.
The writer is pursuing his PhD in Criminology from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. He can be reached at znizamani@ualr.edu
Just like I spoke about the 26th constitutional amendment, the 27th constitutional amendment was inevitable. It was bound to happen and it will be here to stay. Like it or not. Cry me another river, will you?
I know everyone was prophesising about this issue and despising its occurrence but what is life without some alternate perspective? As bland as the spirit of those who believe they can bring about a change.
There is no change that we as citizens can bring about because we’ve benefitted off of the very same system. The only reason we despise its amends is that we will no longer be able to benefit from it. Not long ago we were filing suits and petitions after looking at the court’s judges’ roster, ensuring our favourite bench was available to take up our case for hearing. But when the parliamentarians do it, it’s unconstitutional all of a sudden? Now that is peak hypocrisy and it only proves my point. The point that we get what we deserve. Politicians immerse from the citizenry; they are a reflection of their people.
No amount of protest will deviate the parliament from doing what it has been directed to do. The people objecting to the amendment today are the same people who were teaching parliamentary supremacy back in the day. Well, the parliament is supreme, by hook or by crook. If you don’t like it, leave. If you can’t leave, quit throwing tantrums.
We weren’t hating on the system when we were engaging in ‘chamber hearings’, we weren’t complaining when our files were being shuffled by the staff so that our cases would be heard on a priority basis (nothing some goodies can’t handle) and we were certainly not complaining when our far (or near) relatives and friends were on the bench. Then why complain now?
Humans amuse me. They seldom care about what matters when they aren’t hurting their pockets but when the bucks start slipping, the alarm bells start ringing and now suddenly, it’s about justice and democracy and saving our system.
Gentleman, there’s no saving going on here. You tend to protect things which were functioning perfectly before, not things which have always been broken. The only difference now is, they won’t be operating to garner big bucks for you. We all knew these were mere rhetoric we sold to our clients, justice and fairness. We can’t sell that anymore so it makes sense why we’re so hesitant on this amendment.
But the amendment, like I said, was inevitable. File all the petitions you want.
Sometimes, people have to be ruled with fear, not morality. If you’ve ever read a non-academic book, you’d know that Machiavelli’s approach has always focused on means of control through power rather than traditional morality.
Rulers, under the Machiavellian school of thought, should learn from their past and ensure that they don’t suffer from the same mistakes in the future. If this does not explain unconditional immunity to you, go out and make a fool out of yourself on television.
As long as the rules prioritise practicality over morality, rulers will continue to remain in power.
According to Foucault, knowledge legitimises power structures. The power/knowledge phenomenon is apt in this situation. Our rules are smart enough to legitimise the framework which may have been considered not so legitimate a few years ago.
Nothing a war rhetoric can’t fix.
Even otherwise, we weren’t swimming in gold with the pre-amendment constitution, it wasn’t working anyway, god forbid a man becomes a little adventurous.
It’s the elite’s world they say, we’re merely living in it.
So, what if the amendment doesn’t work? Is it illegal to amend our constitution until we find the perfect balance?
Also, side note. Lawyers should not engage in state politics. They seem to violate the principle of separation of powers (can’t believe I said that) when they try hopping over.
Be in court, not on the streets (nor at a restaurant I can’t name here).
