Suppressing human dissent

History is replete with examples of instances when dissenting opinions and voices in a country have been suppressed by the state through all means at its disposal. Sometimes use of force, utilizing all state resources at hand, has been done. The tolerance level of the state towards such people having such difference of opinion has been particularly low when authoritarian regimes were in existence. This is predominantly because authoritarian regimes neither ascribe nor believe in the fundamental rights of the people which includes a basic premise that everyone is born equal and is entitled to freedom to express his views. However, this does not bestow on that individual, or a segment of that society or a large proportion of the populace (if the regime is extremely unpopular) to resort to practices which are violent in nature or which disturb the rights of others. For example the protestors should not destroy or damage property or endanger the lives of others.

The democratic governments are more open to allowing such dissent to be observed. This so because there exists a dialectical opposition between rules of military or authoritarian organization and principles of governing a society through democratic system. One relies on command; the other on consensus. Changes of government by ballot create mechanisms for reform and modifications. In office, elected governments can be challenged and called to account by a responsible opposition, an alert press and a vigilant public. The judiciary as an organ of the state, amongst other important functions of dispensing justice, ensures that the mandate of the government is not abused and the government does not go beyond the point that its acts become unconstitutional and illegal. A balance between the power of the enormous power of the state and the citizens of a country is guaranteed by an independent judiciary which is composed of judges free from any coercion, duress or threat of removal. In Pakistan, the Constitution gives the judges as well as protects the fundamental rights of the people including the right to assemble and freedom of movement.

Unfortunately however, the legal fraternity of this country as well as members of the civil society, scholars, experts and the intelligentsia feels that in the present situation an imbalance of the very fundamentals of the whole system is disturbed and violated. To correct the judicial imbalance created by a power hungry General (r) Musharraf who had no regard for judicial and democratic systems and the rights arising therein, the lawyers’ movement, backed by all ‘democracy loving’ political parties launched a movement for the restoration of deposed judges who had for the first time committed themselves to provide people with protection of their rights as well as put an end to the usurpation of power by armed military dictators in future.

Today, we see a political party departing from its past promises to provide the people with such a judicial system which was promised to them, in a quest to maintain control over the judiciary, which is an impulsive wish for such breed of politicians who forget who they are, and whose mandate they exercise and have sworn to protect once they taste power. In the latest bid to mute the voices of people who stand for the protection of such a judicial system as well as demand an end to the undemocratic behavior of such a government which has until recently dislodged a provincial government (which also demanded the same principles (PML(N)))

Today, dissent is being equated to an act of treason and sedition. The long march planned by the lawyers is seen as a threat to the government itself when in fact it stands for a principle which would lengthen the lengths of such governments through ballots and many more to come in the future hopefully. What the protestors seek is nothing but the right to assemble and seek a rightful objective: the declaration of the coup of General (R) Musharraf on November 3, 2007 as unconstitutional and illegal and the natural corollary would be restoration of the judicial system as it stood before that day. Although the government has publicly decried on more than one occasion that the act was illegal and signed written agreements with PML(N) as well as promised to the nation that it will restore the status quo as it stood prior to that day, its acts defy all norms of sanity and good governance as well as negate the very concept of democratic system and balloting conducted on February 18, 2008.

Section 144 has been imposed in all major areas of Punjab as well as other parts of the country and all gatherings of five or more persons are prohibited. The purpose of dislodging of the Punjab government and imposition of Governor’s rule was designed to unfold these kind of restrictive measures to prevent the amassing of hundreds of thousands of protestors flocking to the Federal Capital and staging a sit in until Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is reinstated. The issue is being portrayed as a Punjab issue only and regional nationalism is being provoked at an unimaginable level which is not consistent with the image of the PPP as a federal party which has in the past strengthened the federation at all levels. Supreme Court Bar President Ali Ahmed Kurd has been disallowed from entering Sindh from Balochistan which is a meaningful step having damaging message and consequences for the future politics and political harmony.

