Bellicose democracy
Afew recent developments provide some examples of how the deep state systematically encroaches upon the citizens’ constitutional freedoms and fundamental rights.
The government, through an SRO, recently allowed personnel of the premier intelligence agency to intercept and trace the communications of any citizen “in the interest of national security”. Obviously, this was done in response to the strictures passed and observations made by some conscientious judges against the widespread practice of illegal technical surveillance.
Separately, in a statement made before the Sindh High Court, the interior ministry justified the ban on X, claiming that the social media platform was a “threat to peace and national security”.
It further said that “hostile elements operating on X have nefarious intentions to create an environment of chaos and instability, with the ultimate goal of destabilising the country and plunging it into some form of anarchy”.
This paper correctly noted that “silencing social media is no solution to the actual problem of growing public discontent”. Why is the state bent on ‘suppressing a restless public and blocking dissent’? This is the question to ask. Can democracy thrive without debate and dissent? How does it survive the draconian measures and series of follies committed by state institutions in the recent past?
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold,” wrote William Butler Yeats in a different era of fear and violence. Yeats refers “not to some kind of moderate political middle, but rather to the moral centre of civilisation. When the moral centre gives way, nations fall,” David French asserts in a recent piece for the New York Times.
The most important post-elections development has indeed been the stunning reversal of fortunes for the beleaguered PTI, which was being treated as a defunct political party by the Election Commission following the chief justice-led Supreme Court bench’s controversial Jan 13 verdict in the ‘bat’ symbol case.
In a clear majority verdict, eight judges of the 13-member full court bench not only recognised the PTI as a lawful political party but also ruled against the blatant misuse of authority by the ECP in wrongly distributing its share of reserved seats for minorities and women among the ruling coalition parties.
While the judicial structure comprises various tiers of the courts of law, it is the Supreme Court that is recognised by the Constitution as a court of both law and justice. Indeed, injustice was undone by it in the reserved seats verdict. The decision was hailed as a verdict against the establishment’s machinations to deny a mandate to the real winners of the Feb 8 national elections.
A significant milestone of restorative justice was achieved by the highest court when the majority of the judges ruled against “the series of wrongs that had been caused by the ECP’s reprehensible decisions” based on the earlier, patently unjust, ‘bat’ verdict. The decision also exposed the political engineers who colluded to defy the will of the people.
The response of the PML-N-led coalition government reflected desperation. Announcing a ban on the PTI was a knee-jerk reaction, an ill-advised, hasty move. “Like grains of sand, power slips quicker from the hand the tighter the fist is clenched,” said this paper. In the corridors of power, the resurrection of the PTI was seen as an insurrection.
It seemed that 11 judges of the apex court, including the chief justice, recognising “the PTI’s bona fides as a political party” came as a rude shock to the power brokers who had built their political castle on the false sands of realpolitik.
If it were carried out, the decision to ban the largest and most popular political party would be extremely ill-advised. The devastating potential consequences have clearly not been thought through.
It would entail the dismissal of a government formed with an overwhelming mandate in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, led by a political party that has won three previous elections, held in 2013, 2018 and 2024, in the province. Sacking the KP government may trigger violent protests against the federation by a people already reeling under the ravages of terrorism and bloodshed. A grassroots rebellion could unravel the state; why, then, was such a reckless move even conceived? Have the power brokers lost all sense and reason?
Separately, the government has also sought a review of the Supreme Court ruling in the reserved seats case, knowing well that the same 13-member full court will hear the petition and the decision is unlikely to be reversed.
The move amounts to defying the verdict of the people of Pakistan, who defeated the state’s designs in the Feb 8 elections with a vote in favour of an incarcerated leader who seems to have become something of a symbol of defiance. The result was simply a vote against the establishment and an answer to the perpetrators of persecution, who had unleashed a reign of terror through a blatantly bellicose democratic process.
The way forward suggested recently by this paper through an editorial is a sensible option for the government: that it should “form a parliamentary Committee of the Whole comprising all current lawmakers”.
All contentious issues pertaining to political instability, economic and fiscal pressures, insecurity, violence and blatant violations of human rights and due process of law should be debated freely within parliament.
The current polarised political environment requires a pause in order to facilitate “constructive engagement between the rival factions”. Meanwhile, the PTI should shun a “rigid approach” and participate in the debate with an open mindset that is conducive to finding solutions instead of laying down “impossible preconditions” that could scuttle dialogue.