Governance failures must be linked to political responsibility, argues Vishal R Choradiya in a recent opinion piece. The author contends that the notion of 'apolitical' dissent often shields power from necessary scrutiny, particularly in the context of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP).
The Core Argument: Depoliticisation as a Shield
Choradiya asserts that the push for depoliticisation in judicial matters can inadvertently protect those in power from accountability. By framing dissent as apolitical, critics may avoid addressing the underlying political decisions that lead to governance failures. This dynamic, he argues, allows the executive to escape responsibility for its actions.
Impact on Judicial Independence
The article highlights how the CJP's role is often caught between legal impartiality and political pressures. When governance failures occur, attributing them solely to institutional weaknesses rather than political choices can undermine democratic oversight. According to Choradiya, this trend risks turning the judiciary into a passive observer rather than an active check on power.
Need for Political Accountability
The author calls for a rethinking of how dissent is framed in public discourse. Instead of depoliticising issues, he suggests that civil society and media should explicitly link governance failures to political responsibility. This would ensure that elected officials remain answerable to the public, strengthening democratic institutions.
Choradiya's piece concludes by urging a more robust engagement with politics in critiques of governance, warning that apolitical dissent ultimately serves the status quo.
