Lawyers Hit the Streets

We've been comparing the lawyers marching in Pakistan with the monks in Myanmar. I still think the sight of marching lawyers just seems wrong, but that's because it seems so improbable here in the US. Why hit the streets when you understand the rules of the game have inside access to its players?

A blog post at the New Republic asks the same question, but provides an answer. To be a lawyer is to work within the confines of the rule of law. When the rule of law is undermined, so is the legal profession.

Seldom has history witnessed hordes of lawyers taking to the streets. The author suggests that Musharaff has only himself to blame since he has had such a light touch as a dictator. He has allowed the legal system to operate, which allows the lawyers to communicate, organize, and act on their interests. I can imagine that the military dictators in Myanmar are shaking their heads at his incompetence.

A comment on the blog suspects that the protests are less about the actual fact of what Musharaff has done than the fact that shutting down the courts has taken away their business. The lawyers are simply attempting to ensure that they have jobs. The rule of law is good for business. The business sector would agree.

The Pakistan "Coup"

This doesn't fit the technical definition of a coup, though it is worth remembering that this is how Pakistani leader Pervez Mucharaff first came to power. Musharaff organized a second coup over the weekend, effectively arresting anyone he feels likely to interfere with him. He claims that this is necessary to preserve the "life and property of the citizens of Pakistan."

Historically, there is nothing unique in what he has done and his justification of it.

What did he do?

1-He suspended the Constitution.
2-Arrested the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then installed a successor.
3-Arrested a leading lawyer for the opposition.
4-He has delayed an election.
5-Arrested over 500 opposition leaders and journalists.

He used recent suicide bombings as one of his reasons justifying what he has done. It isn't unreasonable to wonder, from our perspective here in the US if we really want t full blown democracy in a country where fundamentalist Islamics have high levels of support and the country possesses a small handful of nuclear weapons. But is it beyond possibility that these bombings were orchestrated by Musharaff? There is precedence for this sort of thing.

There's nothing like a crisis to allow for a consolidation of power.

Before we get judgmental, can it happen here? Is there a scenario which you think could lead to a similar situation here?

How about this: Hillary Clinton seems to have been elected president over Giuliani, but just like in 2000 the results in one state are so close that a recount may be required. Then during the process another 9/11 type event occurs and the Bush administration declares a national emergency and claims that a shift in the presidency at that moment to Clinton would put the country in peril. They use military power to stay in the White House indefinitely and engineer a decision in the Supreme Court giving the election to Giuliani.

Impossible?