Dissent, whenever suppressed, has had disastrous consequences and longlasting consequences. As an extreme example, it was seen how the killing of protesting students by the Chinese army around Tiananmen Square in 1989 sowed the seeds of permanent discord and hate for the Chinese amongst the Taiwanese. The government says that long marches are not welcome or part of the rights of the people when a Parliament exists to instigate debate over the relevant issues. This is a wrong perception. What then of the long march which Benazir Bhutto organized in 1992 against the government of Nawaz Sharif who was duly elected? What about the various long marches and protests we see in democratic countries of the West be that protest in England or New York against the decisions of the respective governments of Bush and Blair to go to war in Iraq? Did not history prove that the democratically elected President and Prime Minister of their respective countries were wrong? It is also stated that ‘dharnas’(sit-ins) are not welcome and undemocratic. How does one explain then the sit ins and protests by Greek students against the reforms in the education system introduced by the Education Ministry of the Greek government? The reforms would have required students to gain a degree within a fixed period of time whereas previously they could have pursued it indefinitely. This measure was in part also meant to implement an EU deadline to ensure common standards for all member countries’ education systems. If the Greek students could protest without any hindrances, as are being set up in Pakistan, against a move perceived to be a good one by most EU nations, can the lawyers and PML(N) and APDM not protest against a much broader issue which touches upon the vitalities of the state itself?! It is pertinent to mention that the killing of a student by the police led to much greater protests, riots and destruction by the students and Pakistani authorities must learn an example from this. It is only one instance which is cited in this case to remind the authorities that the suppression of dissent through administrative measures results in unrest, discord and glorification of the cause of the lawyers which can turn into something not intended either by the protesting parties or the administration itself.

Our history is replete with examples how third parties are allowed to intervene in such a scenario, when circumstances are seen to go outside the control of the politicians and a gap exists between the people and those who govern them. To suppress political dissent and disturb the mandate of a province is a prime example of a step in that direction. Just as the government is justifying all unconstitutional acts on the pretext of ‘necessity’ and ‘constitutional duty’ and ‘regrets’ over taking extreme measure to maintain ‘law and order’, the army has intervened in the past using similar phrases such as ‘intervention was necessary’ in the ‘national interest’ and to maintain ‘law and order’. Instead of either inviting the army ourselves as a stakeholder in a political arena and try to diffuse the situation (as General Kiani has already done so) or providing an opportunity to self-professed stakeholders in Pakistan who are from the Western hemisphere United States of which we have become a ‘proxy-state’ of late (the communications through U.S. ambassador, U.S. special envoy and U.K Foreign Secretary are shameful to say the least in that they demonstrate the inability of our leaders to express faith in their own person as peoples’ representative to take decisions affecting this sovereign country), we must resolve our internal situation in a graceful way ourselves. Benazir Bhutto, a great stateswoman and Mian Nawaz Sharif, a gifted nationalist leader signed the Charter of Democracy for this very time and for this very purpose that it contains the solution for all the conflicts and problems that we face today. We must go back to that and implement it if we want to save the fate of this country, respect the will of the people and establish ourselves as a sovereign and proud Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Dangerous times for Pakistan

The bold attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team and its convoy has large-scale repercussions for the strife and violence struck Pakistan. Previously known for its relative calm and peace, an attack in the heart of Punjab at Lahore has sent shockwaves to the habitants of the city as well as struck a huge blow to the image of Pakistan as a safe venue for foreign visitors. The planning and execution of the incident amplifies the resolve of the executors to tarnish the nation’s stability and image. When the Sri Lankan team took the field earlier this year in the first one-day, it had raised new hopes for restoration of cricket in this part of the world. Pakistan had fought its case hard before the International Cricket Council as well as before cricket boards of member countries that it was a safe venue for cricket and it was only upon the welcome response from the Sri Lankan Cricket Board and its players led by former captain and chairman of the board Arjuna Ranatunga that we finally saw a foreign team visit Pakistan.

