HOPES that better sense would prevail have been dashed. Another effort is on the cards before the middle of next month after the last one failed when the government could not muster the requisite two-thirds support in the National Assembly and Senate to push through a targeting the judiciary. The amendment was aimed at clipping the superior judiciary’s wings, gaining more control over appointments to the superior courts, acquiring the power to transfer strong-minded judges from one high court to another and, last but not the least, authorising military court trials of civilians. Even the outcome of the challenges to military court verdicts were sought to be ‘managed’ at the appeals stage with an entirely executive-appointed constitutional court, which would also have become the final forum for the adjudication of all constitutional and fundamental rights issues. It is clear to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of politics in Pakistan who is meant by the ‘executive’ in the current context. And herein lies the rub. Most elections in Pakistan have seen a degree of tweaking by the security state. One can be sure that in the next attempt to push through the amendment, nothing will be left to chance. However, in last February’s elections, this ‘tweaking’ was of unprecedented proportions. Independent observers say that the establishment, elements of the superior judiciary and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) all played a role to ensure what Gen Zia once called a ‘positive result’ in the election. Yes, you don’t have to remind me that the 2018 elections were also tweaked: before, during and after voting day. But if you’ll argue that last February’s elections were no different than the one before that, I’d strongly disagree with you. The magnitude of the ‘tweaking’ is tangible in many constituencies on account of the inexplicable differences between the initial counts, leads from polling stations coming in real time, and the final result announced by the ECP officials. This, after jailing party leaders, cracking down on workers and denying a party its symbol. Whichever side of the political divide you found yourself on, this aspect was clear to you, even if you were hesitant to acknowledge it in case your allegiance and sympathies happened to be with the winning side and not with the out-of-favour political party. At the root of the charges of ‘rewriting of the Constitution’, levelled at some learned judges of the Supreme Court, is this very tweaking, which was so blatant that when elements of the superior judiciary tried to redress the situation, they were slammed as partisan. Some legal experts suggest that in strictly constitutional/ legal terms, they may have overstepped the line in giving relief, but what they did was meant to right the wrong and dispense ‘meaningful justice’. Of course, this would, and did, incur the wrath of the most powerful entity in the country. If you ask me, I was very ambivalent towards Imran Khan and his politics. There was never a question in my mind that he enjoyed mass support; in fact, the status of a cult leader who could do no wrong. At the same time, his decisions while in power demonstrated his scant regard for human rights, freedom of expression and a free media. He was authoritarian in his outlook. But now my ambivalence is gone, because his freedom and possible path back to office through the ballot box and rule of law is being blocked using tactics that could put to shame the way his own establishment backers handled the opponents of the hybrid set-up he headed as chief executive. Many in my tribe can blacken reams on the current constitutional breakdown and the travesty that is being perpetrated in the form of legislation every day, particularly by a parliament with questionable credibility, but it will change nothing. Just see how the sides are seen to be arrayed on each side. On one side are some judges of a split superior judiciary and the most popular political party in the country, whose jailed and persecuted leadership is unable for now to mobilise its fanatical support base into effective street power, which could potentially challenge the more entrenched and potent power player in the country. On the other side is the establishment and those who appear no more than its minions, whether in the executive or some other area, such as the ECP. With the failure of its earlier effort to have the amendment pushed through, one can be sure that in the next attempt, nothing will be left to chance and all ducks will be in a row to bulldoze it through. The numbers, most significantly without the JUI-F senators, don’t add up in the Senate at least, even if a sleight of hand can produce what is required in the National Assembly. But don’t be surprised if something is pulled out of a hat in the Upper House too. With the lawyers’ fraternity divided, as is the media, there will be few obstacles outside the two Houses. What then? Can we look forward to political stability and the promised economic boom? Will we have rule of law on the streets to replace murderous intolerance, where an accused is not left to the mercy of lynch mobs or, worse still, where the police don’t usurp the role of judge, jury and executioner? Will the scourge of terrorism that is claiming the lives of our finest security personnel and civilians just disappear? I wish you, I or anyone else could respond with a resounding ‘yes’. But, tragically, we all know the true answer. The issue is one of competence. Can the entities largely to blame for the mess we are in perform better with unbridled power, free of judicial scrutiny? Well, did it work in the past when we tried it? Oh no. I wouldn’t dare suggest we learn from our own experience. Because we don’t. So let’s complete another cycle of yet another such exercise. And if we still haven’t moved, and we won’t, we can try a different approach.