Mentor:

Amjad Riaz Guru

(Essay & Precis)

GC University
Lahore

Assisted by
Mr. Umar Ijaz Ahmed

Mr. Abdul Latif Sheikh

Political or partisan?

IS there a contradiction or conflict between the two separate Supreme Court judgements, one
holding Nawaz Sharif as dishonest, the other holding Imran Khan as not dishonest? This leads to
the larger question of whether by disqualifying parliamentarians, the Supreme Court has become
political, anti-democratic and partisan.

Judicialisation of honesty: “States which are not governed by honest and upright people are
bound to suffer and lag behind the developed nations of the world”, is how the chief justice of
Pakistan, in the Jahangir Khan Tareen verdict, emphasises the constitutional importance of such
disqualification cases based on allegations of dishonesty. But since the Supreme Court also holds
in the same judgement that the “sanctity of … parliamentarians should not be allowed to be
impinged or compromised lightly”, criteria are laid down, in the Imran Khan and Jahangir Khan
Tareen cases, for judging dishonesty and judging the defences of parliamentarians against
allegations of dishonesty and the exceptional circumstances in which such disqualification cases
will be entertained directly by the Supreme Court.

Firstly, the Supreme Court categorically lays down the “element of dishonesty as an essential
element” for any disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. Therefore, it is a
misconception that there will be large-scale disqualifications on mere incorrect declarations or
omissions without deliberate dishonest design. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has rather
creatively interpreted the Nawaz Sharif Panama case judgement as also laying down the same
criterion of dishonest conduct for disqualifications and no disqualifications on mere incorrect
declarations or omissions.

Even if the courts exercise judicial restraint, some political elites will still win or lose.

Secondly, the parliamentarians against whom allegations of dishonesty are made have to only
present a “prima facie, arguable defence” about disclosure of assets, and “arithmetical accuracy
in reconciling amounts and events is not required”, and “as long as the court is satisfied that the
account is not patchy, inconsistent or unreliable”, the burden would have been discharged by the
accused parliamentarian. Therefore, the defence for parliamentarians required in such
disqualification cases has been substantially lowered by the Supreme Court.

Thirdly, “we have expended time and efforts in our original jurisdiction for the sake of public
interest in the circumstances of the public outcry against corruption that arose as a result of the
Panama Papers’ leaks”, the Supreme Court notes, otherwise the appropriate forums are either the
election tribunals or the high courts for such disqualification cases. Therefore, the Supreme
Court may not directly entertain other disqualification cases except in exceptional circumstances,
and so it dispels the misconception about large-scale disqualifications.
Judicial conclusions: On the basis of the above-mentioned criteria, the following conclusions are
reached in the Imran Khan and Jahangir Khan Tareen cases. Firstly, Imran Khan is declared to be
not dishonest because the explanations given, and evidence produced by him, was reasonable (eg
M/S. Niazi Services Ltd was not an asset and its disclosure was inconsequential etc) and
omissions were not dishonest.

Secondly, Jahangir Tareen is declared to be dishonest because his non-disclosure of his property/
asset, ie Hyde House, through an offshore company SVL was a “blatant and shocking untrue
statement” in his nomination papers and also “blatant misstatement” before the Supreme Court.
Therefore, parliamentarians beware — deliberate non-disclosure of even a single asset, without
even corruption or money-laundering allegations, can lead to disqualifications. This, indeed, is
quite a problematic and stringent criterion.

The Nawaz non-comparison: In a creatively brilliant analysis, the chief justice in the judgement
in the Imran Khan case rescues the weak reasoning of the later majority judgements of July 28
and Sept 15 by explaining why the two verdicts do not apply to the Imran Khan case.

Firstly, ‘facts vastly’ differ, or the ‘context’ or ‘evidentiary context’ is completely different from
the Imran Khan case. This evidentiary context is brilliantly described in paragraphs 85 to 89 by
Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan in the Panama case judgement.

Secondly, “robust allegations of corruption” and finding “sufficient evidence for directly
launching a prosecution” initiating NAB cases is the “evidentiary context”, which led to the
specific findings about Capital FZE and the undisclosed salary, as the company’s “financial
dealing were already doubted”.

Thirdly, it follows that in view of this evidentiary context, “robust allegations of corruption” lead
to dishonesty being attributed to Nawaz Sharif as opposed to mere omissions or inconsequential
gaps not leading to attributing dishonesty to Imran Khan.

Political, not partisan: The Constitution is an inherently political document, which defines and
distributes political power of all state and political elites, lays out the details of the democratic
framework and gives politically laden fundamental rights to citizens. Crucially though, it hands
over the monopoly of interpretation of its provisions to the judiciary as the final arbitrator of this
inherently political Constitution. Therefore, when the courts decide on the interpretation and
application of politically laden disqualification criteria, such cases are bound to have political
winners and losers; even if the courts decide to exercise judicial restraint by not doing anything,
some political elites will still win or lose. In short, the hard distinction between law and politics
is artificial.

More importantly, like any developing country, a messy democratic transition is taking place in
Pakistan, with a powerful but insecure army, divided political elites, a vulnerable judiciary, a
weak state and a restless citizenry. Comparative history tells us that in such democratic
transitions, it is usually the judiciary which adjudicates on intra-state political conflicts between
the army and the political elites as well as on inter-political elite conflicts.
The choice is very stark — if not the judiciary then the army or the street mob will resolve these
political questions. Therefore, the courts are

political because while interpreting an inherently political Constitution in resolving intra-state

and inter-political elite conflict, they uphold certain politico-constitutional values, and this has
political consequences.

So, the real choice is not between a political and non-political judiciary but between a political
though non-partisan judiciary and a politically partisan judiciary. The Supreme Court judgements
in favour of the PML-N eg Hudaibya case, the Jahangir Tareen disqualification case and the
Orange Line Metro Train case should at least indicate that this judiciary is both relatively
independent and non-partisan.
Dark days for democracy
Tariq Khosa

THESE are difficult, frightening times. In the words of Martha Beck (The Way
of Integrity, 2021), “A value system built on avarice, ambition, and oppression
shows up in unprincipled leaders, corrupt groups, and then entire national
cultures.”

Unfortunately, Pakistan has lost its way of integrity. The current caretaker regime is complicit in
punishing dissent and criminalising opposition, jailing and torturing people. Democracy is
ominously passing through dark days on the eve of the national polls. Are we going through a
‘democratic recession’ as Larry Diamond, a Stanford professor puts it: “There is a spirit of the
times, and it is not a democratic one.”

In my last piece in this paper on Jan 8, I had pinned hopes on two chiefs for ensuring that the
national polls on Feb 8 will be free and fair. One honourable chief ensured that a major political
party continued to be dismantled by another chief heading the Election Commission of Pakistan
(ECP).

The party symbol verdict by a Supreme Court bench was widely criticised as denying a level
playing field to one of the major mainstream political parties. The principle of fair play was seen
as having been grossly violated. After watching the intense and gruelling display of verbal
onslaught in the apex court over a weekend, I was willing to bet that the party in question would
not be denied its ballot symbol and may well be directed to hold fresh intra-party polls in
accordance with their own constitution. The decision led to a burst of dismay followed by a
ripple of woe.

The conduct of another chief is beyond any doubt fraught with double standards. The former
bureaucrat, heading the ECP, is living up to his reputation of actively promoting a partisan
political agenda. Crude ways have been adopted to literally disenfranchise a huge chunk of the
electorate by denying their preferred candidates a level playing field.

The electoral watchdog is blatantly ignoring what the current chiefs of police are involved in:
massive transgressions in violating the basic human rights of citizens. The rallies of the targeted
party are disrupted, their workers arrested, the privacy of their homes violated with impunity.
There is no one to check such acts of persecution. The courts are helpless as their lawful
commands are disregarded with contempt.

As a former police chief, my head hangs in shame at seeing some police commanders stoop so
low to please the ‘invisible forces’ of the deep state. They lack the courage to say no to the
illegal manoeuvres of political engineering. They see their role only as serving the powers that
be.

Meanwhile, there has been a report in a daily paper quoting the army chief at a function where he
is said to have interacted with students from various universities in the public and private sector.
He was reported to have said that people should carefully choose their representatives and asked
whether political parties should be permitted to break the country and if people should have to
wait till the end of the five-year term.

At the same event, the youth were reportedly told that it was not possible to govern virtually, as
“it must be performed on the ground” and that decisions should not be based on what is
displayed on mobile screens, an apparent reference to social media.

The choice is simple: keep your head down and survive, or speak out and suffer.

This news item reported him as saying that the army paid the most taxes in the country, with half
its budget going to the government in taxes, and that no other army anywhere was functioning on
such a low budget. The remarks, it was reported by the paper, also centred on Pakistan’s
financial prospects with $10 trillion worth of reserves in the shape of mines, minerals, and earth
metals, in contrast to $128 billion in foreign debt. It was pointed out, according to the report, that
the military-run Green Pakistan Initiative would end the country’s reliance on imported food and
make it self-sustaining.

Many questions have arisen following this event. One of the foremost on the minds of some
observers has been whether a public political discourse was needed by the head of an ‘apolitical’
institution on the eve of national polls, while some have also asked whether the message for the
youth was to not be led astray by social media and Western influence on our culture.

With the challenges to security and territorial integrity on the rise, perhaps remarks that can be
construed as political reflections are best left to those within political circles.

The real issues facing the nation are: the elite capture indicative in the widening gap between the
rich and poor; stagflation and economic deprivation; lack of security and justice; corruption in
public institutions; unaccountable intelligence agencies; poor governance; inadequate health and
education facilities; and above all, lack of inclusive democratic practices.

In the current environment of spin and cynicism, the choice given to the people is simple: keep
your head down and survive, or raise your head and challenge the atrocities and suffer the
consequences.

The response must be a principled one: it should be refusal to be part of an immoral, devious
regime and a commitment to bring a change through ballot, by being brave enough to reach the
polling stations on Feb 8 and casting their votes. Then it would be the test of those who will
count the votes. Will they defy the choice of the electorate or become part of a shameless legacy
of yet another rigged election?
We should not forget a perennial truth: that the potential tools of democracy are integrity, public
trust and transparency. As Margaret Mead famously said, thoughtful and committed citizens can
change the world. “Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Let the people of Pakistan freely choose their leaders.

Wanted: a non-partisan plan
Dr Reza Baqir

ONE of the challenges of forming a government in Pakistan is that no sooner have you
assumed office than you realise you will have to go to the IMF. This government
experienced this realisation, as did the previous government, and many more before them.
At first one resists. After all, it is not easy to implement the unpopular measures required
by the IMF. Further, there is the perception that a country’s sovereignty is compromised
by acting on the dictates of another organisation.

The resistance is not unfounded. The history of IMF programmes is associated with subsequent
changes in governments after unpopular measures are implemented. And this is not just the case
with developing countries. During the European debt crisis in 2010-12, several European
countries, including Greece, Ireland and Portugal, were forced to go to the IMF. In most cases,
the government that implemented the unpopular provisions of an IMF programme lost the
subsequent election.

Is there another way for a government to do the needful to restore stability, minimise the loss of
popularity and also not compromise on self-pride by calling in the IMF? There are lessons that
can be learnt from the Philippines, a developing country with striking parallels to Pakistan. The
Philippines, like Pakistan, relied heavily on overseas remittances. Owing to fiscal profligacy and
energy sector issues it had to repeatedly go to the IMF and in 2002 it was classified, in IMF
jargon, together with Pakistan and a few other countries, as a ‘Prolonged User of IMF
Resources’.

In 2005, the Philippines faced a fiscal and balance-of-payments crisis similar to the ones
repeatedly faced by Pakistan. Its government debt had risen to 71 per cent of GDP by end-2004,
its fiscal balance had deteriorated by several percentage points of GDP over previous years, and
its foreign exchange reserves had fallen to below five months of imports. At that time, I was
heading the IMF office in the Philippines. We worried about the toll that a crisis would take on
the economy and poverty levels. We also worried that the authorities might delay calling in the
IMF during which period the problems would grow and require tougher measures to address
them. At the heart of the matter was raising petrol prices and taxes to cover a gaping fiscal hole,
measures that would undermine the popularity of the president.

As events unfolded, the Philippines not only avoided an IMF programme, it also generated an
economic turnaround that exceeded expectations. Its strategy generated so much foreign
exchange for the country that in December 2006, its president — the same president who was
hesitant to take the tough measures — went on national TV on Christmas Eve to make
an announcement laced with symbolism, sovereignty and national pride: as a Christmas gift to
the country, she had decided that the Philippines would prepay all debts owed to the IMF in one
go before year-end.

There’s a need for a group of non-partisan economists to produce a White Paper addressing
structural issues.

How did the Philippines go from a country on the brink of a crisis in mid-2005 to prepaying the
IMF a year and a half later? A big part of the credit goes to a process led by several of the
country’s leading economists, all non-partisan and several who had in the past held senior
technocratic positions in public service. This group together advocated and lobbied key
stakeholders including the executive and parliament for the much-needed fiscal reforms. As part
of their efforts, they also produced a White Paper on the needed measures. Many of their
recommendations had significant overlap with those of the IMF, such as raising taxes on petrol
and other areas. But, critically, this process and its output were home-grown. It had the
ownership of leading Filipino economists. Moreover, the group’s credibility gave its
recommendations the necessary traction. At the end of the day, it was more palatable for the
president to get behind a home-grown fiscal strategy developed by a non-partisan group of
experts than to go for an IMF programme. The Philippines has never gone back to the IMF since.

Does this experience have lessons for us? First, we need to recognise that given the current
politically charged environment, any economic strategy proposed by the government would
likely not be supported by the opposition. Vice versa, any such strategy prepared by the
opposition will likely not resonate within government. This also explains why a charter of
economy has not taken off.

Second, there is a need for a group of non-partisan economists with established credibility to
organise themselves to produce a White Paper that addresses the few most important structural
issues. It is critical that this group’s membership be apolitical and have credibility with the
leading parties, within and outside government.

Third, this group would need a platform for consultation and advocacy. This could ideally be
done through a leading university which would provide a neutral, non-partisan space, unlike
many of the think tanks that are perceived to have political leanings or the backing of particular
interest groups. The group should also not be associated with a trade association to avoid the
perception of making self-serving recommendations. The group would need to consult with key
sectors including industry, agriculture, services, civil society, and others to be appropriately
informed. And it would ideally need to be chaperoned by a credible non-partisan leader to bring
them all together.

Such an effort may or may not succeed, but it is worth trying. First, it would be home-grown and
would avoid the IMF label even if ends up making many of the same recommendations that the
IMF may have made. Second, it would be non-partisan. Therefore, its longevity may be beyond
the tenure of one government. Finally, we know that the alternative of the current system does
not work. If the fundamental, long-standing structural impediments in our economy are not
addressed, we will likely need repeated IMF programmes to address the resulting periodic
macroeconomic imbalances. A carefully planned, far-sighted and systematic effort in this
direction may give us the economic success and sovereignty we deserve.
 PAKISTAN’S POLITICS OF POWER
At the root of Pakistan’s current political impasse is the issue of power.

When a colleague pressed German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg about what had
caused World War I, up until then the most devastating war the world had seen, Hollweg replied:
“Ah, if we only knew.”

Thus begins Graham Allison in his now-famous book, Destined for War: Can America and
China Escape the Thucydides Trap. Hollweg’s answer, Allison tells us, haunted John F Kennedy
nearly 50 years later. Vacationing at Camp Cod in the summer of 1962, Kennedy read Barbara
Tuchman’s Guns of August and absorbed Tuchman’s argument that none of the European
leaders “understood the danger they faced.” None wanted a war and yet they “sleepwalked into
the abyss.”

“Kennedy,” Allison says, “pledged that if he ever found himself facing choices that could make
the difference between catastrophic war and peace, he would be able to give history a better
answer than Hollweg’s.” Two months after he had read Tuchman’s book, in October 1962, he
was confronting the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Allison says, “Although he appreciated the dangers of his predicament, Kennedy repeatedly
made choices he knew actually increased the risk of war, including nuclear war.” If any of those
choices had led to World War III and if, perchance, two people had survived it, “Could
[Kennedy] give a better answer to an inquisitor’s question than Hollweg did?”

At the root of Pakistan’s current political impasse is the issue of power: who has the power to
coerce? Which person, party or institution has the means to not only perpetrate but perpetuate
its power? This is the principal contradiction, as Mao Zedong would put it, that needs to be
understood

Lesson: the complexity of causation, as Allison and other scholars have noted, is vexing, not just
in relation to how and why wars happen, but also how states and societies govern themselves and
how many fail in developing the internal balance that, to quote economists Daron Acemoglu and
James Robinson, lies in a “narrow corridor”.

But the important lesson from Thucydides and other historians is that, while immediate or
proximate causes are important as a fillip or sparks — e.g. the fatal shooting of Hapsburg
archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo which triggered WWI — it is the structural factors that
need to be understood, “conditions in which otherwise manageable events can escalate with
unforeseeable severity and produce unimaginable consequences.”

Impasse at home
Since the ouster through a vote of no-confidence (VoNC) of former prime minister Imran Khan,
much ink and even more air waves are being wasted on day-to-day commentary about events and
proximate causes.

The discourse for the most part is partisan and reflects the binaries that come to inform peoples’
views in complex situations, where a number of issues remain unresolved. Physical sciences
defeated ignorance and superstition through experimentation and discoveries. Social scientists —
economists are the worst offenders — despite trying to mathematise the social sphere, keep
running into cul-de-sacs because, as the American theologian and sociologist Reinhold Niebuhr
noted trenchantly in 1932 in his canonical work Moral Man and Immoral Society, “Complete
rational objectivity in a social situation is impossible.”

In most, if not all such cases, economic and power interests of a dominant class or classes (take,
for instance, the idea of elite capture — or extractive elites — which is a genuine concern but, in
the absence of any real analysis, has become just another trope) will create injustices that “cannot
be resolved by moral and rational suasion alone.” When there are no institutions available — or
where the form of such institutions is a mere red-herring — “conflict [will be] inevitable, and in
this conflict power must be challenged by power.”

This is not to say that most people agitating the socio-political and economic disharmony that we
are witnessing here take to the streets after reading Thucydides or Plutarch. Nor should one
confuse the current crop of leaders in this country — civilian and uniformed — as representing
Solon or even Theseus. But there are real structural imbalances which cannot be dealt with
through mere commentary on daily events and which have hobbled this country’s socio-political
and economic spheres for seven decades.

As political scientist Mehran Kamrava noted in his Inside the Arab State, “The essence of
politics boils down to state-society relations. But these relations are far from mechanical. There
are cultural, ideological and normative dimensions to the interactions as well, and such factors as
legitimacy and citizenship are also instrumental in shaping politics.”

PDM leaders are now criticising Imran Khan and the PTI for undermining the army | White Star

The case of Egypt

In a putsch on July 3, 2013, while leading a coalition, Gen Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, a mechanised
infantry officer who had also served as head of Military Intelligence, deposed Egypt’s elected
president Mohamed Morsi and suspended the country’s 2012 constitution.

Sisi had come to relative prominence after the 18-day protests in 2011, which had forced
President Hosni Mubarak to leave office and when he was named a member of the Supreme
Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF). The SCAF ran Egypt as an interim arrangement after
Mobarak’s departure.
His position in the system was further entrenched when Morsi, after being elected president in
June 2012, appointed Sisi as commander-in-chief of the military and defence minister in August
that year. This decision, among other things, was to set in motion events in Egypt that would
transform the promise of the Arab Spring into what political scientist Steven Cook famously
called the “false dawn”.

A little-remembered fact of what happened after Morsi’s, and with him the Muslim
Brotherhood’s (MB), rise to power is the role of Egypt’s secular-liberal enclave. To simplify
matters for our purpose, the secular-liberals were deeply unhappy at the prospect of Morsi and
MB running Egypt. The opposition parties and their supporters accused Morsi’s government of
poor economic policy, energy shortages, lack of security and creating diplomatic crises. The last
reference was about Morsi’s favourable approach to foreign intervention in Syria.

Protests broke out by the end of 2012. Observers noted that opposition politicians were in secret
talks with the military, essentially the C-in-C of the military, Sisi. “In the months before the
military ousted President Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s top generals met regularly with senior
aides to opposition leaders, often at the Navy Officers’ Club nestled on the Nile,” reported Wall
Street Journal in a July 19, 2013 report titled ‘In Egypt, the ‘Deep State’ Rises Again.’ The
report mentioned a number of politicians including Mohamed ElBaradei, Amr Moussa and
Hamdeen Sabahi.

But the distaste for Morsi and MB ran much deeper. Liberals, who had taken active part in the
Tahrir Square demonstrations in 2011 that forced out Mubarak, were now hobnobbing with the
military. The late Egyptian writer and feminist, Nadal El Saadawi, welcomed Morsi’s ouster as a
“historical revolution and not a coup d’état.” According to her, “The revolutionaries turned to the
army and the army responded.”

El Saadawi repeated this to Rachel Cooke at The Observer in an interview in October 2015 when
Cooke pointed out that “state killings and the numbers of government opponents languishing in
prison are both dramatically on the rise.” “Not at all,” she says, stubbornly. “There is a world of
difference between Mubarak and Sisi. He has got rid of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that never
happened with Mubarak, or with Sadat before him.”

Similar sentiments were expressed by Esraa Abdel Fattah, activist and journalist who earned the
moniker “Facebook Girl” during the Tahrir Square demonstrations in 2011. “When terrorism is
trying to take hold of Egypt and foreign interference is trying to dig into our domestic affairs,
then it’s inevitable for the great Egyptian people to support its armed forces against the foreign
danger.” In an ironic twist, just like many other dissenters, Fattah spent almost two years in
detention after being arrested in October 2019.

But the irony runs deeper than just the person of Fattah and other secular-liberals, including
liberal politicians, civil society actors, journalists and left-oriented labour leaders. Most of them,
though not all, wanted to get rid of Morsi and MB and struck a Faustian bargain with the
military.
The result: Sisi has consolidated personal rule, militarised the Egyptian political system and
attrited the opposition.

The current impasse has also revealed the fissures within the SC and delivered a severe blow to
its role as an arbiter | White Star

Principal contradictions

As I have noted elsewhere, when Mao Zedong penned his essay ‘On Contradiction’ in July 1937,
he was tackling a practical problem. The theoretical part of the essay was to provide
philosophical support for the practical problem: the military threat from Japan, which had
declared war against China.

The war became an inflection point for China. Before then, for an entire decade, Chinese
Communists had fought Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalists. The Communists were chased and
killed in a bloody civil war and paid a heavy price. But after Japan invaded China and threatened
both Communists and Nationalists, what were the Communists to do?

The dogmatic wanted to consider the Nationalists as an internal threat while looking at Japan as
an external enemy. That meant fighting two adversaries, an untenable military-strategic position.
This was the practical problem Mao faced. But he needed a theoretical argument to explain what
was at stake.

Mao’s argument, relevant to our purpose, was the premise that, “There is nothing that does not
contain contradiction; without contradiction nothing would exist.” But, as he argued, this concept
of “contradiction” is not static; it’s dynamic:

“The fundamental contradiction becomes more and more intensified as it passes from one stage
to another in the lengthy process. In addition, among the numerous major and minor
contradictions which are determined or influenced by the fundamental contradiction, some
become intensified, some are temporarily or partially resolved or mitigated, and some new ones
emerge; hence the process is marked by stages.”

In essence, Mao wanted the Communists to distinguish in a complex situation between what was
a principal contradiction and what [are/were] the aspects of a principal contradiction. Over time,
and given the changing situations, “the principal and non-principal [secondary] aspects of a
contradiction can transform themselves into each other, and the nature of it changes
accordingly.”

‘One-page partners’: former PM Imran Khan and former COAS Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa | White
Star

Contradictions and perceptions

Two points are important here. The principal contradiction and its dynamism is not just a
problem of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’, that assessment being just one aspect of it. It’s not
about the Egyptian secular-liberals saying that, since Morsi is an Islamist, let’s side with Sisi
and, by extension, the military. It’s a structural issue, at the core of which lies power. Who has
the power to coerce? Put another way, who can rig the system in ways that would allow that
person, party or institution to not only perpetrate but perpetuate its power?

In some countries, it’s the military. In others it has been — can be, and is — a single
party/ideology. For instance, the Egyptian secular-liberals as a broad category had to figure out
whether the principal contradiction lay between all the civilian actors and the military or between
Morsi’s and MB’s Islamism and secularity. They chose the latter. But in doing that, they forgot
the element of power and the coercion that flows from it.

Resultantly, after Morsi was ousted and Sisi entrenched himself, he decided to crackdown on
dissent regardless of the ideology of the dissenter. The Grim Reaper, as we know, is
indiscriminate.

Niebuhr writes: “The coercive factor is…always present in politics. If economic interests do not
conflict too sharply, if the spirit of accommodation partially resolves them, and if the democratic
process has achieved moral prestige and historic dignity, the coercive factor in politics may
become too covert to be visible to the casual observer.

“Nevertheless, only a romanticist of the purest water could maintain that a national group ever
arrives at a ‘common mind’ or becomes conscious of a ‘general will’ without the use of either
force or the threat of force.”

The ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ approach, sans a careful examination of where power
resides and who exercises it, is destined to fall prey to its own contradiction, namely an initial
acceptance that allying with a powerful force is important to fight the adversary but ignoring
how the powerful force will act when the initial objective has been met.

In other words, it’s the difference between avoiding a two-front situation and preserving one’s
strength versus allying with a force more powerful than one can muster in order to worst the
adversary. The first is strategy; the second, hope.

Pakistan and its contestants

As noted above, Pakistan stands at an impasse, perhaps a Mexican stand-off, described as a

confrontation where no strategy exists that allows any party to achieve victory. Again, the
current situation — partisans notwithstanding — did not develop with the VoNC against Khan. It
has been evolving over decades.

At the core of it is what Kamrava describes as power politics (I will add other interests that come
with the exercise of power), “who wins, who loses, and who is able to outsmart or outmuscle
others in the bid to institutionalise newly-won powers.” The interest of the dominant group or
coalition becomes “the agendas of the state.”
We have four actors in the arena: Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI), the current
Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) coalition government, the judiciary, and the army.
People, for the most part, even when aligned with one or the other political actor are largely
irrelevant (that’s another discussion and a system problem but it’s important to flag it.)

In the 2018 elections, the army sided with Khan. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) had
already fallen foul of the army and Nawaz Sharif was disqualified through a verdict that remains
controversial. In 2021, Khan got a taste of the army’s “neutrality” when his weakest link, the PTI
allies were made to develop a “conscience”. Much is now known, given the penchant by both
Khan and former army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa for hanging out the dirty laundry for
public viewing.

After his ouster, Khan took to the road. His motif in the speeches was (to some extent even now)
to discredit the army’s top brass, especially the former army chief. At the same time, Khan was
also privately reaching out to the army chief, a fact acknowledged, and defended, by leaders of
his own party.

This is the point where we return to Mao. PML-N’s elder Sharif and his daughter Maryam
Nawaz Sharif attacked the army when out of power; Khan and his supporters are doing the same
now that they are out of power. When in power, Khan and his ministers would blast the PML-
N/PDM for attacking the army. The PML-N/PDM leaders are now blasting Khan and the PTI for
undermining the army.

Corollary one: even as the army’s image has taken a beating, within the system it still retains the
capability to control events and outcomes. And since there’s a difference between the morals of
groups and individuals, the army, just like any other group (or actor), would do whatever it can
to dominate this national setting.

Corollary two: for all his rhetoric against some in the brass, Khan still believes that the principal
contradiction lies between him and the political opposition. This, understandably, precludes any
possibility of a political charter between PTI and the rest and, consequently, allows the army to
remain dominant.

In a cover article published in Eos on December 18, 2022, I had made two central observations:
the military’s dominance is not just a coup problem, because militaries just need to control
strategic nodes within the system.

The second observation, flowing from this, was that to think the army “is about to change its
disposition is to live in a fool’s paradise.”

Zero-sum game

The country is now politically unstable, economically near-insolvent and socially divisive.
Khan’s view that he won’t talk to the “imported” government is now reciprocated by the latter.
The federal interior minister, Rana Sanaullah, is on record as having said that “it’s either us or
Khan.“
These positions fly in the face of an understanding of politics as a process of aggregating
conflicting and often contradictory interests. Privately, political sources on both sides of the
divide also say, sotto voce, that the army doesn’t want Khan to return to power because its top
leadership does not trust him and fears that he might take steps that could disrupt the
organisational cohesiveness of the army. That cohesiveness, incidentally, has already come under
great strain.

This requires engineering because popularity polls and ratings show Khan to be miles ahead of
other leaders. He is pressuring the system through the dissolution of the Punjab and Khyber-
Pakhtunkhwa assemblies. The system is fighting back by using semi-legal and illegal ruses. The
Constitution mandates a 90-day period for elections to be held. The Election Commission of
Pakistan is the body required to hold elections. But in the current contested landscape, this clear
provision has become a bone of contention and is now dragging the Supreme Court (SC) through
the mud.

The happenings at the SC reflect the partisan divide in this country. Lawyers train hard to play
on technicalities and procedures but, when arguments are spiced by political leanings and
preferences, the focus on technicalities to the exclusion of substance runs the risk of shystering.

While there can be multiple positions and choices, especially where those positions are informed
by partisan leanings, a course of action must be guided by the clarity provided by laws and the
Constitution.

That is unfortunate for two reasons: one, the conversation about SC’s functioning and the Chief
Justice of Pakistan’s place is indeed an important one. But when this conversation happens at the
time it is happening and in the manner in which it is happening, it begins to come across as a
diversion rather than something important in its own right.

Two, in addition to the timing and the manner in which it is being conducted, it is not only
interfering with the substantive issue of elections, it seems to want to shoot it down. Thirdly, but
not least, the mutinous approach to tackling these internal issues has shown the fissures within
the SC and delivered a severe blow both to its role as an arbiter and its ability to do better than
other institutions on whose actions it is supposed to arbitrate.

This is why the current government has “advised” the SC to first put its own house in order, a
perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.

A state bereft

There are two paths to change: one is gradualness, the other is disruption.

History bears testimony to both. Personally, I am an incrementalist. But that approach implies
aggregation and compromise, where parties in a conflict confer together, “moderate their
demands and arrive at a modus vivendi.”
But what if that doesn’t happen? What if the disinherited and powerless groups in a society — or
the aspiring urban youth as seems to be the case here — cannot make their voices heard, much
less have the space to confer? Participating in a power and interest balance in a state-society
relationship is after all not really the same as being a corporate shareholder who can sell the
stock and exit, though many are exiting, some even drowning in the process.

How do you reorganise the values where the dominant group or groups are simply not interested
in sharing power and can rig the system in their favour, especially if winning and losing becomes
a zero-sum game?

Many states survive (even increase overall prosperity) despite politico-ideological repression,
China being a good example. But they do so through economic progress and sound
developmental policies, though the issue of political participation can continue to simmer despite
overall prosperity. Pakistan neither has political stability nor economic prospects. And while it is
still some way short of being an entirely authoritarian state, it is steadily moving in that direction.

Finally, to bring the wheel full circle, let me quote Kamrava on Egypt: “Regardless of how the
post-uprising Egyptian state envisions itself, it is neither revolutionary nor democratic. In fact, it
is bereft of most forms of legitimacy, propping itself up almost entirely through its coercive
apparatus.”
Toxic partisanship
Umair Javed

SINCE the emergence of the PTI as the PML-N’s chief rival in Punjab, some observers have
periodically voiced concerns about rampant polarisation in the electorate. What’s cited as proof
is the deeply partisan identities adopted by supporters both offline and on social media, which
render any conversation skirting the issue of politics into an often tedious zero-sum exchange. In
recent months, as we inch closer to the election, these exchanges have escalated in both quantity
and their degree of hostility, leaving large social gatherings (on or offline) completely
unbearable.

This is not the first time Pakistan has witnessed political polarisation. The 1990s, by all accounts,
were deeply conflictual, with intra-elite as well as party-based conflict escalating throughout the
decade. But most famously perhaps, it was the late 1960s and the 1970s that remain the high
point of political polarisation, where ideological (more than party-based) identities permeated all
forms of social interaction — from within the household, to student unions in educational
institutions, to labour unions fighting management in workplaces, and finally, parties
representing clear ideological platforms duking it out in the political arena.

It is fashionable to discard the political landscape of those two decades as either a relic or an
anomaly by comparing it to the global context in the time since. However, in contrast to the
seemingly post-ideological 1990s and early 2000s, the last decade or so has seen the global
emergence of a more assertive ideological politics — largely of the right, but occasionally of a
more progressive bent as well. The most obvious manifestation has been the rise of strongman
authoritarian populism in different parts of the world, but a slightly less heralded one is the
localised progressive activism, encapsulated by organisations like the Democratic Socialists of
America, or Momentum in UK, or other such counterparts in Western Europe.

In an ideological vacuum, the non-cosmetic difference between the PTI and the PML-N is always
going to be marginal.

None of this is particularly new given how party-based ideological identification has a long
history in advanced democracies. In fact, plenty of research in the US and UK now concludes
that partisan identity (rather than the classical sociological variables — class, gender, or race) is
the best predictor of an individual’s view on various public issues.
While we’re quite some way away from this becoming a norm in Pakistan, deep identification
with a party might already be true for certain segments of the population. People are quick to
change their positions (and then fight passionately for their new ones) on the cue of their
favoured party or leader. Many of those who advocated for the separation of religion from
politics in the aftermath of the Khatm-i-Nabuwat amendment episode, suddenly found
themselves questioning Imran Khan’s eligibility to be prime minister after his visit to a shrine.
Similarly, those who passionately plead against the evils of feudalism and rural oppression are
now creating elaborate justifications for their need in electoral politics.

A part, if not all, of this partisanship can be traced to the fact that politics is also the dominant
form of cultural consumption on our airwaves. Because we don’t have the Pakistan Super
League for more than two months a year, and because there’s no other sphere of cultural activity
large enough to garner more of our attention, we’re perhaps left only with political arguments as
a way to satiate partisan cravings or identity crises.

On the face of it, partisanship is not necessarily a bad thing. Increase in party vote banks is an
unequivocal positive for a political system that has too long remained dependent on the clout of
individual candidates and their families. It also increases some pressure on parties to respond to
their core electorates, as they become more easily identifiable and vocal.

However, unlike the divisive partisanship we see between Labour and Conservative supporters in
the UK, or the Democrats and Republicans in the US, the Pakistani brand of partisanship
(specifically the PML-N vs PTI tedium) is a slightly bewildering phenomenon, given its relative
lack of grounding in any ideological or programmatic difference. This is not to say there aren’t
any differences between the two parties — there are on a number of issues, including some
development priorities and devolution. However, the overarching framework in both manifestos
is growth-oriented, with even the design of social protection programmes mirroring each other.
Hence, most of all, this visceral partisanship is based on the appeal of party leaders, rather than
anything else.

If there were more substantive differences driving it, we would’ve seen PTI supporters
questioning the party’s embrace of a variety of expedient electoral strategies and personalities,
which weaken its claim of difference and will undoubtedly shape its performance in office.
Similarly, it would force PML-N supporters to question the narrative of civilian supremacy being
vocalised by the leadership now, after five years of ceding turf, seeking deals, or ignoring these
major contradictions while in office.

The truth is that in an ideological vacuum, the non-cosmetic difference between two urban-
centred, elite-run parties is always going to be marginal. People can debate endlessly about the
PTI’s fixation with corruption, and the PML-N’s fixation with infrastructure, but the fact is that
in office, the pursuit of economic and social policy will not differ by much, given the existing
capacity and fiscal constraints.

Rest assured, once the PTI steps into government in a few weeks’ time, it will spend its first few
years exactly how nearly every government in Pakistan’s history has — by fighting off a
balance-of-payments crisis that usually leads to high inflation, and low growth. As we head to
the polls in a matter of weeks, it is probably worth taking a dispassionate moment and thinking
about the similarities between the two main parties, simply as a way to reduce the general air of
toxicity that so many of us are often caught up in.

Political instability
Ali Cheema

PAKISTAN has spent 34 out of its 68 years, or half its life, in internal political instability
defined as regime instability, political emergencies and constitutional deadlocks. Long-term
instability in Pakistan has been significantly higher than in East Asia and post-Partition
India. The difference between Pakistan and India is large enough to make one wonder
whether long-term instability may provide a significant part of the explanation for the
recent divergence in growth.

The politics of the high state has played out as a zero-sum game where the acquisition of power
by one actor or a set of actors has not resulted in a ‘stable acquisition of power’. Contrary to
resulting in revolutionary ‘change,’ episodes of instability have typified persistent institutional
and elite conflicts. Evidence shows that the years of political instability have been marginally
higher under authoritarian rule, suggesting that reversion to this form of rule is not a panacea.
However, a significant portion of the life of democratic regimes has also been spent managing
instability. The pressing question today is what are the elements of a political compact that can
catalyse the transition to a ‘stable’ democratic state?

Analysing the pathology of instability may provide the beginnings of an answer. Analysis reveals
that instability has been a defining feature of authoritarian rule, both at the point of takeover and
after the induction of partisan civilian partners. The main cause has been the contestation over
civilian supremacy. However, an unacknowledged cause has also been the inability of
authoritarian rule to marginalise political parties, which have shown incredible resilience.

Contested civilian supremacy has also exacerbated instability during periods of civilian rule for
two reasons. Parties that failed to gain power have had the political space to lobby for extra-
constitutional measures in return for compromising on civilian supremacy. In turn, the threat of
disruption has provided parties in power a strong incentive to centralise power in a ‘trustworthy’
cabal making the system exclusionary. These imperatives result in vicious cycles of mistrust and
instability. Therefore, the first element of a democratic compact has to be an agreement between
all major political parties and the military regarding the sphere of civilian supremacy.
The politics of the high state has played out as a zero-sum game.

However, the civil-military divide alone does not provide a complete explanation of instability.
Another important factor is the widespread dispersion of political power within the civilian
political elite. This can be gauged from the fact that no political party has been able to claim
more than one-third of the registered vote in recent elections and that the two-party system has
steadily given way to fragmented representation. Historically authoritarian and centralised
executive-styled civilian regimes have exacerbated polarisation among dispersed power-holders
factionalised along provincial lines. It is difficult to see how this polarisation can be reduced in
the absence of an inclusive framework of power sharing. The federalism of the 18th Amendment
is one response along these lines.

