2. I should have been clearer. I don’t view the issue of provincial autonomy itself as a “goodie.” As a political offering, it is a goodie. The newly empowered provincial forces will apply the same level of lethargy to their provincial legislation as they do nationally. Provincial autonomy as a goody is about regional parties getting a bigger piece of the pie. Provincial autonomy as an issue is about more substantive things, such as more localized governance and representativeness.

3. I think it’s more accurate to say that the lawyers’ movement has been abandoned by the political left (ANP + PPP). And I think that should cause us to question their commitment to the rule of law and separation of powers. Also, I think the leadership of the lawyers’ movement has sought to control hard right elements in their midst. Aitzaz did not opt for a dharna in the last Long March in part because he realized that Jamiat and others simply wanted to create havock. The hard right is committed to the lawyers’ movement, because that’s all they have. But I don’t think the hard right is all that the lawyers have.

I have thought about whether the lawyers should aggressively speak out against the legal aspects of Talibanization. If they did so, I think that would facilitate the demise of their movement. They would be the targets of Taliban attacks. Subsequently, the PPP-led gov’t could restrict their public meetings under the pretense of defending the lawyers.

I think what they have been trying to do since the fall is to present the rule of law as a broad solution to Pakistan’s many problems — including poverty, social injustice, and terrorism. If you take a look at some of their recent meetings (and, specifically, CJ Iftikhar’s speech yesterday) they have been trying to address the issue of terrorism to some degree. They went to Dera Ghazi Khan, spoke against the recent suicide bombing, expressed their solidarity with the locals.

Also, Ali Ahmed Kurd also spoke about Balochistan and the injustices committed there. So I think the far-right aspect you emphasized is unfair. I appreciate the movement’s ethnic diversity.

FYI, during Iftikhar’s speech, I heard someone shout: “Naare-e Khilafah!” The man said it twice. No one replied.

1. you seem to be laying the entire blame of the dysfunctional judicial infrastructure in PATA, a problem that’s been over thirty years in the making at the feet of a government that’s only been in power for a year.

2. you are dismissing provincial autonomy as “goodies” — provinicial autonomy is arguably as important if not more important an issue as the restoration of Iftikhar Chaudhry.

3. I mean, I realize that your comparison is theoretical, but looking at things consequentially the lawyer’s movement has largely been co-opted by right-wing groups that really seem to have no problem the taliban establishing a parallel system in the NWFP and FATA. Surely your analysis needs to take that into account — oddly, no one seems to be concerned that the lawyer’s movement has become a pawn for right wing fascists.