"All ambitions are lawful except those which climb upwards on the miseries or credulities of mankind," said Joseph Conrad (1857-1924), a Polish-born English novelist. With restoration of the November 2 (2007) judiciary, the immediate ambition of the lawyers' movement has been met. But that is not the end of the story. In the wake of the restoration, the role of the lawyers has been transformed into one like an overseer who not only preserves the (independent) status of a system but also keeps on improving (reforming) the system. This two-pronged role - to preserve independence of the judiciary as well as to keep on reforming the institution of the judiciary - is a heavy responsibility lies on the shoulders of the lawyers' community. Retrospectively, existence of the subservient judiciary became possible owing to the fragility of the political institution: the political institution was feeble enough to bear the pressure of the military dictatorship. The politicians not only used to acquiesce into the exploits of the dictators into the political domain but they also used to keep on simultaneously looking towards the judiciary to rescue them. In this way, the political institution kept on shifting the pressure onto the shoulders of the judiciary and by so doing kept exonerating itself from any responsibility for thwarting the designs of the military incursions. The politicians presumed that they themselves had nothing to do but the judiciary would act as their saviour. On the other hand, the judiciary considered that it was not its job to ward off dictatorship - which always became possible owing to the frailty of the political institution. Evidently, one was shifting responsibility on the other. Consequently, both the political institution and the judiciary became victims of the military excesses: there emerged not only a breed of compliant politicians but also a subservient judiciary. Having been fed up of the meek approach of the politicians towards dictatorship, on March 09, 2007, finally the judiciary delineated its limits of suppleness. Thereafter began a show of defiance to the military dictatorship till the restoration was announced on March 16, 2009. In an ideal setting, the political institution should yearn and make room for independence of the judiciary. The politicians are represented and elected by the people but this is not the case with the judges. The politicians have to do legislation to frame the constitution; the judges have to interpret and follow the constitution. In short, the political institution should take functional precedence over the judiciary. In Pakistan's case, in the recent past, the lawyers stood up for independence of the judiciary; the politicians joined the movement to earn goodwill of the public and reap the ultimate benefit: riddance of the dictatorship - at least for the time being. Interestingly, in the immediate aftermath of departure of the dictator from the political arena, it was the political institution which, on one pretext or another, kept on denying much demanded independence of the judiciary. The question of how much functional space is available for the judiciary to reflect its independence is yet to come when the exact and hidden aspirations of the politicians will be translated into the forthcoming constitutional amendment. The political institution is emasculated when the issues of governance surface. Bad governance compels any ruling political regime to look ultimately towards the military to help maintain law and order. This aspect brings the military into the civil affairs and offers it a chance to get a toehold for the future. Secondly, bad governance undermines the credibility of the ruling political regime in the eyes of the masses who start looking towards the military for solutions of their everyday problems ranging from law and order maintenance to economic management. Resultantly, when the space is available, the military deem it fit to enjoy itself the position thrown up to them; the masses commonly welcome the entry of the military to control their lives. Since the triumphant close of the long march on March 15 - the day of deliverance - the country has again been descending into the circumstances depicting bad governance. Law and order is worsening as the time goes by. The police are being hit hard. The nature of the ongoing crisis of governance is bound to make the police to guard themselves first and the people later. On the one hand, the space around the police is shrinking while, on the other hand, opportunities to hit the civilians are mounting. The consequent parameter of governance has been dropped to gauge whether the security forces are protected or not - instead of whether the masses are protected or not. In other words, the people are fast being forsaken by the security forces and are being pushed out of the ambit of protection. Against that backdrop, the enfeeble state of the political system has again come to the fore. Without debating the consequences in Parliament, the incumbent government has accepted the $1.5 billion/year provision being offered by the US. The economic mismanagement in the past has brought the country to the point that it has to depend necessarily on the foreign economic support - call it aid or loans. Much discredit goes to the former banker turned economic expert, Shaukat Aziz, who tried to run the agro-economy of the country on the industrial economic pattern. Consequently, not only the industrial growth has been stunned but also the agriculture sector has reduced in efficiency so much so that inflation is raging in the food sector thereby snatching even wheat from the poor. If the consequent adverse effects do not crop up in the shape of looting and snatching what otherwise these should be. Poverty begets crime; the issue of governance arises again. If the judiciary has to control the prices of the food items, if the judiciary has to take notices of the flogging of the girl in Swat, if the judiciary has to address the law and order situation in the country, what job is left with the politicians sitting in Parliament. Surely, the scenario shows that the political system is too weak to meet the crisis of governance which can open the window of opportunity for the dictators to step in the political arena and bring the judiciary to its knees - once again, perhaps. Further, crisis of governance coupled with corrupt judiciary and inept politicians engenders dismay and insecurity in the hearts of the masses who in turn resort to dishonest practices to gain more economic benefits for their own protection in the rainy days. This vicious cycle can be broken if the judiciary not only purges its ranks from the corrupt judges but also resorts to judicial activism - the only panacea to meet the deficiency created by the weak political system and the resultant bad governance. This is only how the space for the interference of the military in the civil affairs can be shrunk and the military can be kept in the barracks, their rightful place. The writer is the ex-president of the Lahore High Court Bar Association E-mail: ahmadawais_adv@yahoo.com