However, the failure to create elected party-based local governments in the larger provinces, a
centre piece of the Charter of Democracy (CoD) and the PTI’s recent manifesto, continues to
inhibit the deepening of an inclusive framework. The institutionalisation of sub-national federal
and fiscal democratic arrangements has to be the second element of a democratic political
compact.

The political structure has also deepened polarisation over the Election Commission, civil
administration and the judiciary with accusations of partisanship being made by all political
parties. In spite of this there have been few attempts at reforms that redress these claims of
partisanship. Measures to create multi-partisan ownership with regard to judicial appointments
and police oversight that are provided in the CoD and the Police Order, 2002 have not taken root.
It is worrying that proposals to reform civil administration and the judiciary are not being
meaningfully debated in any of the parties despite growing polarisation over these institutions,
which is eroding their writ and sanctity. Institutional reforms that build multi-partisan ownership
and strengthen accountability of these institutions have to be the third element of a democratic
political compact.

Pakistani elites have to realise that exclusionary power grabs and centralised governance will not
deliver stable acquisition of power when political power is this dispersed and polarised. This
realisation has resulted in two major constitutional compacts, the 1973 Constitution and the 18th
Amendment, between parliamentary political forces, which gives cause to remain optimistic
about democratic state building. However, we must also realise that the inability to deepen the
democratic compact along these lines will lead to persistent contestation that is likely to impose a
heavy cost on Pakistan’s future.
Polarising politics
The early death of Quaid-i-Azam and the assassination of the first prime minister Liaqat Ali
Khan, led Pakistan to political instability. There were no political forces from among the masses
as the assemblies were dominated by feudals and industrialists. Pakistan Army was the only
important institution as it existed before the partition and had played an important role during
floods, the refugee settlement and the 1948 war. Therefore, the army at that time was considered
to be the only dependable institution in the country. The country failed to have an early
constitution and Pakistan saw short-lived governments in the absence of the constitution. The
first martial law was declared by the civil government in 1953 during anti-Ahmadi riots in
Lahore. Pakistan drew up its first constitution in 1956. On October 7, 1958 Iskandar Mirza
abrogated the constitution, declared Martial Law throughout Pakistan, dismissed the central and
provincial governments, the National Assembly, the provincial assemblies and appointed
General Ayub Khan as Chief Martial law Administrator.

Within some weeks General Ayub Khan removed Iskandar Mirza and became president on the
pretext of political confrontation between East and West Pakistan. In 1968/69 Pakistan witnessed
unrest and agitation against president Ayub, therefore under-pressure Ayub relinquished power
to General Yahya Khan, the then army chief. Yahya Khan promised to hold free and fair
elections in December 1970. In the elections, the Awami League won a majority of seats
followed by the Peoples Party. Bhutto declared that he would not sit in opposition and this led to
a display of the map of Bangladesh by the Awami League in Dhaka. Yahya Khan, under
pressure, dissolved the cabinet and postponed the meeting of the national assembly. There was
no political will on both sides to address the power sharing issue; we could have avoided the
debacle. After the debacle, General Yahya Khan handed over powers to Bhutto, who became
President and Chief Martial Law Administrator. In 1977, Bhutto was overthrown by General
Zia-ul-Haq on the pretext of political instability, violence and agitation by the Pakistan National
Alliance.

Afterwards Nawaz Sharif became prime minister three times and Benazir Bhutto became prime
minister two times. Pakistan remained under martial law regimes in 1958, 1969, 1977 and
followed by the 1999 coup. In 2018, Imran Khan formed a coalition government and he too was
removed from power after a vote of no confidence which Imran Khan accused foreign
involvement in his removal. Unfortunately, none of the prime ministers in Pakistan has
completed his tenure of 5 years in the 75-year-history of Pakistan. Today, politicians blame the
army for their failures but at the same time always try to persuade the army for political
interference. According to a former army chief General Aslam Beg as mentioned in the book
‘Crossed Swords’, “They (politicians) invited the army to settle political differences amongst
themselves”. Before taking over as president in 1958 General Ayub Khan mentioned in his book,
‘Friends Not Masters’ “Politicians started making contacts with certain members of the armed
forces. They were spreading all kinds of rumours to isolate senior officers and to create a group
of army officers to support them in the pursuit of their ambitions”.

With the recent political development, a segment of society, social media brigades of political
parties, paid bloggers and pseudo-intellectuals are spewing venom against the army’s top brass
and its institutions. The Pakistan army has made it clear several times that it is an apolitical
institution. Tens of hundreds of fake websites are active in and outside Pakistan to malign the
armed forces and the top brass, holding them responsible for the recent developments in the
country. Concocted stories are being forward and voice messages are also in circulation to
instigate public and lower ranks against the top brass. Some groups of politicians and journalists
are using insulting narratives which have provided space to their followers to sow the seeds of
hatred. Polarisation is a threat to the security of Pakistan, which may lead to destabilisation of the
country and may result in a civil war. Politicians are not ready to accept each other as they carry
mutual hatred towards each other. At the same time, mainstream media with biased reporting,
followed by inflammatory stories of YouTubers, are fuelling the already polarised society.
Instead of setting personal examples, politicians accuse each other with undignified words and
inappropriate language which is unbecoming of them. Politicians are involved in levelling
baseless allegations against each other—even families are not spared. Those hatching
conspiracies against the institutions and the country are not well-wishers of the country.
Politicians must sit together to sort out their differences and should not allow enemies to disturb
our hard-earned peace.

The writer is a retired brigadier and freelance columnist.

Pakistan drew up its first constitution in 1956.

Political Polarization for New
Government
The incoming government must harness political polariza-tion, if it
wants to usher in an era of political stability and good governance
Khaliq Dad Lak

Pakistan has been facing the issue of political polarization for more than a decade. Political
parties are vying for legitimacy by declaring their competitors anti-national elements. Simply
putting, political polarization has pitted political groups into a us versus them debate. Last two
years have jolted every existing social, political, and economic structure of Pakistan. Political
polarization has reached its ideological extreme. The incoming government must harness
political polarization, if it wants to usher in an era of political stability and good governance.

It is imperative to decipher why societies face the issue of political polarization. A research study
conducted by the European Center for Populism Studies(ECPS) offers two interrelated causes.
First, when the governments are unable to perform their constitutional duties properly, the
masses are alienated and the political divide increases. The moral legitimacy of the opponents is
challenged. Second, masses feel attracted towards specific political groups, deeming them
legitimate. The issue of polarization is exacerbated by social media, mainstream T.V networks,
and other sources of social and political debate. Pakistan has witnessed the nefarious rise of all
these factors in recent years.

Political polarization has proved a debilitating threat for Pakistan. For the last ten years or so,
there is absence of any coherent government. It can be linked to the awareness of the masses
about their rights and political power; but the response of the state institutions crushed their
aspirations. Previously, masses were either apolitical and less empathetic with the political
process. The situation has changed, yet the powerful forces of the state have not realized this.

Ostensibly, political polarization jeopardized national development. Successive governments

have miserably failed to offer something tangible to the masses. Pakistan was ranked 133/180 in
Corruption Perception Index(CPI) by Transparency International in 2023. In the realm of
freedom of expression, Pakistan has been performing poorly. According to Reporters Without
Borders(2023), Pakistan is at 150/180 in World Press Freedom Index Ranking. Contrary to it, the
health and education sector are also in shambles. It is unfortunate that Pakistan tops every
international ranking from the bottom. Youth is getting radicalized by this state of affairs. The
wishes of the youth to live a decent life are being sacrificed at the altar of political elites which
would have pernicious impacts on the state in the years to come. The new government must
abstain from using the nefarious tactics of political revenge and crushing the dissenting voices.

The constitution of 1973 has all the remedies in its ambit to cope up with the menace of political
polarization. But the biggest step in this regard would be to implement the fundamental rights
enshrined in the constitution. It would eventually erase hatred which is national rhetoric against
the political opponents today. The new coalition government at the National level and the
provincial level must implement the fundamental rights. It is the easiest and the most effective
remedy available to cope up with the issue of political instability and accountability. For
instance, the article 10 ensures that no person shall be arrested without legal grounds and to be
produced before the magistrate. Similarly, article 10A vividly outlines the right of fair trial. The
article 15,16, and 17 provides freedom of movement, assembly, and association. Whereas, article
19 and 19A provide that every citizen has freedom of speech and right to information.
Lamentably, these articles have not been actualized. It is an undeniable fact that when the
constitutional values of inclusivity, plurality, and democracy would be valued then the issues like
political polarization would be dismantled.

We as a nation have already wasted seven decades. It is right to start a new beginning at the
national level. It would be only possible when there is consensus of all political parties and other
powerful entities of the state. Political victimization of the opponents must be shunned. The
judiciary should decide the cases of political prisoners without any fear and restraint. The
principle of justice must prevail. And the executive arm of the government must realize: the use
of power is not effective in contemporary times. Overall, national development lies in
constructive dialogue, reduction in political polarization, and enforcement on the constitutional
and democratic values.
Politics of polarisation
KARACHI:
Pakistan was founded on the principles of peace, prosperity, social integration
and democracy. However, today’s polarised politics is threatening the country’s
wellbeing and national security. Currently, society is deeply divided because of
differences in political opinion. This has paved the way for violence, mistrust,
verbal and physical abuse among politicians and the people, misinformation,
misuse of social media, and revealed the biases of mainstream media.
During his tenure, former Prime Minister Imran Khan failed to address the myriad issues of
Pakistan, which decreased his popularity amongst the people and led to the no-confidence
motion against him in the parliament. Since his ouster, he has held several public processions
across the country accusing the opposition of engaging in a foreign conspiracy and demanding
fresh elections. Even though his claims of ‘foreign’ conspiracy were proven wrong by all the
state agencies, he continues to uphold his anti-American argument.
The strife between the rival political parties has seeped into the mainstream discourse, which has
severely polarised our society. People have become intolerant of dissent and are unable to
distinguish between facts and fiction. The new government must urgently address this issue by
extinguishing the polarisation and promoting peace, unity, rule of law and inclusiveness by
engaging with different political parties and socio-economic groups.
Muhammad Zafar Mehsud
Peshawar
Underlying causes of ever deepening
polarisation
Today’s deepening polarisation is clearly a result of unresolved contradiction(s)

Most political analysts appear to despise the ever-deepening political polarisation

in Pakistan triggered by the sacking of Imran Khan’s government through a
rigged no-confidence vote last April. These political analysts can be broadly
divided into three categories.
First set of writers not only blame Khan for triggering the crisis but also for deepening it, as in
their view he has been stubbornly refusing to sit with fellow politicians. Some of them also
believe that he is trying to replace the establishment or appears as powerful as the establishment.
One such writer tried to equate Khan with usurpers like Zia and Musharraf. It’s worth quoting
him here: Khan has “fed his followers the idea that they should be liberated from constitutional
and parliamentary restrictions.”
I would like to remind readers that Imran’s movement against the establishment’s interference is
the most effective, most peaceful and most law-abiding in Pakistan’s history. Therefore, the
above writer’s vulgarisation of the idea of Haqeeqi Azadi seems to be a result of his own
prejudice and imagination.
Many political scholars tend to agree that most post-colonial nations have failed to achieve full
independence, as imperialist powers continued to dictate policy directions to their subservient
ruling elites. Analysts like the above seem to be reluctant to acknowledge the unprecedented
contribution of conscientious journalists and PTI workers towards guarding civil liberties and
taking a stand against the establishment’s interference against democratic processes and
structures as well as its subservient ruling coalition.
The second category of writers appears to believe that it is the ‘establishment’s refusal to act as
mediator between Khan and PDM that caused the prevailing polarisation’. Interestingly, the
establishment has never mediated between fighting parties. In fact, almost all military takeovers
were either the result of establishment-sponsored political movements or of an exploitation of the
prevalent situation to capture power.
The third group of analysts is of the view that it is the ‘corrupt’ elements within the
establishment and political class who are responsible for triggering as well as perpetuating both
the current political uncertainty and the economic catastrophe. They also believe that free and
fair election is the only way to end these crises.
In my opinion, all the three groups tend to examine the symptoms rather than the underlying
factors. Let’s then find the underlying factors.
Political parties almost always articulate the aggregated interests of their core support base and in
a democratic polity they develop certain ideology with which to attract voters, so that they could
capture power. For instance, it is perceived that the PPP predominantly represents the landed
elite, while the PML-N’s core support base used to be big and medium businessmen. In Pakistan,
workers and peasants don’t have a party of their own. So they have been ‘coerced’ or persuaded
to support and vote either for big landlords or businessmen.
This absence is likely to be one of the reasons for perpetuating political crisis in our country.
Pakistan has been experiencing this for a long time. But in my opinion, a large majority of
people including many ‘intellectuals’ are confused because they are failing to comprehend the
complexity of the situation. Some of them seem to be spreading confusion intentionally and
some unintentionally.
Let’s draw some philosophical help from Marxist literature. Marx holds that “every class
struggle is a political struggle.” So is the inverse, is every political struggle a class struggle?
Mostly but not necessarily. See what Greta Thunberg, a 20-year-old climate activist, says:
“Without changing the fundamental dynamic of exploitation, which predates the climate crisis,
damages can’t be reduced.” I don’t need to state here all the statistics of systemic exploitation.
Suffice is to say that a one per cent powerful elite has captured economic and political space.
In 1970, the people of Pakistan voted for ‘roti, kapra aur makan’. In 2018 they voted for insaf.
The leader who had promised them bread and housing was hanged and the leader who had
promised justice is now fighting for justice for himself. However, in both cases the vast majority
of working people had perceived both these leaders simply as an ‘enemy of their enemy’.
Bhutto’s descendants never uttered his slogan, and the people punished them back. Imran is
stubbornly showing defiance and seemingly not willing to compromise on his main slogans —
justice and end to corruption. He perhaps knows what his fate would be if he compromises. The
recent steep surge in his popularity appears to be a sign of the people‘s rage against the tyranny
of state-sponsored political oppression and the related economic injustice which they face every
day. Put simply, for the working people every political struggle that they join is a class struggle.
The Marxian concept of dialectical materialism is defined as “the way in which two very
different forces or factors work together (interact), and the way in which their differences are
resolved.” In other words, dialectics is/are about contradictions. As the contradictions sharpen,
polarisation deepens. Marxists further differentiate contradiction into two main categories —
antagonistic and non-antagonistic. The former is one in which “the two sides do not compromise
and both sides are predetermined to resolve it through struggle”, while the later one “can be
resolved peacefully without destroying the other side”. Mao argues that an antagonistic
contradiction could be transformed into a non-antagonistic one “if properly handled”. Shan
Hong, a Chinese Marxist author, argues that the “quality of contradiction largely determines the
form of struggle and the method of resolution.”
Today’s deepening polarisation is clearly a result of unresolved contradiction(s) — between state
and citizens; employer and employee; and men and women. And since the quality of the
contradictions remained blurred, the form of struggle also remained consistently problematic and
deeply confusing. It is also evident that powerful groups are determined to preserve this rotten
system, and as in the past, ready to punish everyone who actively tries to reform it. For this, they
are even willing to risk destruction of the ship they are sailing in. Hence, all the more reason to
demand resolution. No wonder Bertolt Brecht said: “In the contradiction lies the hope.” Though
temporarily our hope lies in the holding of a free and fair election and in letting our constitution
prevail.
Societal polarisation and Pakistan’s future
To some extent, Trump’s style of politics echoes in Pakistan

Rise of nationalism, racism and religious extremism at the beginning of the 21st
century is a by-product of globalisation. As nation-states are permeated by
transnational economics and societal trends, narratives based on racial, ethnic
and religious divisions have become convenient enablers in obtaining political
gains, but at the cost of national unity. In the very recent history, Donald
Trump’s racist rhetoric permeated violence in the US society by inspiring white
supremacism exploiting centuries-old prejudice entrenched in the American
society. Hateful rhetoric attracted many alike, widening his electoral support, as
the societal fractures deepened with surge in violence against the non-whites. Not
only that, Trump brought in the notion of righteous based on self-conceived
standards best suited to him, implicitly denying any prospect of dissent.
Those not in agreement were condemned to be unpatriotic, and unpardonable. Societal
and political divisions under the garb of ‘America First’ worked well for his politics.
Since independence, the national unity in Pakistan remained hostage to linguistic,
sectarian and ethnic divides and other nationalist movements. The linguistic
dissections exacerbated by political and societal injustices incurred by Bengalis fated
in the separation of East Pakistan in 1971, whereas other enduring fissures continued
to haunt national cohesion and country’s progress, however remained limited to the
regions and varying time spells. Remaining insensitive to rising militancy and
extremism, unintended consequence of Pakistan’s participation in the Afghanistan
wars,
it was only ferocious Talibanisation of the Swat Valley, and horrific carnage in the
Army Public School that led to shaking an unmoved nation and indecisive decision-
making. In Pakistan ideologies, religion, ethnic and provincial identities shaped the
political landscape. In the past, the tenor of the political rivalry had been intense, but
not to the point of irreconcilability. However, it changed in the recent times to deep
entrenched animosity. Post 2014 witnessed new entity, dynamically transforming
politics by aggressively animating the narrative against the opponents on account of
corruption, whose political legacies rested on dynastical continuation and religious
cult, rather than pursuit of a progressive Pakistan. This appealed to youth and the
middle class who were quite fatigued by the decades-old redundant rhetoric and mis-
governance.
The educated class and youth eulogised this dynamism in the polity, reflecting greater
awareness of the masses. To that end, it was all good for the country. In the months to
come, this political following turned into blind faith in the narratives of the leadership,
not challengeable even by the facts. The media was overemployed for demonising the
divergence in opinion. As it continued, the discourse became intense and personalised,
blended in animosity and hatred. Concurrently social media turned violent and
untamed, transgressing the established values. All this instilled intolerance and
violence in the political behaviour. Even the educated ones rigidified their pre-
conceived views at the cost of facts and reasoning. Personal likes overshadowed sense
of right or wrong, detrimental to the societal integrity.
As the social media was weaponised, for intimidation and to secure the desired
results, it was turned towards military, judiciary and other state institutions, thus
intentionally blurring the very definite lines. Recent derogatory attacks against Army
martyrs had been simply reckless and disgusting with no such precedence elsewhere
in the world. Simply the task of enemy agencies has been assumed by our own people
unwittingly in disinformation, creating societal divides and fanning hatred.
Notwithstanding political ascendancy through violent behaviours and intense
narratives, our national unity, political stability, institutional sanctity and country’s
progress have become a casualty to this political expediency.
To some extent, Trump’s style of politics echoes in Pakistan. America could still
afford Trump’s divisive politics because of its almost inexhaustible natural resources
as well as strong constitutional, societal and economic fundamentals. But Pakistan —
facing daunting economic, governance, educational, societal and security challenges
— can hardly afford the self-centred political adventurism, at the cost of nation’s
future. Most damaging aspect of this societal polarisation is erosion of the youth
capital, which forms 63% of our overall population. While Pakistan has one of the
lowest literacy rates in the world at 58%, after Honduras and Bangladesh, our youth is
already struggling through lack of purposeful education, unemployment, sharp moral
decline and other societal ills. As of now, it is one of the biggest challenges for
impoverished Pakistan to channelise this chunk of the population.
Contrarily, steering disenchanted youth towards, hatred, violence and against the
national institutions for sheer political gains is simply devastating. It is a high time for
politicians, policymakers and others to wriggle out from the deep political battles to
help Pakistan sail out of the mess of our own creating. Ego, personal likings and
political imperatives should cede to the societal harmony, political stability and
national interests. In that, broader political rapprochement is a must to save society
from further alienation, necessitating measures that are direly needed for healing the
fissured social structure and preserve the youth for a progressive Pakistan, rather than
using them as political fodder. Pakistan with exploding population and receding
natural resources must develop economic fundamentals and acquire economic
relevancy.
Economic recovery and laying lasting economic foundation must take precedence
over the rest. Pakistan’s friends and donors are long fatigued from our perpetual
dysfunctional economy. Mere geostrategic location would not help Pakistan long in
avoiding to become a baggage even for our staunchest supporter, China. CPEC is only
a ‘Force Multiplier’, it must have a force to multiply, that is lacking as of now. The
massive infrastructures raised under this programme should be orientated towards
revenue generation rather than optically attractive enterprises. In the longer run,
Pakistan’s economy cannot endure on remittances, IMF programmes and other fiscal
donations sought at the cost of country’s self-respect.
Electoral spell oriented politics and populist measures introduced in Zia’s era need to
be shunned for articulating the national strategy based on economic independence,
true independence in the prevalent world. Same time, it is imperative to reject any
notion of tweaking the Constitution to benefit particular political entity, to change the
system of parliamentary government, or to bring technocrats for the national recovery
as advocated by some. We have already wasted seven decades to such adventurism
dating back to the era of intrigues played by the Iskander Mirza-Ayub Khan duo. The
constitutional amendments if necessary should only be incorporated to strengthen the
federation and its functionality. Unmistakably, our progression and future rests on
continuation of the system that is based on rules and law, as warranted by the
Constitution, as well as saving this nation from the societal polarisation.
Alarming polarisation of society
Leaders would be expected to conduct themselves to lessen despondency, frustration-instead
some are igniting passions

Seldom, if ever, was Pakistani society as polarised as it is today. With the

economy on a ventilator, debt burden unbearable, default looming, cost of living
soaring, poverty level rising and people’s anger at its peak, political leaders
would be expected to conduct themselves to lessen the despondency and
frustration in the masses. Instead some are igniting passions. Some, having lost
the ability to project into the future, are trying to deepen the divisions, hatred
and hostility. With little foresight, such so-called politicians are providing fuel to
the tense stand-off between the ruling coalition and the opposition. This is a
potentially hazardous approach to problem solving.
The latest outburst by PTI chairman Imran Khan is yet another ominous sign of the
efforts to cast aspersion on the role of institutions in a moment of great uncertainty
and to sow the seeds of further discontent and despair. In a statement on June 1, the
PTI chief has asserted that if the ‘Establishment’ does not act now to stem the rot, the
institution of military would face destruction. He ‘sees’ Pakistan breaking up if the
sitting government is ‘allowed’ to continue in office. He has been dogmatic and
emphatic ‘predicting’ a break-up of the country into ‘three’ parts if the change he
desires does not take place. In their endeavours to seek a safe passage for the party’s
upcoming rallies, Supreme Court’s intervention has been sought. This is the first time
that a political party is seeking to obtain a ‘permit’ from a court prior to staging a rally
— as if the court is a party to the ongoing game of politics in the country. Imran Khan
has also warned that the nuclear assets of the country are in grave danger of being
captured by hostile enemies.
These are stunning ‘revelations’ from a politician who has remained the country’s
Prime Minister though with limited authority because of a total lack of experience at
governance. To create suspicions about the future of the Army in any imaginary
collapse of order is not only a serious error of judgement but also a highly risky and
unwarranted miscalculation. The Army as an institution would continue to perform its
role as a defender of the borders of Pakistan and a guarantor of its unity and stability.
That is a sacred task which requires not only a deep commitment but an abiding
motivation. Giving such statements amounts to creating doubts about the viability of
an institution that has guaranteed the sovereignty of the country under difficult
conditions.
A three-way split of the country is another bombshell thrown by the PTI chief. This
preposterous assumption raises many questions. Is the country really on an edge? Has
the situation reached a stage where the unity of the country and its continuing viability
is in danger? Does it appear likely that Pakistan will face acute uncertainty if the
current dispensation were to continue? How and why would the situation change for
the better and all these hazards avoided if the PTI returns to power?
There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the provocative statements
coming from the leadership of the PTI. The party just cannot accept its defeat in a no-
trust motion in the parliament. This is intriguing because the PTI after all ruled the
country for more three and a half years. Firstly many would question the very
rationale or moral, legal justification of the PTI to rule the country because the 2018
general election is widely believed to have been manipulated. Imran Khan’s party was
not a clear winner in the election and had therefore no moral or legal right to form a
government. Secondly its government never showed any real interest in promoting
progress and prosperity. Issues like poverty, illiteracy, pollution, climate change,
unemployment, water scarcity, exports, debt reduction, etc were not part of its
priorities. There was one, overriding commitment that it never shied away from filing
cases of corruption, apprehending those involved in malpractices in the family of
Sharifs and Zardaris. There was an unwavering and uncompromising stance on
punishing the two families for whatever they may or may not have done. Not a day
would pass when in any assembly of guests an attack would not be launched against
the wrong doings of the two families — as if the fate of Pakistan hung on a swift
punishment of the culprits of the two houses. This was such an obsession as if the
country’s future depended on the amount of penalties awarded to those found guilty.
But it underscores another important dimension of the campaign of vilification. With
all the state agencies under its control and all material and resources available, did
anyone in the house of Sharifs found guilty? The last time a guilty verdict was given
in 2017 against the Sharif family was Mr Nawaz Sharif had not received salary from
his son’s company! Are there any parallels in judicial history where a father is held
guilty for not accepting to receive ‘salary’ from his own son?
If after nearly four years of intensive investigation, lengthy inquiries, mobilisation of
all state resources, no conviction of any member of the Sharif family could be
possible, that would mean the cases are fundamentally weak in substance and are the
outcome of a relentless and insatiable vendetta. What was the blunder that was
committed? The government should have left all such cases to the institutions rather
than the Prime Minster personally supervising such a drive. The government should
have been addressing the issues that the country faces — some of which have been
highlighted above. Nowhere in the world would a head of the government be showing
such commitment to punish his predecessor, ignoring all other vital functions.
Nowhere would a Prime Minister be engaged in an unending tirade of abuses against
opponents at the cost of all other activities that he has the mandate to carry out.
There is still time to pause, to reflect. Dividing the country and the society is no
service to humanity. Uniting a nation of 225 million for eradication of poverty, for
equality, for justice, and for progress and prosperity is a noble cause. That must be
pursued with a passion and devotion.
Polarisation and Isolation
Heated political arguments, that lead to severing our bonds with our loved ones, will increase our
isolation

