After the showdown
LAST week’s showdown between the government and opposition may have ended sooner than anyone expected but it left serious unresolved problems in its wake.
It has deepened the political divide and increased polarisation in the country. Tensions still run high. The use of force by the government and its establishment backers ultimately dispersed the protesters mobilised by Imran Khan’s PTI, with its leaders fleeing the capital for their stronghold in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. But that may only be a temporary reprieve for the ruling coalition.
To be sure, PTI failed to achieve its goal. The way its supporters retreated was a setback for the party and exposed its lack of strategy. The eruption of internal differences made matters worse. Party disarray was further reflected by the resignation of its secretary general Salman Akram Raja. But the episode also left the government damaged.
The siege of the capital ordered by a panicky government, barricades erected to prevent demonstrators from entering the city, cutting Punjab off from Islamabad, curbs on media reporting as well as internet and mobile phone service disruptions all laid bare the government’s shakiness and failure to handle the situation by political means.
The crackdown on demonstrators to break up the protests involved excessive use of force that left scores injured. Several protesters were killed, which the media was banned from reporting with hospital authorities coerced into silence. PTI leaders claimed many supporters were killed but government ministers denied this and instead congratulated themselves for quelling the protests. Over 1,000 demonstrators were arrested in Islamabad while a sweeping clampdown on party activists continued across Punjab. A journalist investigating the deaths of protesters was arrested on charges of terrorism and possessing narcotics.
All this undermined the government’s credibility. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan called for the “immediate and unconditional release” of the journalist, as did the Committee to Protect Journalists.
The crackdown prompted the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association to issue a statement condemning “the brutal and reprehensible handling of civilian protesters which resulted in the heavy loss of numerous lives”. It also noted “bullets were directly fired on unarmed protesters”. Amnesty International called for “an urgent and transparent investigation” into the “deadly crackdown”.
The economic damage has also been incalculable. How can the country be seen as a safe or attractive destination for investment with violent clashes on the streets of the capital?
Moreover, the prospect of more rounds of government-opposition confrontations indicated by the ongoing war of words, does little to build or revive business confidence. Political uncertainty and fears of more unrest obviously vitiates the business climate. This at a time when economic recovery remains tentative and fragile with structural problems of the economy yet to be addressed.
Crushing a protest doesn’t mean establishing political stability.
Crushing a protest doesn’t mean establishing political stability. The danger, indicated by the government’s triumphal mood, is that the ruling coalition may impose governor’s rule in KP to deliver a ‘final’ blow to PTI. This possibility was strengthened when many ministers recommended governor’s rule in a cabinet meeting last week. The government apparently plans to consult allies before taking a final decision. Although imposing governor’s rule is a complicated political and legal process, it would be a disastrous move if it happens.
Removing an elected government in a province where it enjoys an overwhelming parliamentary majority and public support would not just be a blow to democracy and federalism. It would provoke public anger and lead to widespread alienation even unrest in the province similar to that witnessed in Balochistan. This would make it difficult for any arrangement foisted on the province to govern. It would have an exceedingly adverse impact on managing the insurgency in KP and resolving sectarian tensions that continue to erupt in violence in the Kurram region. Already 100 people have died in clashes.
PTI leaders say their protests will continue with KP chief minister warning the party won’t back down in the face of threats to impose governor’s rule or emergency. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has called PTI a “terrorist group” and warned of tough measures ahead. This indicates a state of denial about the widespread public discontent that fuels repeated protests. But what does all this mean for the democratic system and the country? Can anything be done to reduce political tensions?
Democratic backsliding is apparent with parliament rendered irrelevant and the political system becoming increasingly dysfunctional. Recent developments also signify a breakdown of politics because a political problem is not being tackled by deploying a political solution.
There is no way out of the present turmoil except through serious negotiations that can produce an agreement to de-escalate political tensions that are taking such a heavy toll on the country. Political reconciliation may be a bridge too far given the absence of trust between the government and opposition. But both sides need to step back and come to some kind of modus vivendi for the sake of the country.
To achieve a political settlement, the government would have to cease its repressive measures, withdraw frivolous cases against opposition leaders, end policing the media, release those incarcerated for bailable ‘offences’ as well as free thousands of PTI activists recently taken into custody. It should also implement the Supreme Court judgement on allocation of reserved seats. This would incentivise PTI to fight their battle in parliament rather than on the streets.
For its part, PTI would have to suspend its agitational politics and refrain from disruptive conduct in and outside parliament. Its chief minister in KP should commit to running his province rather than leading protest rallies. Such a compromise may seem unrealistic in the present fraught environment but the alternative is more turmoil and uncertainty.
In the past, an arbiter was always needed to arrive at a truce between warring political sides in order to end a political crisis. That role was traditionally played by the military. But today, it is seen to have adopted a stance that denudes it from playing the role of a neutral arbiter. The question is whether in the interest of domestic peace and stability it is prepared to revisit that stance and help end what has become a perpetual political confrontation.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
Published in Dawn, December 2nd, 2024