Anarchy and democracy
ANALYSIS by Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
Sunday, July 26, 2009


The tendencies of defiance and anarchy can be discouraged if the PPP-led government pays serious attention to improving governance and bridging the gap between the policy pronouncements of its leaders and performance of the government

Violent protests against electricity outages and hikes in petrol and diesel prices last week raised a host of issues, especially about these protests’ implications for civic order and the future of democracy in Pakistan. Was the defiant and anarchic behaviour of the protesters aimed only at registering protest or did it have a wider political agenda of targeting the federal government? This may be the emergence of a new type of violent popular disposition and political culture that threatens democracy.

The protests took place in the major cities of all provinces, although their intensity varied. Invariably the offices of WAPDA or power generation companies, state property and banks were ransacked by the rioting crowd. There were clashes with the police in some places, including Karachi and Hyderabad.

The protests were more widespread and violent in Punjab. Even district and sub-district level areas experienced violence. Electricity-related offices and public property was ransacked in most places. The protesters paralysed normal functioning of business and commercial activities and ordinary people found it difficult to undertake their routine affairs. In some places, the police had to resort to baton charge and tear gas to disperse the rioting crowd. Regular traffic was disrupted by protesters in almost all cities. Some of them went to the extent of stopping railway trains, and, in Jhang, some coaches of a railway train were set on fire.

The pro-PMLN businessmen and traders in Lahore were very active in forcing the suspension of business and commercial activity. Some of them demanded that the federal government resign on account of electricity outages.

Street protest is a legitimate right of the people as the last resort. However, this does not give them right to ransack public and private property and terrorise people. It has been noticed for the last four to five years that protesters appear more interested in making life difficult for others, disrupting normal business and routine city life, causing traffic jams and ransacking property rather than in mobilising support for their demands. Their underlying consideration appears to be that one can draw attention by demonstrating the capacity to disrupt normal life in a city or town. This also demonstrates poor understanding of their responsibilities as citizens.

It is generally observed that aggrieved people have a tendency to walk out of their workplaces or institutions and block nearby roads by erecting roadblocks or setting fire to tyres or other material in the middle of the road. Sometimes, a small group of young people suddenly appears on the road, sets up barricades, lights fires in a commando-like operation and disappears quickly. At times such people also engage in violence and ransack business and commercial centres, official property and especially banks.

In February 2006, a large number of young people protesting in Lahore against the publication of “cartoons” in a European country turned violent without any provocation and engaged in unprecedented arson and looting. The religious parties that had sponsored the rally refused to take responsibility for what happened, declaring that their workers were not involved.

Disruption of traffic has become an established method of protest. The first thing students do to protest is to come out of their institutions and block traffic. In the case of the latest protest against electricity outages, protesters created an anarchic situation in some cities. They also stopped railway trains. In a separate development, when railway workers protested in favour of their demands in Lahore, they attempted to disrupt railway traffic.

It is a dangerous trend; more and more people are resorting to the disruption of civic life and causing inconvenience to ordinary people as a protest strategy. Now, there are more instances of interference with railway traffic. This has negative implications for the current efforts to revive and institutionalise democracy. The success of democracy depends on developing a moderate and tolerant disposition towards socio-political and economic issues, which need to be addressed through the democratic institutions and processes.

The prospects for democracy cannot improve if issues are to be settled in the street, and protest is not viewed as effective unless it becomes violent or disrupts normal functions of society. If democracy is to be stabilised and the prospects for non-democratic and unconstitutional changes are to be minimised, political leaders should work towards problem solving through democratic institutions and processes as set out in the constitution and law.

The opposition, especially the PMLN, may be getting grudging satisfaction from the current protest because it discredits the PPP-led coalition government. They may think that the unpopularity of the current government improves their prospects in the next general elections.

While there may be some electoral gains for the PMLN due to mismanagement of the electricity shortage by the government, this does not necessarily mean that the protests are PPP-centric, and that if the PMLN comes to power it will not face a similar challenge in the streets.

Political leaders should worry about the rise of a culture of defiance and anarchy in Pakistan. If politically active circles imbibe these political orientations, they tend to use them as a routine strategy to pursue their agenda. If the operating political norms are defiance, street agitation, disruption of civic life and economic activity, there is little hope for democracy.

Political leaders should not encourage defiance among people as was done by Nawaz Sharif after the Supreme Court disqualified him from contesting elections in February 2009. His public addresses in the immediate aftermath of this development called upon the police and civil servants to defy the government. If a politician encourages people to defy his political adversaries, what is the guarantee that these methods will not be used against him? If sections of the population imbibe violent protest and anarchic methods as normal instruments for advancing political agendas, they will use them against any government if and when needed.

The tendencies of defiance and anarchy can be discouraged if the PPP-led government pays serious attention to improving governance and bridging the gap between the policy pronouncements of its leaders and performance of the government. It needs to rectify the perception that electricity outages are partly caused by negligence and non-payment of dues to private power producers. The other perception is that the presidency is pursing state affairs in a personalised manner and assigns premium to loyalty over professionalism and judicious management.

No matter if the judiciary is supportive of democracy and the military wants to limit itself to its professional role, civilian democratic institutions can still run into serious problems if the political leaders do not pursue their divergent agendas with moderation and within constitutional limits in letter and spirit. Societal groups need to subscribe to democratic and constitutional norms for pursuing their demands. If they repeatedly resort to violent methods and create anarchy either on the encouragement of some political leaders or on their own, democracy will never stabilise.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst