Why does the law matter? The question seems simple, yet it cuts to the core of why human societies function the way they do.
The law matters because it represents a consensus, a collective promise between stakeholders who choose to put their commitments into writing so that their actions are guided, directed and constrained by an agreed framework. It provides certainty where chaos might otherwise prevail, offers guarantees where arbitrariness may dominate and builds safeguards that protect rights and interests.
Whether it takes the form of formal legislation passed by a parliament or a private agreement negotiated between individuals, the principles of law remain the same: to regulate conduct, to ensure fairness and to establish trust.
But what happens when drafting or enforcement is treated as a mere showpiece? When laws exist only in ink but not in spirit? In such circumstances, the very promise of law is broken and shattered. Law without integrity cannot fulfil its purpose. It degenerates into a set of empty rituals, unable to inspire confidence or unite communities. For law to matter, it must rest not only on procedure but also on sincerity.
This brings us to the deeper philosophical foundations of law. The basis of what we call fundamental rights is rooted in the tradition of natural law. Natural law suggests that certain objective moral principles exist that do not depend on political whims but on the very nature of human reason and the structure of the universe. Since Aristotle, thinkers have argued that human beings can discover these principles through reason and conscience. The idea is that governments do not confer rights such as dignity, liberty or equality, but merely recognise and codify them.
The critical question, then, is how these natural rights become enforceable in a modern state. In a republic, they find expression through a written constitution. Such a constitution may represent the will of the people, but it also serves as a moral compass guided by objective principles. By codifying rights, the constitution seeks to protect every citizen, even against the majority itself. In this sense, the written constitution becomes a bridge between natural law and positive law: it translates eternal principles into binding rules that can be applied in courts and institutions.
The function of a constitution, however, is not limited to codifying rights and principles of justice alone. It also aspires to secure rights through the administration of justice. The constitution is the source of governmental authority, distributing powers among the legislature, executive and judiciary. The reason for this division is simple yet profound: to prevent tyranny. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No 47, warned that “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Accordingly, the separation of powers makes rule of law possible.
In Pakistan, Article 4 of the constitution guarantees that it is an inalienable right of every citizen to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with the law. This article is so fundamental that it cannot be suspended even in emergencies. Fundamental rights, though sometimes curtailed in exceptional circumstances, remain rooted in this overarching principle of the rule of law. Attempts to subvert such principles are not only unconstitutional but amount to high treason under Article 6. In essence, the spirit of rule of law itself implies that citizens must enjoy equal and just protection before the law.
Yet, no written constitution, however meticulously drafted, can guarantee sincerity and integrity from the people. These qualities are essential pre-requisites for upholding rule of law as words are not self-executing; they rely on the commitment of those who apply them. Law, in the end, is not merely about rules but about faith and integrity. At its core, this distinction reinforces the timeless principle that societies must be governed by rule of law and not rule of men.
Rule of law demands that every individual, regardless of status, is subject to the same legal framework. By contrast, rule of men places authority in personalities, moods or arbitrary commands, which inevitably breeds favouritism and injustice. Rule of law restrains power with predictability and fairness, guaranteeing that no one stands above the system that safeguards collective rights.
Why does law matter, then? Because it holds the promise of justice and order. It matters because it balances freedom with responsibility and power with restraint. It matters because, without it, rights become vague, authority becomes unaccountable, and society descends into uncertainty. But above all, the law matters only when it is implemented with sincerity, good faith and integrity. Without these, even the most eloquent legal codes collapse under their own weight.
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.