ONCE AGAIN history is on repeat mode in Pakistan. The judiciary and the parliament are gearing up for another head-on collision. On July 23, the Supreme Court (SC) will again be hearing petitions challenging the contempt of court law which shields authority figures against contempt charges that was recently passed by the parliament.

And it’s quite likely that the Supreme Court will deem the law as illegitimate and possibly even declare it null and void. This is not the only open clash between the two institutions that will unfold over the coming days. On July 25, the new Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf will have to confirm to the SC his compliance with the court’s order to write the letter to the Swiss authorities for reopening corruption cases against President Asif Zardari.

These imminent developments portend nothing less than disaster for Pakistan’s political order. As the Supreme Court continues to be hell bent in meting out justice (some argue that it’s in a selective manner), it has failed to carefully assess Pakistan’s special situation. The truth is that skeletons abound in every institution’s closet; very few politicians, judges and military men in Pakistan can boast of a clean record sheet. While the military and the politicians have tainted reputations for toppling democracy and rampant corruption respectively, the judiciary, too, has been involved in corruption and collusion with military dictators in the past. These institutions have also repeatedly clashed and collided in the past, much to detriment of the country’s political and economic stability.

In an environment like Pakistan’s, democratization is contingent on pacts brokered amongst various stakeholders because they established trust between hitherto hostile parties. In Chile, when General Pinochet’s brutal military regime agreed to allow for political liberalisation in 1980, it elicited strong constitutional safeguards and guarantees from the civilians — one of which was legal immunity given to Pinochet. Only after of this deal was struck did the lengthy process of democratic transition begin in Chile.

The National Reconciliation Order 2007 (NRO) in Pakistan, which gave members of the Pakistan People Party immunity from criminal proceedings in court, was also a similar pact between General Pervez Musharraf and the civilian forces. If this civil-military deal had not been brokered, democratization could not have taken place in Pakistan. Theoretically, there shouldn’t be immunity for criminals in a democratic polity, but when authority figures don’t have a clean slate, exceptions have to be made.

Now that the Supreme Court of Pakistan has dealt heavy legal blows to the civilian order — by declaring the National Reconciliation Order illegal and convicting former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani — it has sown seeds for instability in the country. And as the judiciary and elected representatives get ready to lock horns once again, the only loser in the end will be democracy.