Reading Inayatullahs article (Governance, PM Gilani in The Nation of 13/3), few would dispute the post mortem he has madeon hindsight. What we need is solutions, not passive descriptions of what ought to be. The basic issue is managing the change management. We might have an occasional burst of activity every now and then but no fundamental change is taking place. Having seen our judiciary (mercifully) achieve adulthood, we have started thinking it might be a panacea to right all the wrongs of the executive actions. But that is wrong. It just cannot set the sins of commission right. Good governance, on the other hand, is exercise of preventing these sins of omission. Unfortunately, our (?) Anglo-Saxon heritage of administrative accountability with due process of law and, then, law of evidence itself, comes into conflict with the prevention. An officer of even average experience and intelligence knows that our judicial administrative law is blind to the time frame and, therefore, not quite the emanating source of decision making with reference to the present. Hence the executive has no incentive to make a decision and there is never an evidence of wrong doing. That is not to say that our courts do not provide justice. Of course, they do but we are looking for ehtisan, i.e. equity linked to morality in the administrative processes. What will become of the Sialkot rape case (reported earlier) remains to be seen. What mental torture the hapless female will go through may have only just started. Would this state of affairs change by itself, short of a bloody revolution? Are there other ways of going across this high wall of coagulated concrete? Who will bell the cat? The Supreme Court is not suited to ensure that the interface between the judiciary and the executive be dissolved. It is like a permanent LOC. I think the lawyers community would have to pledge their efforts in this direction. They deal directly with the police, litigants and judiciary, all of them, during the course of their professional work. If the legal profession (the most powerful 'trade union in the country) is able to clean up their act somehow, much that is rotten in the state of Denmark would evaporate at once. Our legal profession should acquaint themselves with what happened in England several centuries ago when the equity courts took away cases from the common law courts. We need such an arrangement that was, mind you, also modified somewhat by the French (some say under influence of Islam) through which complaint courts (nazar fil mazalim, i.e. droit administratif) decisions were not subject to judicial review. Support for this can be gathered from a currently inoperative clause of our interim constitution of 1972. Article 216 lays the basis of such courts, which would have its levels of appeal, whose decisions would not be subject to judicial review. -MASOOD HASAN, Lahore, March 29.