It is obvious however that there were glaring security lapses which led to the breach in the ‘security cordon’ of the convoy of the Sri Lankan team and resulting in injuries to the players as well as loss of innocent lives. It is horrifying to note that we had promised the visitors ‘Presidential-level’ security and they took our word for it and as it has transpired the security was nowhere close to the promised level. Every prudent man amongst us realize what that level of security implies in this country and traffic and all kinds of vehicles and pedestrians are barred during the entire length of travel in such cases whereas no such protocols were observed by the Punjab government.

It is implausible that such a brazen ambush could take place at a plain and level terrain where no advantages such as cover was available to the terrorists and elite professionals who are trained to reach within seconds were caught by surprise and were dead before they could react. Even the bullet proof vests which are mandatory were not worn by the security cover which endangered the lives of these people as well as their guest Sri Lankan team.
Being not privy to any sort of investigation results, nothing can be said conclusively about the perpetrators except from the surrounding circumstances of the attack and its aftermath. The security forces (with due respect to the sacrifice of lives that they have offered) were unable and unwilling to respond to the situation despite having a headquarters stationed quite close to the crime scene and one could see the terrorists almost strolling by and riding off on the bikes without any hindrance. Even a passing police vehicle which could have easily intercepted them took no notice of the dangling weaponry that they were carrying while fleeing.
Perhaps the Punjab government, after the imposition of the Governor’s rule and the agitation that followed, was entangled in other unnecessary matters including the political crises in the province and forgot about its corresponding duties for the provision of security to the Sri Lankan cricket team. It is quite natural that having undergone tremendous reshuffling in the administrative and security personnel and deputation of fresh officers to high level posts in the Punjab government, the transition in command may have been an added advantage for the attackers who had perhaps taken this factor to their advantage.

Pakistan, which already faces intense political strife due to the disqualification of the popular Sharif brothers and imposition of Governor’s rule in the densely populated province of Punjab, has suffered a huge blow to its credibility and image in the international arena. It has been dubbed as a greater threat to international stability than Afghanistan by an American official and has been dubbed by some British newspapers as receding quickly into the list of countries which are declared failed states. India, taking advantage of the situation has dubbed the country as one which is fast becoming a failed one after the attack. Her Interior Minister, cognizant of the recent attacks as well as the political confrontation between the two major political parties in the region, has stated that one does not know whether Pakistan is controlled by the President, the government or the Army. The recent proclamation of Ordinance by the President and the subsequent withdrawal on the advice of the Prime Minister must have also been on his mind when he made such an allegation since it brought confusion in the affairs of the government and raised question marks over the influence of the President’s office in the functioning of the government as well as lack of coordination between the President and the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

Pakistan must seek the path of cohesion and national unity at this moment in time to respond strongly to such allegations and dispel such rumors as misperceptions. The government, having given its word on certain issues must provide solutions to the present political crises in the country and return Punjab to democratic rule. The PML (N) and the lawyers on the other hand, while having full rights to protest and demand for the restoration of the judges must do so peacefully and while demonstrating their resolve and determination over the issue must understand that the PPP is there to stay and any attempt to destabilize the government may harm the democratic and economic future of this country. The PPP has broken its promises but it must not pay for this through the destabilization of the entire democratic system. Let the stakeholders and the civil society show their resolve and determination for the reinstatement, but the PML(N) and the lawyers must understand that the PPP will not do it and has taken the decision not to reinstate Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. It must face the music in the next elections and the people would hold them accountable for their flawed policies and cheap methods of politics. The PPP must however restore democratic rule to Punjab if it itself believes that democracy should not be hijacked in the center. This should be an unconditional act and it is the right of the elected people to run the government through the elected provincial legislature and government. Any conditions attached to such return to democratic rule would be fatal to PPP’s interest and future politics.

Pakistan in chaos

It is a coincidence that whenever dictatorship has ended in Pakistan, Pakistan People’s Party has assumed power in a democratic system through the ballot. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did so following the resignation of General Yahya Khan, Benazir Bhutto following General Zia ul Haq’s disappearance from the scene in flames and Yousaf Raza Gillani following General Musharraf’s resignation amidst impeachment proceedings against him. It is a pity that all the dictators, save General Zia who died in the plane incident, none have been tried for breaching their constitutional duty to prevent a recurrence. Even more worrying is the fact that this time the PPP, which has strived to reduce the powers of the President’s office which has been used by dictators to exercise excessive powers contrary to the parliamentary form of the government, has sidelined the issue of repealing these powers after the February elections and even wanted to increase them through a constitutional provision. In the past, Zardari had promised to get rid of all excessive powers in his maiden address to the parliament but has unfortunately not directed PPP to move such a bill and has instead issued the first major controversial order using his powers.

The reluctance of PPP to reduce the powers is because its co-chairman, President Asif Ali Zardari stepped into President Musharraf’s shoes, thereby politicizing an office which in the ordinary course is supposed to be impartial since powers such as the emergency proclamation and Governor’s rule are available to the office holder and which have to be used as a last resort and not a purpose other than what it is intended for. It is being alleged today that it has been used to change the elected mandate of a province and President Zardari has brought credence to this allegation by announced that the next government in Punjab would be PPP-led..

Today, Governor’s rule has been enforced in Punjab through the emergency proclamation under Article 234 and the PML(N) led government has been rendered impotent, at least for the time being. Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer had predicted that the PPP would soon rule the province and soon thereafter Sharif brothers were declared ineligible by the Supreme Court of Pakistan the Governor rule was imposed. Surely, the verdict did not deprive the PML(N) of its ability to form the government and the purpose behind the Governor’s rule is self-speaking. The crucial event which led Zardari to press the button was the announcement by Nawaz Sharif that he would fully support the lawyers’ long march and ‘dharna’.

The months leading up to the imposition of the Governor’s rule are also important. Salmaan Taseer had been continuously sending letters to the Punjab Government and the President, expressing the inability of the Punjab Government to carry out the governance in accordance with the Constitution, without providing any logical and legal reasons. The PML(N) was thus not caught off guard however it had failed to neutralize this attempt and only until the very last minute contacts were established with the leaders of the PML(Q), who look intent to form the next government in the province with the PPP in the province.

Today, Pakistan stands on the brink of a showdown between the old arch rivals and already much protest and damage to property has taken place by angered PML(N) supporters as well as miscreants who seek to benefit from such agitations. The PML (N) has declared an all-out war and refused to talk to President Zardari. Although Prime Minister Gillani has regretted the decision of the Supreme Court and also pointed out that the review of the decision was still an option, perhaps it is too late for reconciliation on the issue and the Sharifs feel disillusioned, cheated and humiliated. It is hoped that efforts by parties like ANP and JUI(F) towards reconciliation bears fruit otherwise the future is not very bright for the country and the lawyers’ movement headed by the popular Pakistan Muslim League (N) as well as the movement of the PML(N) for restoration of democratic rule in Punjab will create mayhem in national politics as well as shake the powerhouse in Islamabad.

At the onset of movements, it is difficult to predict its success. At the next stage and beyond however, it cannot be stated for sure whether the outcome would be achieved or may perhaps be the same as envisaged by the movement leaders. When the PNA started a movement for fresh elections during Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s tenure, on the basis of allegations of rigging, nobody, including the slain premier knew that the agitation and mass protest in favour of fresh elections would eventually result in his judicial execution by a military dictator and a prolonged period of barbaric martial law would follow and fundamental and democratic rights would be taken away by Zia ul Haq. The Pakistan Peoples Party must ensure that being in power; it must discharge its responsibility for fulfilling its promises and returning the province of Punjab towards democratic rule and it must do so quickly. It must not follow in the footsteps of its founder Z A Bhutto and like him, take the desired steps towards reconciliation too late and sow the seeds of confrontation and another movement. For failure to do so will not only hurt its own interest, but of us all as Pakistanis.