As I look forward to meeting friends on this Eid, I cannot help but feel a sense of
anxiety. Like other places, the Pakistanis in my network are passionately
reacting to the political changes in the country. So far, they are finding it hard to
keep their tempers in check. The language used by many, mirroring what I have
seen in Pakistan, is the most vulgar and crass I have ever seen or heard. I am
troubled because those who have known each other for years, and have enjoyed
deep bonds of friendship are accusing each other of being traitors or members of
a fascist cult. Those who know better are willing to sacrifice years of friendship
and trust in an angry outburst. This was all in Ramzan, I worry what might
happen when people may let down their guard even further and come face to
face. I know that this is not just a phenomenon in my own network. Friends and
family in Pakistan tell me of similar polarisation and rupture of sacred bonds
that should be above partisan politics.
Many of us in the US have seen this happen during the Trump years. It had become
impossible for many to hold family dinners, or to spend time together. Thanksgiving
became a shouting match, and the idea of spending time with friends from the
opposite side of political ideology was a nightmare. But was it worth it? Was one side
able to convince the other? The consequence, unfortunately, was not a rational
discussion or seeing the viewpoint of the other side. On the contrary, it created near
permanent tears in the social fabric.
Here my argument is not about being oblivious to the political situation. Quite the
opposite. I believe that historically not enough people have engaged in the political
process, resulting in a system that is rotten and run by those who do not consider
themselves accountable to the public. My argument is more about how we argue, and
what we prioritise. Here, I would point to two approaches. The first is the philosophy
of dialogue pioneered by the 20th century philosopher Martin Buber who emphasised
the importance of active and attentive listening, and esteeming the other in a dialogue.
Dialogue, by Buber, is a turning toward another. It is a fundamental acknowledgement
of the uniqueness of the other person, and recognising them as a whole, not merely a
reflection of their argument.
The other approach, as mentioned by Arthur Brooks in a recent Atlantic article
concerns what we want when we argue. According to Brooks, too often when we
argue, we do so with an intent to defeat, not to convince. We speak with a desire to
land a punch, not to win the heart. We are more interested in sharp one-liners than in
thoughtful, ethical and respectful arguments. His approach to tackle our own impulse
in bringing down the other is to present an argument not as a punch, but as a gift —
done so with humility and respect.
Let us do a thought experiment. If any one of us, who is a passionate advocate for
their party, were to disappear — it would make no difference to those in whose name
we fight and argue. They would feel no sense of loss. But in that heated moment, if
we lose those whom we love, and who love us, one day we will realise that we lost a
lot.
The reason I am troubled by the polarisation is not simply because of what it is doing
to our bonds in society, but also when this is happening. Covid-19 has created
immense loneliness. Mental health problems are on the rise. Depression incidents are
common among people of all ages. A significant part of this is isolation and losing the
human touch. Heated political arguments at this stage, that lead to severing our bonds
with our loved ones, will increase our isolation further and undo what little we have
been able to save, preserve and restore.
Descent of politics into warfare
Democracy's fate depends on many factors but it most crucially depends on behaviour of
political leaders, parties

Descent of politics into warfare is a recent gift of the government and the
opposition to the people of Pakistan. Politics in Pakistan has always complained
that it has been treated unfairly by the establishment but for it to execute an
unwarranted assault on itself is unprecedented. Our Parliament where the
legislators undertook a pledge of loyalty to serve the constitution and the people
of this country has only become a debating club where the ‘promoters of rule of
law’ no more respect law — democracy in Pakistan is backsliding like a heavy
boulder and the democrats are finding it harder and harder to push it. The
boulder has backrolled earlier in this country and I hope it doesn’t backroll
again.
The fate of democracy depends on many factors but most crucially it depends upon
the behaviour of the political leaders and their parties. As long as the politics and
those who practise it in this country don’t learn how to distance themselves from their
leadership’s ‘worst behaviour’ and ‘controversial moves’, politics in this country will
only muddle forward.
Former US president Donald Trump appointed his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law
Jared Kushner on high-level advisory positions. These appointments were technically
legal but violated the democratic norms and the spirit of law. The same spirit of law is
violated every day in this country. Norms are not written, they are created, protected,
understood and practised. Norms become those soft guardians of democracy that hold
democracy together at its seam. When norms are violated, ‘the zone of acceptable
political behaviour expands’. What we saw in the Parliament on February 4 was the
breakdown of democratic norms and because of that the zone of the poor behaviour of
our parliamentarians continues to expand.
Yet again, the opposition is ready to embark on a long march. Despite knowing that
the government’s popularity has not eroded, the PDM has decided to execute this
political strategy. The strength of the current political system lies in the great support
that the government has been able to draw from the military; and knowing that the
alternative is worst, the military will continue to support the system rather than
contribute in any manner to its disruption. So, all that we are likely to witness is lot of
time wastage and postponement and abandonment of so many more important causes
that matter to this country so much. I find no reason for Prime Minister Imran Khan to
even temporarily overlook disagreements in order to find common ground with the
opposition. Both the PDM and the government will continue to reach out and appeal
to people and I think PM Imran’s appeal is being heard with more seriousness than
that of the opposition.
Appealing to the masses reminds me of Abraham Lincoln’s principle of democracy
which says, “You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the
time but not all the people all the time.” The people of Pakistan have suffered. They
suffered both during the military as well as the civilian rule. What is different today is
that all that suffering that used to remain subsurface now surfaces with great ease. It’s
like how violence was the cause of 15% of human deaths in the agricultural age, it
was the cause of 5% of human deaths in the 20th century and only 1% human beings
have died due to violence in the 21st century. Yet the world looks harsher, more
violent and more uncontrolled than at any other time in human history. Imran Khan’s
government may be making mistakes but the future governments are also likely to
continue doing so because of how easy it has become to determine and expose
failures.
If politics was more knowledgeable it would regret its decent into warfare. If there
was more sensible politics nourishing in Pakistan, we would have our politicians
doing their business in parliaments and not out on the streets. Hitler hated the Jews
and wanted to obliterate them and waged a war against them. Yet he and his hated
ideology is dead and the Jews live on. They are just 0.2% of the population of the
world but are the winners of 20% of the Nobel Peace Prizes in the world. Maybe they
spent more time in the libraries, research centres, laboratories and universities. Maybe
their elders made smart and better choices. Whatever the case, our leadership is
dragging our young generation backwards, and they are calling them out on streets
instead of making more universities for them and sending them there. Politics in this
country tells lies, cheats and serves power instead of truth.
Pakistan’s politics great polarisation is likely to endure beyond PTI’s government.
This polarisation is a result of the death of political norms in our democracy. Social
resentment will continue to deepen depending on how politics is organised. Its descent
into warfare needs to be prevented as it will not die of an assault from without, but
given its likely trend it will die of one from within. The pursuit of politics as warfare
suits only the ‘democratic losers’ — those who fear the loss of their political
relevance which they perceive to be under existential threat. Any civilised brand of
politics cannot be expected of these losers. They are the dividers and not the unifiers
in our society who for their personal benefits will go to any limit to ignite the partisan
warfare and force the defenders of the political system to bow to their coercing
political methods. They don’t wage and fight the political war for this country; their
vision of politics as warfare is limited to only seeking power. They are our new ‘serial
democracy killers’. To confront them, and do that amicably, the government will have
to exercise extreme caution and considerable restraint. History tells us that smart,
popular and competent leaders in the world have gained power not by seeking it but
by their readiness to give it up. Such have been the ways of the leaders who have been
popular with the people.
Lastly, there is a lesson that the government needs to keep in mind while dealing with
the PDM. That is actually a quote in the international bestseller book, by Steven
Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die. Explaining how a fly destroys a
China Shop, they say that it buzzes in the ear of the bull and the bull rages in the
China Shop and destroys everything there. So, the bottom line for the government is
that despite the descent of politics into warfare of the PDM kind, when push comes to
shove, it should not overreact.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 7th, 2021.
Conciliation rather than confrontation
Democracy deteriorates in the absence of mutual tolerance among political constituencies and
parties

Today, Pakistan is defined by ungovernability, a sagging economy, social

cleavages, political polarisation, and the use of digital narrative warfare.
Confrontational political discourse in the country is at the root of all the issues. It
is politics rather than economics that decides the scope of any state in the 21st
century. For the last 75 years, with few exceptions, we have been constantly in a
war with narratives and individual leaders. Throughout our political dialect,
conciliation and collaboration were irrelevant, which put the state on the brink
of collapse. For the collective good of 231 million people in Pakistan, it is time to
open up the political dialogue and make a consensus-oriented policy to achieve
common. goals.
The politics of confrontation is against democratic principles. Democracy is based on
the principles of mutual coordination, collaboration, coexistence, and consensus.
Democracy deteriorates in the absence of mutual tolerance among political
constituencies and parties. Through broader connectivity among all units, democracy
can sail. In Pakistan, politics has been deteriorating. It is because of the schism
between political parties and their supporters, society is divided in its admiration for
individual leaders. The ongoing war between individual leaders’ cults has prioritised
individual leaders over Pakistan’s collective destiny. The confrontation of politics has
ended the democratisation of perspectives and narratives. Political parties have
become synonymous with misinformation and narrative distortion. These narratives
have destabilised the political order in the state. As a result, the conditions for
governance and institutional growth has been compromised.
Trust is an essential factor that binds individuals to the state. With the advent of
digital media and unchecked access to information, it has become an easy task for
political leaders to surface confrontation, conflict, and contradictions for their
followers. As a result of ongoing narrative production, conflict politics are erupting
out of them. Overall, this political adventurism of combativeness rather than
compromise has harmed the health of democracy in Pakistan. Moreover, the trust of
the people has been lost in the state, which is causing social tension.
The economy functions well when a sense of stability is restored in the country.
Political leaders, either in government or the opposition, work together to drive out
economic insecurity. Unfortunately, the war of narratives and vendetta politics has
dispersed Pakistan’s political leaders. Their dispersion and deadlock are harming the
economy and institutional growth of Pakistan. When domestic instability is the norm
in any state, political leaders work tirelessly to soften the image of their party while
jeopardising the collective benefit of society.
The 18th Amendment was an amazing triumph of civilian leadership in Pakistan.
Civilian leaders were able to create a mutual consensus to bring about the transition of
the political system from praetorian democracy to parliamentary democracy. A mutual
consensus was built to drive the country from authoritarianism to democratisation. It
was a true victory of democratic rule in the state. Despite the fact that the PPP had a
weak government based on alliances, the politics of conciliation and consensus caused
a major constitutional shift in Pakistan. Later this shift transformed the map of
governance as well as the balance between provincial constituencies and the federal
government. Political dissent is the soul of democracy, but dissent based on fracture
and non-conformity weakens the growth of states. The stagnant economy, an
extractive institutional setup, and rising inflation can be dealt with through political
stability.
In 2023, we need political maturity. This is where all political units in Pakistan come
together and make a mutual consensus to work for a common national cause.
Confrontational politics only divides society, and Pakistan cannot afford social
division. We need to end the politics of confrontation and give way to the politics of
reconciliation and consensus. Democratising the role of politics is a different but
essential step for putting a lagging state on a vibrant new path.
Pakistan, politics, perils and prospects
Quaid's disarming logic was that democracy is only system that empowers ‘all’ — minority as
well as majority

