Friday, March 13, 2009

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.

No comments: