Outside the Law: Where Cartels Rule

In the early days of Netflix in Pakistan, people watched popular TV series that focused on drug cartels like Pablo Escobar, such as Narcos, SicarioAnd Queen of the South. Due to the extreme corruption that permeates all government departments, including the police, people have developed questionable opinions about Mexico and Colombia. Because of the lawlessness and street crime in these countries, friends and family in the US have also been hesitant to travel there.

Well-known scholars, such as Francis Fukuyama in his “Political order and political decay“, Peter Andreas in “Smuggler Nation: How Illicit Trade Made America“David G. Cardenas in”The Rise and Fall of the Medellin Cartel“Carlos Castresana in”Cartels and State Collapse: The Political Economy of Organized Crime in Central America,” and Paul J. Smith in “The State and the Cartel: Political Influence and Organized Crime,“have thoroughly examined the circumstances under which a state loses its power to cartels, allowing these criminal organizations to take over. After reviewing their work, I was struck by the disturbing realization that we are on a similar trajectory to what we once associated with Colombia and Mexico.

The recent past of our cherished “Land of the Pure” is replete with examples where wealth and influence have effectively manipulated the state apparatus, leaving ordinary citizens like us feeling powerless and voiceless. We are often reminded that we are here only to serve those in power, as if we are insignificant beings with no role in the grand scheme of things. This sentiment is reminiscent of what our biology teachers might say, likening us to certain maggots with short memories, living in the moment and oblivious to the larger context. It is high time we recognize the importance of not only knowing the lineage, bloodline, and genealogy of our elites, but actually remembering them, so that we never forget who their ancestors are.

Fukuyama argues that the law consists of a set of rules of conduct that enjoy broad social consensus and bind even the most powerful political figures. He further argues that if these rules are manipulated to benefit the elite, the true essence of the rule of law is lost and the rule of law does not exist, regardless, even if it is applied to the general population.

Looking back at recent events, one cannot help but recall the controversial acquittal of a senior government official who ran over a traffic warden, Haji Attaullah, at GPO Chowk in Quetta in June 2017. Despite the overwhelming evidence captured on CCTV and shared widely on social media, the lack of “sufficient evidence” led to his acquittal. Similarly, the case of Shahrukh Jatoi, who was acquitted of Shahzeb’s murder in December 2012, was marked by its brazen display of triumphalism in the media. Now, with Natasha Danish’s murder case for reckless driving making headlines, her own gestures of triumph (Editor’s Note: An image of Natasha Danish circulating online, allegedly making victory signs outside the court, was an AI-generated image and not a real image. Also, the incident where she was seen waving victory signs outside the court never happened) sent a chilling message to all of us, how meaningless and powerless we are. And the family of the victims who decided to forgive Natasha and did not object to the bail application in court speaks volumes about the power of the powerful in our “Mumlikat-e-Khudadad“. These arrogant statements by Jatoi and others serve as a stark reminder of the injustices that continue to exist, leading many to question the integrity of our justice system.

My esteemed colleague raises a valid point regarding the academic tone of my writings, and I acknowledge this as a limitation on my part. I tend to view social issues, particularly social disorder, through the lens of insights offered by earlier scholars. Max Weber, a leading German sociologist and jurist, categorizes states into two main types: “Patrimonial states” and “Impersonal states.” In Patrimonial states, the government and its institutions are treated as personal assets, often managed by family and close associates. In contrast, an Impersonal state operates on the principles of skill and merit, ensuring that governance is based on objective criteria. Since its inception, our “Land of the Pure” has functioned primarily as a Patrimonial state, with only brief periods—such as the tenures of Prime Minister Junejo and the dictator, President Musharraf—offering glimpses of merit-based (sic) governance within the state.

The current circumstances remind me of the classical era in ancient Greece, a time when great thinkers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle wrestled with the pressing issues of law and order amid the complex political, social, and intellectual dilemmas of their day. The turbulent shifts in governance and the advent of democratic ideals led to profound reflections on how to organize society and maintain justice. Our current landscape mirrors that of pre-Renaissance Europe, marked by the fragmentation of centralized authority, the rise of feudalism, and the establishment of localized power structures where lords and elites exercised selective legal and judicial practices. However, as we enter the late Middle Ages, the church emerged as a major force for moral integrity. Francis Fukuyama argues that the foundations of the rule of law are intimately tied to religious influences, and serve as a check on even the most powerful political leaders. In Western Europe, the rule of law took hold largely due to the role played by the Roman Catholic Church in drafting legislation, as it was essential to the development of the state.

The murders of Haji Attaullah, Shahzeb Khan, Noor Mukadam and the recent tragedy of Natasha Danish forced me to revisit Fukuyama’s insights on the rule of law. As I delved into his analysis, I was in a whirlwind of emotions, torn between laughter and tears. Fukuyama argues that law consists of a set of rules of conduct that enjoy a broad social consensus and bind even the most powerful political figures. He further argues that if these rules are manipulated to benefit the elite, the true essence of the rule of law is lost and the rule of law does not exist, regardless, even when applied to the general population. To avoid such distortion, he advocates an independent judiciary that operates autonomously from the executive branch. If any reader can identify elements of this explanation of the rule of law within our current system, I urge you to enlighten me. It seems that we are in a situation where ‘rule of law’ is a more accurate description than the rule of law itself.

The intense public outcry surrounding this case reveals a growing dissatisfaction with a justice system that the general public feels has failed them. While the public struggles to navigate the complex legal system, the wealthy use their wealth to delay legal proceedings or settle out of court.

Natasha Danish exemplifies the disturbing reality of how the privileged elite in our society often escape justice through their wealth and influence. Allegedly under the influence of drugs, Danish allegedly ran over pedestrians, resulting in tragic deaths. What should be a straightforward case of reckless homicide is instead entangled in the inefficiencies of Pakistan’s legal framework, revealing the disturbing nexus between wealth, authority, and the justice system. This incident highlights the persistent problem of the elite evading accountability for serious crimes. In Pakistan, those with financial means and political connections can twist legal processes, from obtaining bail to avoiding prosecution altogether.

Such cases often involve strategies such as bribery, witness intimidation, and evidence manipulation, which pose significant obstacles to the administration of justice. Not only has the tragic case of Natasha Danish garnered attention for its tragic (but expected) ending, but it also serves as a reminder of the widespread problem of impunity enjoyed by the powerful. The intense public outcry surrounding this case reveals a growing dissatisfaction with a justice system that the general public feels is failing them. While the public struggles to navigate the complex legal system, the wealthy use their wealth to delay legal proceedings or settle out of court. This striking disparity reinforces the widespread belief that Pakistan has a dual justice system, with the rich escaping punishment and the poor suffering the worst consequences.

The Diyat clause, originally intended to provide compensation in cases of accidental loss of life, has become a loophole exploited by influential people to avoid legal consequences. Instead of being reserved for circumstances where omission rather than commission is the background, it is now used to pay compensation and the
perpetrators to move on with their lives, which shows an indifferent attitude towards the tragedy. The rich and powerful have found an easy way to avoid punishment for serious crimes such as murder. This abuse stems from the ability of influential individuals to manipulate the system with wealth and power. This situation reduces the deterrent capacity of the legal framework and fosters a culture of impunity among those with financial means. Such abuse highlights broader problems of class inequality and the shortcomings of the legal system in Pakistan, where the rich and influential often avoid consequences through monetary agreements, ultimately denying the families of victims the justice they deserve.

It is essential to understand the consequences of a compromised legal system in a society. The rule of law serves as the cornerstone of a fair and orderly society. In its absence, a state risks sliding into disorder, where criminal enterprises, cartels, and warlords operate unchecked. Such conditions breed corruption, violate human rights, and threaten the fabric of society and the foundations of the state. When a robust legal framework is absent, power dynamics shift in favor of the strong, resulting in instability, violence, and a decline in trust in public institutions. By upholding the rule of law, we promote accountability, equality, and the protection of individual rights.
which are crucial to the health and sustainability of the state.