In my LLM study of Comparative Constitutional Law and Human Rights, I became increasingly interested in the relationship between the executive, legislature, and judiciary in general, and the executive and judiciary in particular. My research work will focus on the system of government of Britain, how successfully it works, the relationship between the institutions of the state, and how it constrains governmental power, which is crucial for maintaining the rule of law. I would be comparing it with the governmental system of Pakistan, where, though the constitution is codified, the system does not work. My paper will also consider and analyze the collective action of law students and lawyers for the implementation of the rule of law, a doctrine that is fundamental for democracy. This paper will also propose the mobilization of the legal community to counter violations of the law by the ruling elite. It shows how collective actions play a crucial role in implementing the rule of law. However, the efficiency of such collective action in a particular country depends on the institutional capacity of its legal association and on the position of the professional elite leading it. Civil unrest led to the occurrence of collective action against the President of Pakistan, who resigned following the protests on the dismissal of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry from his post as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. President Pervez Musharraf not only deposed Chaudhry but also declared martial law and dismissed additional high court judges. After a few months of confrontation, Musharraf resigned in August 2008 under the threat of impeachment.
The Lawyers’ Movement and Judicial Reinstatement
In March 2009, Chaudhry and other dismissed judges were reinstated [1]. There is no doubt that without the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law cannot exist.
Lessons from the British Constitutional Model
I have drawn inspiration from the British institutional and legal model, mainly because of being associated with teaching Public law for sixteen years. I have observed that the rule of law is an exhaustively interpreted doctrine that is constantly in conflict with parliamentary sovereignty, which is the cornerstone of the British constitution. After extensive learning, I am inspired by the manner in which the judiciary in Britain adequately manages the conflict to preserve the rule of law. I am inspired by the significant decision of the House of Lords in the GCHQ case (1985), a significant development in Public law where the exercise of prerogative powers was subject to judicial review, and by Lord Diplock’s classification of grounds of judicial review and Lord Roskill’s handy list of prerogatives that were unreviewable. The landmark decision maintained and preserved the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and the rule of law. I am also impressed, during the course of teaching Public law, by how the judiciary in the Thoburn decision created the hierarchy of statutes, upholding the basic concept of parliamentary sovereignty and at the same time respecting the supremacy of the EU.
Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Miller Decision
Moreover, recognizing that the uncodified, flexible British Constitution often provides no clear answer to many major constitutional questions is important. However, in a recent High Court judgment, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2016), on the constitutional significance of the EU referendum and the interpretative significance of the reception of Article 50 of the TEU, the Court implied, it seems, that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty can act as a trump on popular sovereignty. In real terms, this means that it could be constitutionally and legally permissible for parliament to refuse to trigger Article 50, the result of the referendum notwithstanding [2].
Judicial Independence and Constitutional Development
The remarkable role played by the judiciary in contributing to the development of the fundamental constitutional principles, evident in the cases, is a reflection of the independence of the judiciary, and its capacity to determine legal questions is imperative.
The Rule of Law as a Comparative Process
The rule of law, being a slippery slope concept, is a process that takes place in different countries at different paces and with different degrees of success. It is associated with changes in the economic and social structures and is often referred to by comparative lawyers as the ‘reception of foreign laws’; it may also involve the cross-fertilization of legal institutions, which is often aided by conscious efforts toward the harmonization and unification of rules and procedures in various areas of law [3].
Accountability and the Pakistani Democratic Context
Realizing all this, I still ponder over the so-called democracy prevailing in my part of the world, but we still have to see transparency and independence in our state institutions. Is the rule of law doctrine, in reality, an elusive concept that could be interpreted according to the whims of the rulers, or does it truly mean curbing the arbitrariness of the governmental power? I would like to understand, while researching, how the rule of law could be strengthened in Pakistan and what accountability mechanisms could be built to hold the rulers accountable.
Elite Control and Public Distrust
It is thus submitted that though there is an abundance of literature on the rule of law and the quality of democracy, research on these issues has not, so far, put the rule of law in the systematic context of Pakistan’s prevailing democracy. Unfortunately, the facts have been awfully otherwise. Law and its competitive authorities have always been the tool in the hands of political elites to subject the downtrodden and helpless proliferates of the nation, so much so that the general masses of the country do not trust the law and its enforcing agencies anymore.
Purpose of the Comparative Study
Against this backdrop, the present study, while focusing on the curbing of governmental power to achieve the rule of law, is a complementary contribution to the existing literature on the Pakistan case, as well as to the comparative literature in general.
Bibliography
Ahmed, Zahid Shahab, and Maria J. Stephan. 2010. “Fighting for the Rule of Law: Civil Resistance and the Lawyers’ Movement in Pakistan.” Democratization 17 (3): 492–513.
See generally, Konrad Zweigert and Hein Koltz, Introduction to Comparative Law, Vol. 1 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987).
Ahmed, Zahid Shahab, and Maria J. Stephan. 2010. “Fighting for the Rule of Law: Civil Resistance and the Lawyers’ Movement in Pakistan.” Democratization 17 (3): 492–513. ↑
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/11/07/critical-reflections-on-the-high-courts-judgment-in-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/ ↑
See generally, Konrad Zweigert and Hein Koltz, Introduction to Comparative Law, Vol. 1 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987). ↑
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
