an
expression of interest; which has implications for an institution historically
perceived as a disinterested dispenser of justice. Though the predilections of
individual chief justices may shape the manner and frequency of the use of suo
motu powers, it would appear that meeting the public’s gaze and expectations
has helped cast the superior judiciary in a new irresistible mould: the judge as
saviour and protector of the masses from the ‘mess and menace of politics’.
Though the court’s past forays into a form of inquisitorial justice have by and
large met with popular approval, overexposure to the fickle world of public
opinion, aside from guaranteeing diminishing returns, has the potential of
undercutting the traditional roots of judicial power within our democratic order.
While the recent interventions may fit neatly into the centre-led push for a
loosening of restrictions — shielding them from criticism or even eliciting
plaudits from some quarters — they disclose an alarming misconception as to
what the court’s role ought to be in such times. Democratic constitutions,
including our own, envisage a distribution of power and division of labour
amongst the several branches of government, with checks and balances meant to
shield each branch from the invasive tendencies of the others; but without
threatening the overarching goal of the Constitution: integrating these branches
into a workable government. In some contexts, this will play out in a
supervisory manner where the aim is to check and hold the other to account. At
other times, the branches will engage cooperatively to support each other’s role
in the joint endeavour.
It goes without saying that the current context screams out for the latter
approach. It calls for a respect for inter-institutional jurisdiction and an
understanding of where and when the other institutions (both federal and
provincial) are better placed to make a decision or carry out a task.
Suo motu notices (by their very nature) are not taken out of such respect; and
non-technical interventions, no matter how well-meaning, will not aid in
formulating an effective response to the ongoing crisis. In the worst-case
scenario, they may put the lives of health professionals and the general public at
risk. On all counts, they undermine the enterprise of democratic government
which our Constitution enjoins the organs of the state to assist one another in
undertaking.
In these times, the Supreme Court might do well to direct its probing gaze
inward and consider structuring its more discretionary powers; and wielding
them with greater restraint.