THERE are many lessons to be learnt from the way the lawyers` movement was handled by the previous government as well as the present one.

Much has been said and written about the political and legal aspects and more commentary will doubtless be on offer in the days to come. Leaving aside the political and social characteristics of the movement, an attempt is made here to analyse the use of force by the police and the consequences of such action.

In the wake of the presidential reference against the Chief Justice of Pakistan, certain sections of society led by lawyers and supported by political parties came out on the streets to stage protests in various cities. The Musharraf government attempted to silence these frantic voices by resorting to state brutality. Using the police to deal with the agitating lawyers and media personnel did the government no good whatsoever.

If force was used to restore order and prevent the situation from deteriorating further, the result was clearly counterproductive. Unnecessary exercise of force created more problems for the Musharraf government than it solved. This should have served as a useful lesson for the handling of any subsequent wave of protests.

Any agitation launched by political forces or other sections of society is seen by the powers that be as a threat to the stability of the state and survival of the government. This has been the case throughout Pakistan`s chequered political history. More often than not, governments galvanise the administrative machinery to deal with such situations with a heavy hand.

When an attempt is made to crush agitation with force, the situation is worse confounded. Invariably the administration has to face embarrassment which could have been avoided. The coercive use of state authority against genuine political campaigns significantly weakens governments instead of strengthening them.

The lawyers` movement is a relatively recent phenomenon. But even earlier, governments gained little or nothing whenever they decided to confront political movements with unreasonable force. Use of coercive means against the anti-Ayub movement in the 1960s, PNA movement in 1977, MRD movement in 1983 and the march on Islamabad in 1996, as well as large-scale arrests during the Grand Democratic Alliance`s sit-in protests in Karachi and other cities in 1999, only weakened the government of the day.

In most cases, inept handling of protesters hastened the ouster of the government. Furthermore, the questionable handling of politically motivated crowds adversely affected police-community relations with the police being seen as a mere tool in the hands of the government of the day.

A pattern can be seen in the way successive governments have chosen to respond to rallies, protest marches or sit-ins. Characteristically, the government imposes Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, thereby depriving citizens of the right to congregate peacefully. It restricts the right to liberty by ordering preventive detentions under the Maintenance of Public Order, and allows using force against crowds when protesters refuse to disperse or attempt to cross barriers created by the administration. To avoid bad publicity, selective restrictions are placed on the media.

Governments may have used force in the past and managed to get away with it but the pervasive, vibrant and intrusive media of today has made this much more difficult. The government has to realise that times have changed. The foremost legitimate purpose behind any authoritarian handling of agitation could be to prevent damage to private and public property, save innocent lives and avoid bad publicity. This objective is seldom achieved.

Overreaction only exacerbates the situation and the use of brutal force adds colour to even otherwise insipid agitation. Media footage of baton charges and rough handling of women and the elderly adds life to protest demonstrations. The protesters want attention and police action helps them get it.

This is not to say that the police cannot resort to force under any circumstances. But the use of force by law-enforcement agencies has to be wholly justifiable and proportionate to the extent of harm expected to be caused by the agitators. In addition, it is to be resorted to as a last option when all other non-violent measures have failed to restore order and maintain peace on the streets.

When the exercise of force becomes absolutely necessary, its measure should be decided in accordance with the law and not the wishes of sitting governments. Exercise of authority by the police is sanctioned by law and is restricted by the same law. A superior`s order is no excuse for illegal, disproportionate or arbitrary exercise of brute force.

Likewise the opposition parties need to respect the law and avoid inconvenience to the people. Demonstrations or rallies can be held in open spaces or designated parks with the prior approval of the administration which in turn must allow the media to cover such events without hindrance. Causing roadblocks or disrupting the normal life of citizens cannot be equated with the right to peaceful assembly.

It will be wrong to presume the opposition is always right and the government is always wrong. If it is imperative for the government of the day to avoid unnecessary use of state machinery against political rallies and demonstrations, the opposition parties are also expected to conform to the law of the land while exercising their right to assembly, association and peaceful demonstration. They should refrain from causing undue restraint and inconvenience to others. They need to maintain a balance between their rights and duties.

Governments should attempt to resolve matters through dialogue instead of pitting the police against the public. Tolerance must be shown wherever possible and the police should be operationally independent and politically neutral in its decisions to use force or restrict the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. In short, the situation has to be assessed objectively purely from a law and order point of view. In case fundamental rights are infringed upon, the courts are expected to develop case law to set parameters for the exercise of powers granted under Section 144 and Maintenance of Public Order laws.

The government has to show tolerance and recognise the democratic rights of associations and individuals. Reciprocally the opposition parties need to display maturity and respect for the law of the land. If this happens, democratic traditions will flourish and the police will be seen protecting and regulating peaceful protesters instead of dispersing them.

The writer is a barrister and senior superintendent of police in Sindh.
shaikhsp@yahoo.com