The political landscape in Pakistan has changed radically during the last two years. Amongst the many facets of this political transformation, two seem most consequential for the development of citizenship in the country. First, during the last two years, Pakistan has made a transition from military dictatorship to civilian governance based on relatively free and fair elections held in February 2008. Second, the judiciary in Pakistan at the end of 2009 is more independent than it has ever been in the country's history. In this paper, I argue that these two concurrent developments are the result of mobilization by the legal profession in Pakistan. In making this argument, I engage with the theoretical frameworks of the literatures on democratic transitions and political liberalism. I find that the recent political transition in Pakistan is better explained by the literature on political liberalism, which takes seriously the role played by the legal complex in moderating state power. For two reasons, however, the Pakistani case does not fit neatly within the analytical framework of the political liberalism approach, which provides an opportunity for theoretical refinement. First, the lawyers in Pakistan mobilized primarily in the streets for two years. Second, even though their struggle was focused on judicial autonomy, I argue that the Pakistani lawyers inadvertently spurred a democratic transition in the country. I conclude that intentionality does not predict the political consequences of mobilization. Even though the Pakistani lawyers mobilized for the narrow set of aims specified by the political liberalism approach, the intensity of their struggle had important externalities, which cannot be neglected when theorizing about the politics of the legal complex. Furthermore, the reinstated judiciary (post March 2009) is the most activist in the history of the country (as well as in the region), having passed judgments against excesses power by both the former military regime and the current civilian government. I argue that judicial activism in this period has enhanced the prospects for democratic governance, and was made possible through the enhanced legitimacy of the court following the two-year street movement in support of the rule of law.