IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/lawdev/v14y2021i1p105-127n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Strong Judiciary as a Crisis for Democracy: A ‘Law and Development’ Study from Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Azeem Muhammad

    (LUMS Law School, Lahore University of Management Sciences, LUMS University Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan)

Abstract

By the late 1990s, international financial institutions prescribed a ‘good governance’ paradigm that sought to empower the judiciary to curb ‘state capture’ by the corrupt political elites of developing countries. Good governance was supposed to act as a midwife to economic development, providing the ‘rule of law’ for the free market reforms of structural adjustment programs that had hitherto failed to provide much success. This article examines the implementation of ‘good governance’ in Pakistan, arguing that empowering the judiciary served to weaken an already weak legislature. The tangible issues of popular political representation and economic redistribution were displaced by the discourses on the control of corruption and the rule of law. Based on this experience, the article encourages a shift in law and developmental theorizing to focus on forms of legislature and democratic rule and a redefined role for the ‘civil society’ within this.

Suggested Citation

  • Azeem Muhammad, 2021. "A Strong Judiciary as a Crisis for Democracy: A ‘Law and Development’ Study from Pakistan," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 105-127, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:14:y:2021:i:1:p:105-127:n:3
    DOI: 10.1515/ldr-2020-0018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2020-0018
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ldr-2020-0018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:14:y:2021:i:1:p:105-127:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.