At senior positions one is always confronted with the dilemma of decision-

making (DM), to pick the right option from a range of options presented.
Although decision-making as an art and science is well taught in the military
staff colleges in the context of MDMP (Military Decision-Making Process) and is
further refined through the study of Operational Analysis (OA) or the British
Operational Art, DM remains a crucial dilemma. The acuteness of the dilemma
is directly proportional to the sensitivity of the matter under deliberation. In
one’s experience, there are two operative norms to help through such decision-
making paradoxes. One, picking the option with ‘greater good for the greater
numbers’; and two, the option being more in line with principles, norms and
truism.
Elections present such a dilemma. If the Senate resolution on January 5, 2024 and its
repeat, to postpone the February 8 General Elections is any guide, people at the helm
are ‘on the horns of a dilemma’… to phrase another military dictum. There are strong
reasons to hold elections or otherwise. My two cents are an opinion and open to
criticism and disagreement. One keeps grappling with questions like, the aim and
purpose of elections, the implications of electioneering, the state capture of the same
entrenched ashhrafiyya regaining the reins of power through elections, transparency
and representative nature of elections, the very essence of democracy and its
temperamental compatibility with our political culture, etc.
But first, why elections. One remembers, as a young officer listening to an eminent
Quaid-e-Azam University professor in 1990s eulogising democracy in his address to
the GHQ officers. His disarming logic was that democracy is the only system that
empowers ‘all’ — minority as well as majority. Everyone has representation, a voice
and a vote. Years later during course work in an American University, one learnt that
in ethnically polarised societies (like ours), democracy ultimately becomes the
‘oligarchy’ of major ethnic group.
Our journey towards this cherished goal has been tumultuous, uneven, uncertain and
least productive — to put it mildly. In the present politico-geographic delineation of
Pakistan, Punjab will always have outsized influence. Until we have more manageable
administrative units (or provinces), smaller federating units would always feel
deprivation — actual or perceived. And repeated democratic exercises would actually
exacerbate such privation.
Second, democratic bandwagon runs smoothly when its essentials are in place, and
that means an educated electorate; relatively homogenous societal make-up; a
population not beholden to biradari, caste, religious, sectarian and/or ethnic interests;
leaders wanting to serve and not loot and plunder; politicians with some schooling and
grooming other than rhetorical bluster (promising moon during electioneering and
failing abysmally in deliverance); political leaders not excelling in unneeded traits and
credentials like crime, smuggling, clash of interests…or actually themselves
representing interests (IPPs, land and sugar mafias, crime patronage, etc); and political
parties more representative and not mere dynastic fiefs.
Most candidates were non-filers of tax returns during the recent paper submissions,
making one wonder — comically and ironically — at the source of atrocious wealth
that is needed to contest elections. Sadly, our political culture is far removed from
democratic norms and standards.
Third, elections in Pakistan in general and under the present environs in particular are
divisive, polarizing and oblivious to the national interests. The exercise also sets poor
examples in civility, marred by horse-trading, vote-purchasing and all sorts of
pressures on the electorate through brazen threats, enforced voting and pre/after-poll
rigging of all kinds. The atmosphere is poisonous, threatening economic stability. The
exercise costs prohibitively large expense from an impoverished national exchequer.
And ironically the same faces in different or changed political parties surface again
and again because they strategise re-election, which is perfected as an art.
Fourth, post-election government formation is weak, made through silly compromises
and is reflective of institutional interests and biases. Performance of elected
governments is even more abysmal with no interest by elected representative —
except a miniscule — is serious legislation, informed debate and due diligence. The
vacuum left is sadly filled by ‘other’ forces and the rest, as they say, is history.
Let’s look at the main contenders for the February contest. All are tainted with no
consensus on anyone. PML-N is led by convicts, was tried thrice, is culturally a party
of leaders with the House of Sharif calling the shots. Steeped in sleaze and corruption,
their performance under wonder leader, Shehbaz Sharif, in the 15 months recently was
appalling, to say the least. In an ill-intentioned power grab in 2022 (ostensibly to clear
out NAB cases), the party expended its scarce political capital. Otherwise, why an
astute political party would agree to run an almost bankrupt country in the hands of a
populous demagogue, who was destined to meet his own electoral death.
PPP undoubtedly has more cerebral power than any other party, but it is also tainted
for their alliance with PDM recently, ostensibly for Asif Zardari to see relaxation in
cases against him, and Bilawal to be launched at the federal level. One, however,
grudgingly admires PPP leadership, who demonstrated pro-Pakistan credentials at
critical junctures (Pakistan khapay); never clash with institutions; and are savvier of
Pakistan’s political culture, rather than simply being sleepy-eyed idealists. Plus, PPP
has Sindh, especially its rural areas, undisputedly to itself.
PTI shot itself in both feet on 9th May and is still busy churning out anti-establishment
(particularly anti-Army and anti-General officer cadre) propaganda through its IT
brigade, youthful cadre on social media. Some apparently saner heads even among
military veterans consider 9th May as insider job. Ridiculous, as Army had many heads
rolling at the senior levels. Facilitated to power by the powers-that-be, nurtured and
guided, but ultimately falling out in a dirty personality clash with its once benefactors.
PTI’s cult-like following still makes it a popular party. However, there are serious
questions about its governance capability, inexperience, nationalist outlook and lack
of focus on performance and chest-thumping to eradicate corruption.
Other contenders like religious and nationalist parties have no numbers to be counted
at the national level. So, the national scene has no palatable options. If…and I say if
elections are to be held, we should expect an expanded PDM with a truncated
opposition. On a personal note, a national-unity government (since we passed the
stage of technocrats) should be the preferred outcome to usher in stability that is key
to economic development.
Political polarisation in Pakistan: A
zero-sum situation | By Tasneem
Shafiq
Political polarisation in Pakistan: A zero-sum situation

PAKISTAN has witnessed wide range of security and economic challenges, mainly due to lack
of co-operation between political parties and blame game. Political paralysis has intensified
economic pressures of unimaginable proportions. The political leaders have opted for
confrontational politicking on the streets instead of diplomatic means to implement successful
parliamentary democracy.

Contextual understanding: Politics is a world of possibilities but the recent wave of extreme
polarization after vote of no confidence has sparked many heated developments in Pakistan. The
country was visibly divided into two factions; supporting either PTI or PDM. Nevertheless,
Pakistan’s politics has seen active conflict between government and opposition in the past too,
with equal efforts to ridicule each other. There have been rare moments of cooperation between
the past governments and oppositions, for instance, 18th Amendment. Also, the state’s stability
has been called into question by religious extremism, foreign-funded proxy warfare, inter-
provincial conflicts, and questions over its foreign policy.

The digital age: The political divide, populism and polarization in the country have set aside the
moral values to carry out the agenda for vested interests. Political polarization has intensified due
to algorithms; an individual is exposed to the kind of information he is interested to consume.
The mistrust among various groups in the age of misinformation has worsened the situation.
Amid the abusive hurls on social media platforms against one-another, masses have forsaken the
basic ethics.

Supporters of particular political ideals have been spreading fallacious news and propaganda
against the political opponents, which makes their anger evident. US President expressed his
concern recently and voices were also heard in the Indian Parliament about the reverse effects of
social media on governance. It cannot be denied that constructive criticism, rational voices,
concerns and reservations do result in a positive outcomes in political decisions. But the
meaningless arguments, propaganda and deliberate attempts to defame each other flare the worst
situation instead of reforming.
The easiest way to breach a nation is to breach its thinking pattern by creating doubts because
real defence lies in the resilience with which people confront any situation. The enigma of our
enemy is similar; we are strong enough to defend but poor enough to feed. Hence public opinion-
making is the tool used by foreign forces to cause unrest in the society. The complex nature of
the challenges posed by cyber warfare makes it impossible for a single political party to deal
with. Divisive politics prevents sustained focus on evolving consensus for resolution of
problems. Political leaders need to transcend partisan interests and forge agreement on the core
national issues, even when their political competition continues.

Government vs Opposition: Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called for an All-Parties Conference
(APC) due to the country’s intensifying challenges but even this failed to lower the political
temperature as PTI refused to cooperate and attend the conference. It is safe to assume that the
country’s multiple crisis have not persuaded political leaders to pause the political war. If the
political leaders do not show willingness to solve the multiple crisis faced by Pakistan, it will
further worsen the chaos.

The government has failed to engage with the opposition in a constructive manner and
opposition has sought to destabilize the government. The dissolution of the Punjab and Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa assemblies opened another chapter in the fierce political confrontation between the
government and opposition. The opposition leader, Imran Khan, hoped this would force the
PDM government to call early general election. While the ruling alliance insists that national
polls would only be held once Parliament completes its full term in August, the constitutional
obligation of holding elections to provincial assemblies in the stipulated 90-day period. The
Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) proposed dates between April 9 and 13 and ECP has
also suggested between April 15 and 17 for the KP election.

A highly disoriented and emotionally charged youth has become a challenge to the national
integration. Anti-nationalist, ethnically factionalized and politically manipulated masses were
visible in September last year, even the tragic helicopter crash in Balochistan resulted in
deplorable social media campaign against the military. The time is ripe to overcome
misunderstandings and counter anti-state propaganda war to emerge victorious.

Need for political consensus: The current political turmoil, ceaseless power struggles and
frequent appeals to courts to settle political disputes are all taking place at a time when the
country is faced with serious challenges to its financial solvency and security shows a disconnect
from reality by the opposing parties. The unwillingness of political elite to engage with their
opposition diplomatically has led to a classic zero-sum game situation. Political consensus is the
only option to attain economic sustainability. Political inclusion and tolerance has to be adopted
properly to address the rising polarization and improve democratic governance in Pakistan.
Inclusive policies are need of the moment to eliminate the feeling of marginalization and regain
trust. The ruling class must ensure accountability and transparency.
Fracturing of Pakistani politics
Conflict and polarisation in the political process is reducing the scope for internal political and
societal harmony

Politics in Pakistan has become fractured to such an extent that its long-term endurance is
threatened unless the major political players adopt some corrective and cooperative measures.
The fast-growing conflict and polarisation in the political process is reducing the scope for
internal political and societal harmony. Five major developments are fragmenting the political
process. First, the political discourse has become very bitter, involving charges and counter-
charges on the part of the ruling PML-N and the major opposition parties. The growing acrimony
in their political exchanges is a negation of democratic parlance and personalises the political
contest. The competing political parties are publicly threatening to knock one another out of the
political process. Second, the PML-N and the opposition are engaged in a war of legal references
against each other. These references, meant for disqualifying the senior-most leaders from
parliament, are now with the election commission, the speaker of the National Assembly and the
Supreme Court. The legal battle regarding the references will produce a flood of charges and
counter-charges against each other. Some of the top leaders of the PML-N and the PTI face legal
references for not fully declaring their foreign assets and properties, their bank loan write-offs,
alleged corrupt money-making practices and related issues. Asif Ali Zardari’s track record is
problematic in this respect as he still faces some cases. These political parties do not realise that
they are undermining their own reputation by trading charges and counter-charges. Political
leaders are getting maligned as a class.

Third, different opposition parties have launched separate protests against the federal
government. The PTI is holding protests in support of its demand for the prime minister’s
accountability for financial malpractices — especially in light of the disclosures in the Panama
documents. The Pakistan Awami Tehrik (PAT) has initiated street protests to seek justice for the
killing of its 14 workers in Model Town, Lahore, in June 2014. Though an FIR was filed on the
initiative of the army chief, no action was taken against those named in it because it included
names of some key PML-N leaders and their favourite bureaucrats and police officials. Sheikh
Rashid Ahmed has also announced a schedule of public rallies in August-September to get rid of
the PML-N government. The PML-N, on the other hand, has adopted a dismissive disposition
towards these protest rallies and marches. Fourth, there are strains in civil-military relations. The
August 12 statement of the army chief about the neglect in the implementation of the National
Action Plan (NAP) by the civilian governments brought these differences out in the open. Now,
the civilian government has become active in implementing NAP. However, in addition to other
differences between the PML-N government and the establishment, some elements in the former
are engaged in a low-key campaign against the establishment, neutralising the prime minister’s
efforts to improve relations.

Fifth, the MQM is playing politics in its peculiar way to protect its political interests and assets
in Karachi. Its latest protest, especially the “fast-unto-death” movement has been initiated to
build pressure on the law-enforcement apparatus in Karachi, as well as the Sindh and federal
governments in a bid to force them to accept its demands. The MQM is not opposed to the
security operation in Karachi, but it does not want action to be taken against its activists,
including those who are said to have used violence in support of their personal and party
agendas.

There is a lot of political activity going on against the PML-N, but so far it has managed to
withstand it because the opposition parties are pursuing their anti-PML-N agendas separately. If
they join hands, the PML-N will find it extremely difficult to cope with the protests.
Furthermore, much depends on the capacity of the PTI, the PAT and the Jamaat-e-Islami to
sustain street protests for at least two weeks in Lahore, the heartland of the PML-N. The
ambiguous disposition of the PPP towards the growing conflict between the PML-N and the PTI
and other above-named political parties weakens its efforts. The PML-N is confident that Asif
Ali Zardari and his close associates would stand by it if the crisis accentuates. However, the PPP
leadership in Punjab wants to pursue open confrontation with the PML-N in Punjab. At the
moment, some PPP leaders, mainly from Punjab, are engaged in tough talk against the PML-N,
but the Dubai-based leadership wants to keep its options open. If the opposition protests
intensify, the PPP is expected to face internal turmoil on its vague policy.

