The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) has a history of voting against parliamentary bills that look to enhance or safeguard women and minority rights. To PTI’s leader, Imran Khan, the terrorist Osama bin Laden was a ‘martyr’, and harassment against women by men is mainly because of the way some women dress. Yet, unlike Islamist parties that hold similar views, PTI continues to enjoy the support of many cosmopolitan and lifestyle liberals, and ‘moderate’ middle class folk. 

Many among these like to be seen as enlightened people. But whenever they are asked about their favourite party’s rather reactionary views on various social and cultural matters, they get themselves into a tangle by stating that their leader was simply applying the ‘proper’ meaning of morality and liberalism. This is when they’re at their most absurd.

PTI has willingly adopted an ambiguous disposition. This helps it retain its mix of conservative as well as ‘liberal’ followers. To its opponents, however, PTI has ‘fascist’ tendencies that have disrupted the mainstream politics of the country. But our interest in this column is limited to the party’s liberal and moderate followers and sympathisers, and their contribution to the disruption. 

In his book Democracy Erodes From The Top, the American political scientist Larry Bartels wrote that the biggest challenge for mainstream politics in democracies that are facing a surge in the electoral fortunes of right-wing populism is “liberal confusion”, and the “failure of political judgement” by liberal segments. Whereas Bartels was squarely exploring this ‘confusion’ in mainstream parties, this can be expanded to other expressions of democratic/constitutional values as well. These include the mainstream media and the judiciary. 

The term ‘people’s will’ is misunderstood, routinely abused and need not necessarily be a good thing at all, as has been demonstrated in Pakistan time and time again

Bartel’s concept of ‘liberal confusion’, if put in the context of PTI’s liberal and moderate supporters, can mean their absurdist justification of the party’s illiberal stances. The ‘confusion’ in this regard often arises due to the cult-like design of the party. This inhibits critical thinking. It makes many among lifestyle liberals and ‘enlightened’ moderates support a party that is actually detrimental to their social and cultural interests. These can then go on to negatively impact their economic interests as well. 

‘Failure of political judgement’ in this regard has to do with pillars of the state — such as the media and the judiciary — that mistake the electoral rise of illiberal and authoritarian entities as a democratic outcome and of the ‘people’s will.’ The usual reasons provided by analysts for an electoral surge enjoyed by populist outfits have to do with the underperformance of mainstream parties on the economic front. 

But according to the political scientist Richard E. Hamilton, such underperformances, when given a forlorn existentialist twist by illiberal leaders, strike an immediate emotional connection with large segments of a society. This connection is then picked up by the media and discussed with great frequency. 

According to Hamilton, just years before Hitler’s rise to power, liberal newspapers saw the ‘failure’ of mainstream parties and the spectre of a Soviet-style revolution in Germany as more disconcerting prospects than the possible victory of a fascist party in the polls. 

Hamilton wrote that the newspapers did not necessarily agree with Hitler’s violent tactics and racist ideas, but this didn’t prevent them from seeing him as “a man of action who could effectively counter the Marxist threat.” Whereas liberal newspapers saw Hitler as a lesser problem (and an outcome of people’s will), German judges during the same period became outrightly hostile towards his opponents. 

When Hitler attempted to overthrow the republic in 1923, the court handed down a five year sentence, of which he served less than one year. An important pillar of the state that had taken the oath of upholding the republic’s constitution and democracy played a pivotal role in paving the path for a volatile party to enter the parliament — a party that went on to construct a violent totalitarian regime. 

So, an authoritarian entity can add an apocalyptic dimension to a crisis, offer simplistic solutions and, therefore, strike an emotional connection with a large segment of the society. This connection is inexactly interpreted as people’s will by the media and the judiciary, who become patsy partners of the entity, all the while believing they are supporting democracy and constitutionalism. 

In 1974, when the parliament in Pakistan, through a constitutional amendment, turned the Ahmadiyya into a non-Muslim minority, there was not a single element in the parliament, media and the judiciary that exhibited any foresight to warn that the act was bound to open a Pandora’s Box that would encourage violence between Muslim sects and subsects, and against minority groups. This is exactly what happened. 

Yet, even the most liberal newspapers at the time wrote sweeping editorials, hailing the decision as “democratic”. They completely ignored the fact that the amendment actually went against the text and spirit of the constitution. 

In 1974, an existential crisis was the outcome of the 1971 loss of the country’s eastern wing. The breaking away of East Pakistan produced anxiety — a fear of further breakages. Yet, somehow, the anxiety was supposedly overcome by the ousting of a community from the fold of Islam.

Today, when a populist former prime minister, who dearly desired to turn Pakistan into a one-party state, is in jail, the ‘democracy-loving’ media sees this as the source of an existential crisis facing Pakistan. Once again, the media has latched on to the coattails of a questionable narrative because, apparently, it reflects ‘people’s will.’ 

In the February 2024 election, PTI won 31.82 percent of the total vote. This is the people’s will, but only if the 65 percent of the electorate that voted against the PTI are not considered as people.

Also, if the pro-democracy liberals and ‘progressives’ who insist that Imran’s release from jail will be according to people’s will, how can the same folk be so dismissive about the amendment that turned the Ahmadiyya into a vulnerable minority? The amendment was greenlit by almost each and every party in the parliament, representing over 90 percent of the electorate. How was that not people’s will? 

One has to be careful when using terms like people’s will. This term cannot be romanticised like it usually is. If 31.82 percent of the electorate wants to see Imran back in power, then more than 65 percent don’t. Yet, it is the sentiments of the 31.82 percent that continue to hog all discourses in the media about democracy and constitutionalism. Not very democratic, really.

Published in Dawn, EOS, July 7th, 2024