A report appearing in yesterday’s newspapers about the Senate proceedings details the accusations of a newly elected PPP Senator on the Supreme Court of inciting the Opposition to create conditions of “anarchy and bloodshed in the country”. Senator Mukhtiar Ahmed Damrah was referring to the court’s observation on the walkout by the PML-N from the National Assembly during the debate about the contempt of court legislation. The SC had, while hearing the contempt case, remarked that the electorate expected the MPs to take part in the debate rather than stage a walkout. Senator Farhatullah Babar, on a less strident note, felt that the court’s allusion to failure on the part of a section of Parliament to perform its duty was tantamount to undermining the prestige of the Parliament. Meanwhile, PML-N Opposition leader Choudhry Nisar took no kinder view of the court’s observations, labelling them “disappointing, unfair, unjust and beyond comprehension”, going so far as to demand that the court “review” its remarks and that “such sweeping and one-sided statements do not strengthen the dignity of the Supreme Court nor do they ensure fairness and justice in an environment where justice is the need of the hour.”The Supreme Court, outlining the parliamentarians’ obligations, on one hand insisted that the Opposition should have more forcefully opposed the contempt act, while pointing to the Pandora’s Box of immunity from contempt if certain individuals were granted the immunity that the new law intended to do. The court felt that the whole exercise to enact the legislation was designed to protect a certain individual. Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry rightly pointed out that a general demand for immunity from defiance of court orders that would follow would bring the system to a standstill; the judgments would be worth no more than “mere paper”. Thus, the rationale of the new law on contempt comes into question.It bears repeating that questioning the jurisdiction of the highest court in the land in matters clearly assigned to it under the Constitution is unheard of in systems that stake claim to be called democratic anywhere in the world. In our own history there has been no parallel to the attitude of the present government – and now to add to their ranks, the Opposition, since they too have earned the ire of the court’s critique. The court’s interests must not be seen as anything other than trying to encourage the very best of Parliamentary principles in a country which firmly believes that democracy is the future of government. Those in the assemblies, on both sides of the aisle, must desist from self-pity every time they are criticized by the court and instead realize that there is only more of this criticism to come in the following months and years, from all quarters fully in favour of democracy. A democratic Pakistan is only the beginning; we must now perform as a functioning democracy, not just by name, but by results. And there will be no escape from the people and the courts of Pakistan asking its elected representatives to do a better job of fulfilling their responsibilities than they are at the moment.