By Barrister Usman Ali, Ph.D.
In Pakistan, no political victory is permanent, and no defeat is final. But what remains constant is the ruthless cycle of power and punishment, where justice bends and democracy bleeds.
The core problem in Pakistan’s political history is not just corruption or weak institutions. It is the long-standing tradition of bending the law to serve those in power. Once a party comes to power, state institutions are used not for justice, but as tools to suppress opponents. And when that same party loses power, those very institutions are seen as symbols of oppression.
This is the cycle our politics has been stuck in for decades: today’s victim becomes tomorrow’s ruler, and today’s ruler becomes tomorrow’s prisoner.
Right after the creation of Pakistan, laws were introduced to sideline and disqualify political opponents. These laws pushed aside regular courts and fair trials. During military rule, leaders were banned from elections for years through official orders, creating a tightly controlled political environment. Even during democratic periods, when conflicts intensified, cases were taken away from normal courts and handed over to special tribunals. In the name of national security, powers kept expanding while transparency steadily declined. As a result, in every era, “accountability” mostly targeted political opponents, strengthening the perception that accountability is just another name for political revenge.
Under military regimes, accountability openly turned into political oppression, General Zia’s public lashings of political workers and General Musharraf’s dismissal of judges being clear examples. The Constitution was suspended, the media was silenced, opponents were arrested, tortured, flogged, and even executed. Meanwhile, courts often remained silent or aligned with power. When democracy returned, people hoped for a new direction, but in the 1990s, governments continued weaponizing the legal system against one another, using slogans like “thief” and “traitor” to win votes, while state institutions became part of the political contest.
Later, accountability institutions such as the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) were given unchecked powers to investigate, arrest, and prosecute, further increasing political influence. Allies could get their cases dropped, while opponents were held in prolonged pre-trial detention. Deals and ordinances showed that accountability cases could also serve as bargaining chips. Even when those ordinances were struck down, the system remained largely unchanged.
In recent years, a new form of “judicial accountability” has emerged: joint investigation teams, selective constitutional interpretations that alter political balances, and legal actions that one side calls justice and the other, conspiracy. When power shifts, the same laws, same courts, and same prisons are used against new opponents. Election seasons bring internet blackouts, result delays, and mishandled result forms, all of which deepen public distrust. The handling of post-election petitions and cases often undermines normal judicial processes even further.
The judiciary has played a decisive, but often contradictory, role in this cycle. At times, courts legitimized unconstitutional acts under the “doctrine of necessity.” At other times, judges aligned themselves with new power centers by taking fresh oaths. Personal interests, political leanings, or expectations of promotions have visibly influenced judgments. The overuse of suo motu powers, non-transparent bench formation, and preferential scheduling of cases have seriously damaged perceptions of impartiality. Internal judicial accountability remains weak: ethical violations go largely unpunished, judges’ asset disclosures are either delayed or missing, and complaints are rarely addressed in a credible, independent manner. Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. That principle has been repeatedly undermined.
The media, too, is deeply entangled in this cycle. The influence of state advertising and corporate interests, the race for sensationalism, and the obsession with ratings have blurred the line between reporting and opinion. Carefully managed briefings and selective leaks shape public opinion, while dissenting voices are suppressed. Character assassination is presented as “analysis,” and terms like “envelope journalism” and “scripted news” have eroded trust in journalism.
Today, the system functions like this: vague disqualification clauses are applied selectively to suit political needs; politically sensitive cases are shifted from ordinary courts to special or even military tribunals; pre-trial detention drags on with repeated delays and weak prosecution, turning the legal process itself into punishment; inconsistent legal interpretations make outcomes unpredictable; and during elections, communication shutdowns and mishandled result forms tie the entire accountability process directly to the electoral one. The result is public disillusionment, societal polarization, and a politics that feels less like dialogue and more like survival.
But the way forward, though difficult, is clear.
First, Pakistan’s accountability structure must be reformed. Investigation and prosecution should be separated from NAB and handed to independent, non-partisan bodies. The appointment and removal of accountability heads must follow a transparent, non-renewable term system. NAB’s budget should be independently audited and made public. Corruption cases should be tried in regular courts. If special courts are necessary for civilians, they must be temporary, narrowly defined, and subject to judicial review. Legal procedures must be improved: charge sheets within 90 days, automatic bail if delayed, and full public disclosure of all arrest, bail, and trial orders, so that the process does not become the punishment.
Second, the judiciary must also be reformed. Bench formation and case assignments must follow transparent criteria. Judges should be required to disclose their assets annually. Violations of judicial ethics must be handled promptly, fairly, and independently. Major judgments should be detailed, well-reasoned, and published without delay. Judicial independence must be accompanied by judicial accountability to restore public trust.
Third, the media environment must be overhauled. Government advertising must be distributed based on clear, publicly available rules. A strict boundary must separate editorial decisions from business interests. Clear rules for correcting false reporting must be enforced. On social media, those spreading fake news must face non-political but effective consequences. Without institutional protection for independent journalism, truth weakens while spin dominates. This imbalance must be corrected.
Fourth, Pakistan needs a second Charter of Democracy, a binding political agreement. No party should use state institutions to suppress opponents. Rules around caretaker governments, transfers, and appointments must be transparent. No major political candidate should be arrested during election season unless clearly proven guilty of a serious crime. Internet shutdowns must be banned by law. Election result forms must be published promptly and openly. Public officials should be legally required to file annual asset declarations and real ownership disclosures. Ambiguous legal clauses that can shift meanings across political eras should be eliminated.
Justice must follow one standard, whether the person is powerful or weak, ruling or in opposition. The real question is not whether change is possible, but whether we are willing to end a cycle that has devoured generations. If we commit to that today, we can build a system where power changes hands, but principles stay firm and the law applies equally to all.
If we don’t, history will keep dragging us back into the same dead end, where every new turn is just another loop in the same old road, and every new slogan is just a fresh label on the same old thirst for power.
The decision is today’s. Tomorrow’s delay will always cost us more.
