The 'beyond reproach' elite

The question that bothers all humans is whether anyone of them can claim immunity. Unless we deny the cosmic reality- to err is human - none can claim having unquestionable wisdom and thus being beyond reproach. Yet, the law still grants this exalted status to individuals and institutions, and empowers them to punish those who question their immunity.
Granting immunity to any officeholder or institution amounts to accepting the sovereignty of that entity based on the assumption that that entity won't commit mistakes. But can that ever be true of any individual or institution? The fact is that immunity that blocks people's right to question status reflects the fear, not the wisdom of those enjoying it benefits.
I recall a remarkable article by Field Marshall Slim of the British army who fought the Japanese in WW-II. I read that article entitled "On courage" when I was in class X. That article, based on a variety of experiences, conclusively established that courage - the mother of all virtues - was imperative for accepting errors without losing confidence in one's abilities.
The author concluded that refusal to accept errors is prompted by two human weaknesses: foreknowledge or fear of eventual exposure of a flawed action, and being condemned for it. Sadly, these weaknesses have become the 'professional' kit of the deceptive characters who lead us. The rise of leaders with this flaw to the top lays bare the flaws of democracy.
In a democratic set-up ie government of the people, by the people, for the people, there simply is no room for immunity for anyone. Yet, in the constitutions of the make-believe democracies like ours, while this exalted status is granted to some state officeholders, some institutions insist that they too enjoy this cover and are thus beyond criticism, irrespective of the way they opt to act.
That this lethal flaw laid the foundations of bad governance was denied by every regime although Pakistan's miseries (including its break-up in 1971) owe themselves to this very flaw. Yet the top state officeholders as well as some powerful state institutions still refuse to accept their mistakes. Instead, they throttle criticism although this tyranny ultimately leads to disasters.
Without any doubt, the judiciary has an undeniable right to being respected by everyone. That said the logical route to gaining respect is the judiciary's conduct manifested by its verdicts, especially those that are likely to impact human conduct in general, not as much by the fear among its critics of being sued and prosecuted for contempt of court.
Pakistan was fortunate to have highly respected judges like Justices A.R. Cornelius, M.R. Kayani, and Hamood-ur-Rehman, but within the ranks of the judiciary were also the likes of Justices Munir Ahmad and Malik Abdul Qayyum. Besides this reality, a harsher reality is the conduct of the lower judiciary that continuously remains the subject of debate in the media.
The same is true of some former presidents and prime ministers who weren't held accountable for their errors and misconduct because the constitution grants them immunity. What is worth pondering over is whether the benefit of immunity helped in elevating men with conscience and integrity to these positions of authority, and did it serve the cause of improving Pakistan's image.
Although the mind-set that some institutions are sacred and therefore beyond reproach is questionable, over the years the singular distinction we earned by sticking to this mind-set was that we are visionless - the deniers of stark realities. Our favourite pastime is self-praise despite opting for suicidal strategies to resolve issues having a bearing on national unity and coherence.
For undermining national coherence, there is nothing more lethal than partial treatment of the communities that form the nation. Yet, that's what those claiming immunity sometimes resort to, using visibly flawed logic, and evidence that is un-defendable, but our power-intoxicated leadership believes that, despite its flaws, the masses have no option but to accept the logic it offers for its actions.
Today, the biggest challenge Pakistan faces is terrorism supported by elements both within and outside Pakistan. Confronting this challenge calls for national cohesion, but is that being done on a nation-wide basis? Isn't it true that some who bluntly faulted the armed forces weren't questioned over their outbursts while others are being punished for the same conduct?
Also, the fact that several powerful individuals with fairly well known records of mega crimes were able to exit Pakistan without being questioned, is strengthening the perception about partiality of the state organs - a trend that must be undone to restore people's confidence in the writ of the state. Had that confidence been high, would there be a need for the clean-up operation that is going on now?
It is extremely important that these unfortunate realities are not overlooked because otherwise things could only become worse, which is simply not in the interest of anyone. It would be a grave error not to accept the fact that, courtesy its conduct in resolving the basic issues facing the masses everywhere, the state is losing the confidence of the masses.
A seemingly partial attitude won't resolve the mess we are in, especially in Karachi. While everyone prays and hopes that Karachi doesn't get destabilised beyond retrieval, what is increasingly worrying is the fact that the perception about partial treatment could compound the mega crisis that is already being fuelled by virtually paralysing shortages of water and electricity.
Crime must be punished no matter who commits it, but it must not reflect shades of partiality. That's all that the saner elements in Pakistan's society have now been forced to demand - a demand that wouldn't have been raised if the state organs had carefully visualised the outcome of their "sanity and order-restoring" strategy that is being implemented now.
Merely believing that "I am impartial" isn't enough; what finally proves the "decider" is how my impartiality is perceived by the masses because on that depends success. Even the "tactically best" strategies fail unless they are perceived to be fair and impartial, and impose the same discipline on all and sundry. Surely, those who remember the sad events of 1971 know this reality.
It would be grossly imprudent not to realise the criticality of Karachi's peace and stability; downgrading this criticality would imply paralysing the whole country, given the fact that Karachi remains Pakistan's biggest city, industrial hub, and seaport. Better results in controlling crime can be achieved through dialogue focused on common national interest.