ANALYSIS: Idioms and methods of politics —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

Political parties do not appear to be interested in using their influence to defuse the agitations on electricity and in Hazara. Perhaps they think that such protests and agitation will discredit the federal government

The unanimous approval of the 18th constitutional amendment by the Senate is the most positive development in Pakistan’s recent history, as it improves the prospects of democracy. However, democracy faces extra-parliamentary threats that the political leaders will have to address by overcoming the weaknesses in the democratic process.

The major weakness of democracy is that it can be destroyed by divorcing its principles and freedoms from their spirit and using them to pursue narrow, partisan and dubious agendas. This happens when politically active circles and others invoke democratic principles and freedoms for engaging in free-for-all street agitation and resort to violence. The democratic right to dissent and protest is stretched to defy lawful authority and to create virtual anarchy. These people and groups talk of their rights without recognising that every right has a corresponding duty that must be fulfilled if democracy is to stabilise and solve socio-economic problems.

Violence and non-democratic methods undermine the very principles and freedoms that are invoked by political groups to engage in violent activities. Democracy recognises dissent and protest but this cannot be turned into a license to use brute force by organised groups and the state. Democracy calls for respecting the decision of the predominant majority and, if the minority continues to feel aggrieved, they need to adopt democratic and constitutional means.

Pakistan has experienced two types of protest over the last couple of weeks, reflecting a poor understanding of democracy on the part of political and societal leaders who hardly realise that their political conduct goes a long way in determining the future of democracy and civilian institutions in Pakistan.

Several Pakistani cities have witnessed violent protests on the frequent suspension of electric power. These protests are spearheaded by the business and trading communities that feel the fortunes of their businesses being adversely affected by this problem. Middle level industry has also joined them. These protests appeared to be more menacing on one Friday when the leaders mobilised the people who came to different mosques to offer their Friday prayers.

The other protest was limited to the Hazara region of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, starting when the National Assembly decided, on April 8, to rename the NWFP as Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa as a part of the 18th Amendment. The protesters in Hazara rejected this name but they did not offer any alternative name for the province. Within a day or so of launching the protest, the leaders of the movement shifted their goal from protesting against the new name to the demand for the establishment of a separate Hazara province.

Both protests created anarchy-like situations in some cities. Their political idiom and methods negated democracy and showed that narrow and immediate gains and considerations could impact the minds of the people to such an extent that rational arguments lose relevance.

The political idiom of electricity protesters was extremist and confrontational, openly challenging the authority of the state. The most vocal were the middle and lower level businessmen and traders, mostly with a political right disposition, ranging from the Jamaat-e-Islami to the PML-N. They often talk of launching civil disobedience movements, refusing to pay taxes and challenging the government in the street with the objective of paralysing it.

The political idiom of the Hazara protesters was more threatening, with protestors vowing to go to any extreme to pursue their demand for the new province. Some of them accused the ANP of an anti-Pakistan disposition and that the renaming of the province negated the spirit of the establishment of Pakistan.

The methods adopted by the two movements were questionable. In both cases, the focus was on intimidation and disruption of routine life. The electricity protesters disrupted traffic by erecting roadblocks and setting small fires at road junctions. In the case of the Hazara protest, highways were also blocked and public and private property was damaged. Government property, including a police station, was damaged. There was an unfortunate confrontation between the police and the protesters (some of whom were armed), resulting in a number of deaths. The protesters in both movements threatened to launch civil disobedience.

The PML-Q and its forward bloc have played shrewd politics by encouraging the Hazara protest. Later, the PML-Q became the first major party to support the demand for a separate Hazara province in a bid to outsmart the PML-N, which had performed better in the 2008 general elections in this region. This built pressure on the PML-N, which made quick political moves for damage control in the region. Some of its members sympathised with the demand and blamed the federal government and the ANP for mishandling the situation. However, the PML-N voted for the new name of the NWFP in the Senate on April 15.

Democracy in Pakistan is in its early stage of revival. If it is not nurtured properly, it can falter again. The political leaders and parties carry a primary responsibility to sustain democracy. They need to come forward to defuse both protests because if democracy fades away, they will be the main losers. The failure of democracy will substantiate the claim that the political leaders are unable to manage their affairs. The political parties should recognise that the future of democracy is threatened by an anarchy-like situation in different parts of the country.

Pakistan’s political leaders have a tendency to encourage the defiance of state authority and disruption of normal life for their immediate gains when they want to advance their agendas and put the government under pressure. For example, the PML-N leadership openly preached defiance after the imposition of governor’s rule in the last week of February 2009. Now, the PML-Q is actively supporting the violent Hazara agitation. Other political parties do not appear to be interested in using their influence to defuse both agitations. Perhaps they think that such protests and agitation will discredit the federal government and the ANP-led government in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.

This is a dangerous political trend. The gains of the 18th Amendment will be jeopardised if political idioms and methods of politics are not moderated. The major threats to democracy in Pakistan arise out of the extremist and confrontational idiom and the methodology of intimidation, violence and disruption of the life of ordinary people in the name of protest. Unless all political leaders work jointly to moderate these idioms and methods of politics, the future of democracy will remain uncertain.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst