THE Lawyers Movement of 20072009 is considered one of the most significant episodes of civic mobilisation in the country`s history.

What began as a dispute over the suspension of the chief justice of Pakistan evolved into a nationwide campaign to challenge Gen Musharraf`s rule The reinstatement of a handful of deposed judges was symbolic. Its true importance lay in restoring the Constitution, ending a decade of dictator-ship, facilitating the return to democratic governance, and reaffirming the principle that political authority must derive from the will of the peo-ple, rather than from unelected centres of power.

The conventional explanation given for the movement`s success focuses on lawyers, judges, and political parties. All three groups played a role, but this reasoning overlooks a fundamental factor: the movement`s ability to transform a constitutional dispute into a compelling national narrative.

Understanding why that happened explains why no comparable lawyers` movement exists today, despite continuing debates about constitutionalism, judicial independence, and the rule of law...

Contemporary Pakistan differs fundamentally from the environment that existed between 2007 and 2009.

The most obvious difference is the media landscape. During the movement, private television channels powerfully amplified dissent. The same channels that broadcast lengthy speeches against a sitting general and provided uninterrupted coverage of anti-establishment protests, are now widely perceived to operate within much narrower limits..

This matters because movements depend upon visibility. Without shared public exposure, grievances remain fragmented and rarely develop into collective causes...

The legal profession has also undergone profound change. The unity that once characterised the bar associations is no longer evident. Many observers argue that bar politics have become increasingly shaped by partisan affiliations and factional interests rather than sharedinstitutionalprinciples.

Over the past two decades, the establishment has also had consid-erably more opportunity to cultivate influence within a range of institutions, including segments of the legal profession.

Perhaps the most significant change lies within the bars themselves. It is no secret that many lawyers privately acl
Yet, these concerns have rarely translated into sustained institutional resistance. Instead, there appears to be a degree of resignation and in some quarters, tacit acceptance that this is now the prevailing constitutional order. The reality may be widely understood within the profession, but few institutional voices are prepared to challenge it publicly.

Cases involving lawyers such as Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha are frequently cited in this context.

The muted response from representative legal bodies manifests the difference between today and the collective activism displayed during the Lawyers`Movement.

There is another, perhaps more ironic, reason why the public is reluctant to place the same trust in judges and lawyers today. The success of the Movement raised immense public expectations that the restored judges and lawyers would fulfil their promise of male ing the Riyasar like a mother for its people. Regrettably, many believe those expectations were not met.

The judges and lawyers becamethe principal beneficiaries of a struggle sustained by the sacrifices of ordinary citizens. The ninety innocent lives lost during the movement were gradually forgotten, while the idealism of countless young lawyers was left frustrated.

Instead of using the opportunity to transform the justice system, particularly at the district level where ordinary citizens seek justice, the restored judiciary was widely perceived to have reverted to many of the same institutional practices that had existed before the movement.

Genuine reform, made possible by the extraordinary public support for the judiciary, never materialised. For the common citizen, little changed. That disappointment has inevitably weakened public trust in both judges and lawyers.

The Lawyers` Movement succeeded not simply because lawyers protested or judges were restored, but because it transformed judicial independence from an abstract legal issue into a compelling national story that millions of Pakistanis could identify with.

Today, nearly every condition which made that transformation possible has changed. The media no longer possesses the same freedom to amplify dissent, bar associations are more fragmented and increasingly shaped by partisan politics, collective institutional resistance has weakened, and political parties no longer provide a unified constitutional platform. Constitutional concerns remain, but the institutional and political ecosystem that once transformed those concerns into a nationwide movement no longer exists.

Throughout history, lasting constitutional transformation has beenbrought about by political leadership, rather than by judges or generals. The Movement was never merely about restoring a handful of judges to ofHce. Its larger purpose was the restoration of the Constitution, democracy, and the principle that the will of the people must prevail.

It was the political leadership not judges or lawyers that ultimately had to make the Constitution work in letter and spirit. For more than seven decades, Pakistan has witnessed repeated cycles in which political leaders aligned themselves with centres of power, celebrating when their opponents became victims, only to forget their own persecution when they later returned to office with the support of those very centres of power. In the end, it has always been the will of the people that has suffered.

The Lawyers` Movement succeeded because, at that historic moment, political leadership demonstrated the resolve to honour the Charter of Democracy. That spirit created the possibility of building a state that cared for every citizen, especially the weakest and most vulnerable.

The success of the Movement is too often measured by the restoration of the deposed judges rather than by its far greater achievement: ending nearly a decade of military rule and paving the way for the restoration of constitutional democracy through a freely elected parliament after the unprecedented mass mobilisation that culminated in the 2008 generalelections.

The reinstatement of the judges was largely symbolic. Ironically, the restored judges were later widelyperceived as contributing to the weakening of the very parliament that represented the movement`s greatest constitutional success.

That role, however, deserves separate discussion.

Today, the reality is widely recognised. Regrettably, political leaders who have sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution now openly talce pride in governance through a hybrid system rather than under the Constitution itself.

The greatest responsibility, therefore, rests with the political leadership because it has voluntarily assumed the duty of leading the nation.

What Pakistan needs today is not another Lawyers` Movement but the collective spirit that once united political leaders, judges, lawyers, journalists, the media, civil society, and ordinary citizens. It needs a movement to make the Riyasat a mother for every citizen, to breal< the shackles of elite capture, restore the supremacy of the Constitution, and ensure that the will of the people alone governs the country.

It is time for truth and reconciliation. The choice is clear: continue repeating the failures of the past, or finally learn from our mistakes, honour the constitutional promise made to the people, and build a state governed, in both letter and spirit, by the will of its actual stakeholders the people.

The author is a former judge of the Supreme Court. This item has been excerpted from a detailed article for P R JMI which can be accessed on Dawn.com