Extremism vs moderation

[Muskan Ghuman]

Extremism vs moderation

By Rubina Saigol

THE current conflict in Pakistan has been characterised by both government and independent analysts as the contradiction between extremism and moderation.

The first is represented by various religious outfits that seek to forcibly impose their will upon society. The second is represented by the government, its foreign backers and sections of society that oppose a religious order.

However, a closer examination of the discourse and the realities on the ground reveals that the battle lines are not between religious extremism on one side and tolerance and moderation on the other. Rather, the contemporary struggles being waged in our society appear to be between two forms of extremism that overlap and resemble each other in some ways and are different in others.

Both types of extremists, the Pakistani government and its foreign backers on the one hand, and religious organisations on the other, feed off each other, create each other and use each other — they form a continuum rather than a contradiction. Moderation and tolerance have not been exhibited by either side as both are engaged in the struggle for power and control over vital economic and political resources.

The moderate and tolerant elements of society which do not believe in resorting to extremist measures in the pursuit of power, and do not employ violent methods to achieve their aims, have been sidelined by both forms of extremists, the state authorities as well as non-state actors. Both seem to believe that all problems can only be resolved by the resort to militant or military means.

First, let us take the extremists who base their justification for violence on a religious worldview. These outfits range from relatively small organisations that are influential in a specific area such as the Sipah-i-Sahaba in Jhang or the Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Mohammadi located near Bajaur Agency, to major powerful groups such as the Taliban who came to power in Afghanistan and operate in large parts of Pakistan’s northern areas. While there may be differences in their beliefs in terms of little details, the common aim of many such organisations is to enforce Sharia law and Islam by the force of arms.

Democracy, pluralism and diversity of opinion or way of life are alien to the way of thinking prevalent in such organisations. They believe in capturing state power through the use of armed struggle in order to impose their Wahabi version of Islam on the population. Such outfits are not averse to mass killing through suicide bombings. Such organisations must be distinguished from mainstream religious parties like the Jamaat-i-Islami which believe in capturing power through democratic means. Organisations like the SSP, TNSM and Jaish-i-Mohammad are generally considered not only extremist but also ‘terrorist’ since 9/11, and some of them have been banned by the government of Pakistan.

Now let us take a look at the other types of extremists who resort to violence, killing, bloodshed and other extreme measures based on an alternative worldview. This category justifies violence and mass murder by using the rhetoric of ‘democracy’ and ‘moderation’. Composed primarily of heads of states and governments, the latter category justifies mass killing through bombing and attacking on the basis of spreading democracy and human rights.The governments of the US, the UK, Australia, Italy and Spain are not the only ones implicated in this form of extremism, the government of Pakistan is no less involved. The extremist and terrorist methods employed by these governments are ostensibly to decimate the other form of extremism represented by quasi-religious groups.

However, it is widely believed that this form of extremism is designed to capture the world’s oil and gas resources illegally, but needs some kind of ideology to legitimise the imperial actions.

The latter form of extremism, exhibited mainly by governments and states, is also intolerant towards dissent, disagreement and the plurality of views. Democracy may be its legitimising ideology but the belief in democracy is fairly superficial. In the name of fighting ‘terrorism’, most of these governments suppressed dissent, concealed evidence, lied to the people and made exaggerated claims to such an extent that the prime minister in the UK had to resign.

In Pakistan, President Musharraf has tried to pose as a tolerant moderate leader while sacking the independent judiciary, jailing and beating lawyers, imprisoning human rights activists, muzzling the media and refusing to tolerate any view other than his own.

He has completely dismantled democracy by suspending the Constitution for the second time, amending the Army Act of 1952 thus enabling the court martial of civilians, forcing his own presidential election while still in the service of the state and disabling citizens from getting redress against government excesses by empowering the government to disbar lawyers. In short, there has been a resort to all extremist measures to hold on to power and unravel even the trappings of democracy meticulously built up in the last few years.

While he does all this, praise is showered upon him by David Miliband of the UK and Condoleezza Rice of the US who repeatedly argue that Pakistan is on the road to democracy and civilian rule. It seems the foreign backers of the Musharraf regime think Pakistanis are immeasurably stupid and can be duped into thinking that democracy is being ushered into their country on the back of tanks and F-16s.

The only moderates in the extremist/moderate divide are the great majority of the people of Pakistan. Caught between two forms of virulent extremism, of a religious and non-religious variety, the average, ordinary Pakistani citizen is baffled, grieved and incredulous.

The judges, lawyers, human rights activists, teachers, students, professors, workers, labourers and peasants are the true and only moderates who do not believe in picking up guns or bombs to destroy everything in sight. These are the people who go about their daily business to be able to eke out a living in spite of the terrifying circumstances created by extremists and terrorists on both sides.

These are the people who get killed in suicide bombings on their way to work, or are hit by the bullets of security forces and the state’s guns in Swat or South Waziristan. These are the people who are beaten, incarcerated and reviled in the name of “national interest” when they raise their voices to demand civil rights, rule of law, constitutionalism, an independent judiciary, the end of military rule, a free media — in short when they ask for the basics of liberal democracy.

Just as the populations of the US, Australia, Britain and Spain finally got the right to remove their extremist rulers through the ballot, Pakistanis clamouring for freedom, democracy and choice should have the opportunity to rid themselves of oppressive rule. Pakistan’s people and its electorate are mature and sophisticated enough to remove both kinds of extremist menace — one coming from those who commit crimes in the name of religion, the other from those who commit crimes in the name of the nation or country. The only moderate force in Pakistan is its citizenry both urban and rural. They should be allowed to determine their destiny.