S justice to be delayed till such time that it becomes meaningless? At least that is the impression one gleans from the glacial pace at which the election tribunals set up after the 2024 general election have been discharging their duties.

According to a report issued earlier this week by the Free and Fair Election Network, two-thirds of all disputes pertaining to last year`s election remain undecided to this day. Though the legal deadline for the settlement of these disputes lapsed long ago, there still does not seem to be much urgency on the part of the tribunals. Neither, it seems, is there any interest in their activities. Meanwhile, in the 14 months since the election, the credibility and legitimacy of not only the federal government but parliament itself have repeatedly been brought into question. As a result, both stand largely diminished in the eyes of the public, unable to fulfil the roles for which they were created.

Who must one blame for this sorry state of affairs? It is not just the tribunals that are at fault. Unfortunately, the institutions entrusted with upholding and safeguarding Pakistan`s democratic process and constitutional order failed to fulfil their duties when the hour came. The consequences are gradually becoming evident. The disconnect between state policy and the public has, for example, most glaringly manifested itself in widespread protests in Sindh against new canals proposed to be built on the Indus. Though the project was formally shelved on Monday, the people`s distrust of the state refuses to abate, and some have vowed to continue agitating till they see the state yield completely to their demands. Elsewhere, the fracture between the state and citizenry has exposed vulnerabilities against external aggression and threats. Thus, whether those in power admit it or not, the 2024 election and its attendant crises continue to cast a long shadow over the state.

It goes without saying that Pakistan would have been in a much stronger position to confront its many challenges if the tribunals had done their job without fear or favour. But the Election Commission, the federal government, and other branches of the state made sure, through various decisions, actions and legislative interventions, that the country had little choice but to accept a governance set-up formed on the basis of poll results that have been widely questioned. One wonders how long they believe this arrangement can endure, especially with the state facing new challenges with each passing day. The public does not seem to have forgotten and the national mood is hardly conciliatory.

In the present circumstances, the tribunals could have played a constructive role by rebuilding public trust in the system.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be a priority for the state.