It is difficult to predict whether the opposition will succeed or not. As long as the PML-N
maintains a monopolistic control of political power in Punjab, it can wriggle out of the difficult
situation. However, the political process will get more fragmented with multiple divisions and
splits. This will add to the uncertainty regarding the future of Pakistan’s domestic political
system. Even if it does not collapse, it can become dysfunctional unless the PML-N
accommodates some opposition demands, makes changes at the federal cabinet level and adopts
policies that directly benefit the people and address growing socioeconomic inequities rather
than buying off loyalties through allowing corruption, making partisan use of state patronage and
subordinating the bureaucracy and the police to its whims. The uncertain situation can get out of
control of the current rulers by a triggering factor that can shoot out of a court decision, greater
political assertion by the opposition, a decision of the federal government to make extensive use
of the coercive apparatus of the state against the opposition, rebellion in the PML-N, or an
adverse development in the government’s relations with the establishment. The political future is
uncertain and open.
Polarization: A threat to democracy
in Pakistan | By Sajjad Ali Shah
POLARIZATION is the division of a society into two extreme ends. It is shaking societies and
democracies and has become a global issue. In fact, the greatest democracies of the US and EU
have no exception from this curse as it has increased in the last decades, challenging the basic
system of democracy and leading it to failure. Neither the developed nor developing world is free
from its communal, economic, political and theological aspects.

At the national level, we need to discuss this issue more for better understanding and solutions.
The purpose of Pakistan’s creation was unity for all and to remove many social and religious
discrimination from society. Yet, the movement was too motivated because of polarization. But
the conditions after partition are altogether conflicting, leading the state towards disaster in the
form of intolerance, hate, prejudice and extremism. The polarization has created a diversification
between the voters and the political leaders.

Pakistan’s structure of governance has experienced so many transitions from democracies to

dictatorships. Corruption has crippled the state and had torn the trust of the public in state
institutions. The leaders have just used the national assets to serve their interests and have
manipulated their narratives by spoiling their beliefs. It has created a decentralized system within
the so-called democratic society of Pakistan or becoming an aristocratic state. In the end,
Pakistani politics is just about blame games and character assassination by one party over others.

Economically, the issue is worst. As, recent statistics showed a clear split between the upper and
lower classes, leading the state to its extreme outcomes. The class system in a population has
created the severe ends, putting the elite on one hand and the common people on other hand by
creating a decentralized system within a community. Currently, Pakistan is also facing a fiscal
crisis and is on the verge of default. The major cause behind that is the resources of the state are
never strategized properly. At the international level, the situation is the same as the Global
North is at one border, controlling the Global South. So, this economic conflict triggered by
political disputes has brought democracy to its failure both globally and domestically.

Socially, the issue is far poorer than it seems as it directly affects the population setting up a
dispute based on ethnicity, religion and morality. The 9/11 incident has somehow changed the
entire global system of politics and gave rise to Islamophobia, providing the debating ground for
Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations”. The Shia, Sunni and Wahabi sects are still haunting the
Muslim world from within. Apart from religious beliefs, social and moral values have also
divided the nation and initiated a hybrid war among several groups i.e., leftist vs rightist,
fundamentalist vs conservatives, feminists vs patriarchs, etc.
Particularly in Pakistan, the western and liberal view of social and moral values and women’s
rights have contributed a lot in producing a gap among people and between the public and
government leading to polarization. Similarly, the ethnic division is somewhat worst than the
rest, creating a separate system within a province going far away from unification as a nation
rather than promoting cultural heritage and regional harmony.

Developing countries like Pakistan have no exception to this global curse. A division between
the political leaders and voters is at the top. The lack of a centralized strategy in a democracy has
led to a clear disagreement between the parties in power and the ones in opposition. This issue of
diversification between political elites and a common voter has led the democratic system to
failure, increasing prejudice and nepotism in the system. Yet, serious attention has not been
given to this global issue as per its demand. It needs careful consideration from civilians, NGOs,
public representatives, social scientists and media influencers.

Several legal and judicial actions should be taken to curb polarization and majoritarianism. An
Independent judiciary can play a vital part in strengthening the public trust in institutions and
political leaders; otherwise, it could lead to serious consequences. Political leaders can likewise
participate through their major positions by de-escalating partisan divides and changing electoral
rules for transparency of elections. Religious and ethnic leaders can still work together to create a
centralized system enabling people to take advantage of the opportunities and resources of a
nation-state by efficiently using their skills and talents for social welfare. Finally, awareness
through electronic and print media and the best positive use of social media is crucial for
achieving excellent results to cope with the polarization.

To sum up, polarization has created division in society across the globe, leading the democratic
system to failure. Several promising efforts to limit polarization can counter this issue focusing
on structural institutional reforms for strutting state institutions, thus by giving regional official
control and autonomy over national resources as done by Kenya in 2010.
Political Polarisation: A consequent
of bad governance | By Dr
Muhammad Khan
Political Polarisation: A consequent of bad governance
THE extreme act of political polarisation in Pakistan was demonstrated in Saudi Arabia, once a
group of Pakistani workers chanted slogans against Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif and his
cabinet members at Masjid-i-Nabawi in Madinah.

The appalling act by the supporter of a Pakistani political party exposed the political divide
among Pakistani society at international level, sending wrong signals.

First, it was a great disrespect to the Roza-i-Rasool (PBUH) and second the language used by the
mob against the incumbent Prime Minister of the state in a foreign country.

The act by these expatriate Pakistani was a mob mentality which seriously dented the state of
Pakistan and objectives of the visit by Prime Minister and his team.

While preaching for the establishment Madinah State and disrespecting the Madinah by the
political affiliates is a dilemma.

Through misuse of social media, this political mob has created hatred among the people of
Pakistan, based on political affiliation.

For this mob, the social media has become a powerful political tool; contributing to promote
aggressiveness and intolerance towards others.

This act was an outcome of the political polarization, the state of Pakistan was put through in last
few years especially after the Dharna of a political party in 2014.

The so-called political Dharna severely damaged the social filament of Pakistan and democratic
norms of the state.
Today, everyone in Pakistan is in a state of disarray and with an extreme political positioning
having no accommodation for others.

It is worth mentioning that, development of such a mob mentality is outcome of the bad
governance system, the nation witnessed in last few years.

With respect to good governance, the formative years of Pakistan were quite encouraging than
what is being witnessed today after seventy-four years of our history.

Rather bringing improvement and reforms, unfortunately there has been a gradual down-fall in
the governance system in Pakistan.

This is unusual and shocking aspect as generally observed states find difficulties in their
formative years to ensure good governance mainly because of lack of requisite resources,
institutional issues and needed expert manpower.

The domestic challenges facing Pakistan today are direct outcome of the poor governance
system.

Indeed, lack of good governance produces vulnerabilities at social level and angst among the
masses which are exploited by the rival powers through their spying networks.

The globally agreed definition of governance includes the process of decision making and the
process through which decisions are implemented.

The good governance on the other hand is an advanced form of the governance, in which state
and its institutions meet the needs of the masses and society in a more proficient manner.

Good governance can be best ensured through optimum utilization of the resources, available at
the disposal of state to benefit its masses while securing the national interests of the state.

However, mere availability of the resources in a country is one aspect. Resources provide the
government and its institutions, the leverage needed to make proficient use of them for the good
of people.

The real test of the governance is exploring the resources and subsequently making best use of
them for the advantage of its masses through institutional build-up.

In Pakistan, there have been fewer efforts by the successive governments for exploring the
available resources and making their judicious use for the masses of Pakistan.

As witnessed in past few decades, there has been institutional decay in Pakistan, rather their
uplifting and development.
Indeed, institutions play the central role towards good governance. In the absence of good
governance, there appeared much vulnerability hurting the state and its masses as practiced and
witnessed today.

Advent of multiple divergences based on; ethnicity, sectarianism, factionalism and now political
polarization are the outcome of a wanting good governance.

Besides, the ‘existence of massive corruption, lack of accountability, institutional clashes,

constitutional crisis, poor law and order conditions’ all have their origin in the bad governance or
at least absence of good governance.

Owing to continuous process of bad governance, the people of Pakistan are being grilled through
exceptional high prices, where the essential commodities needed for the masses are beyond their
purchasing power.

This price hike has never been witnessed in the history of Pakistan, even during or after 1971
war or after imposition of economic sanctions, sequel to 1998 nuclear blasts.

This is indeed the worst example of exploiting the masses in the name of so-called Madina State.

The Pakistani Rupee has been devalued to a level which is unprecedented and indeed seems a
deliberate act; $1=Rs186, impacting the prices of everything, making it difficult for the masses to
manage their needs.

While all was done in the name of accountability and campaign to end the corruption, nothing
has come up in tangible terms.

Indeed, the Political leadership is directly responsible for promoting the extreme mind-set and
promotion of hatred among the masses based on political affiliation, a process rarely witnessed
in the history of Pakistan.

The evolving culture is; not others, but only one political party have the right to rule despite its
utter failure while in rule.

The people of Pakistan dreamt a positive change, instead of contemporary state of; uncertainty,
despair and political chaos.

The masses want; rule of law, unbiased justice system, cheap availability of food items, end of
social exploitation, tolerance and accommodation for each other by restoration of national pride
and prestige.

This all can be done by ending political polarization and ensuring good governance in Pakistan.
Politics of polarisation
THE political environment, which remained lukewarm for months mainly because of the
situation arising out of Covid-19, is becoming tense again as both the ruling party and the
opposition are engaged in mudslinging, using different tactics to pressurize each other. While the
Government is focused on efforts to bring back former Prime Minister and PML(N) supremo
Nawaz Sharif back from London where he had gone for medical treatment, the opposition parties
are flexing muscles to launch an anti-Government movement. There is also a surge in NAB cases
against and notice for appearance to the opposition parties, strengthening the impression of
selected process of accountability.
The emerging situation is worrisome for those who were expecting that after two years, the
Government would now take tangible measures for resolution of the real issues of the people. As
things stand today, political observers believe, neither the Government nor the opposition would
be able to achieve anything substantial except polluting the political environment further. This is
because Nawaz Sharif went abroad for medical treatment under an arrangement that was devised
by the court and consented to and implemented by the Government. Plans and desire of the
Government to bring him back notwithstanding, his return is contingent upon doctors certifying
improvement in his health conditions. Reaction of the government leaders to publication of
photographs of MNS by media in which he has been shown strolling streets of London is
unrealistic as, at times, even serious patients too come out of their homes. However, it is another
thing if the Government has substantial evidence to prove its allegations that Nawaz went abroad
under an NRO undertaking not to indulge in politics. In that case, Nawaz ought to respect the
understanding as he has started issuing statements and guidelines to his party in Pakistan on
different issues and developments. Maryam too has discarded her silence, which has disturbed
the ruling party but sanity demands handling of the situation politically without raising the
temperature as it is not in the interest of the Government itself. Though there are attempts at
holding an All Parties Conference (APC) and PML(N) is threatening of launching street agitation
after Moharram but the Government need not worry because of internal rifts and weaknesses of
opposition. The Government has a vast agenda to implement in the remaining three years and its
implementation requires peaceful atmosphere and working relationship with the opposition.
Growing polarisation in the society
IN a vibrant democratic dispensation, it is rather an encouraging notion to have diversity in
opinions. Diversity opens up new avenues to purge the society of status-quo.

Democracy itself has always been an explicit proponent of the freedom of speech and encourages
the right to association. With such diversity emerges a vigorous democratic society.

Interestingly the diversity turns into ignominy when it causes the fragmentation of the society on
the ethnic, religious or on political grounds.

Similarly, Pakistani society has gone through deep political changes that unleashed a systematic
polarization culminating into sharp differences not only within the country but within the
families at large.

The deeper we dig into it, the more frightening outcomes we get. Initially, it all started with the
political rhetoric of maligning the rival politicians by Mr Khan with unduly calling them names
and addressing them as ‘foreign agents’ and ‘traitors’. This trend has unfolded to an extent that
no political leader feels safer within public sphere.

The fateful incident at Masjid-i-Nabvi followed by miserable treatment with Ahsan Iqbal in a
restaurant, more recently the crowd hurling abuses in a disrespectful manner at Maryam
Aurangzeb in London all are the outcomes of political polarization of the country.

When the polarization in the society reaches an alarming extent, it ends up dividing the families,
causes the relationships to unravel and begets unjustified hatred and abhorrence amongst the
individuals.

In contradiction, the societies which are rooted on sound political grounds does not yield to this
social and political evil.

Putting it into more accurate manner that the societies which have deep rooted political wisdom
and mature political institutions does not succumb to the curse of polarization.

Thus, having a sense of political awareness leads the entire society to a smooth and peaceful
functioning of democracy.
Another major element that serves as the proponent of polarization in a society is continuous
demonization of opponents.

In doing so, people quite often use slang and unduly call names to the opposition as saying them
Dakus or Gaddars which has left a narrow space for the diversity in opinions to exist. We as
Pakistanis have grown in truly a polarised society but in recent times this trend has caught an
unprecedented acceleration where no one feels safe.

Since the rise of Imran Khan on the high echelons, this vilification to the politicians has become
a new normal in the society.

Ironically the media in Pakistan has always served as the agent where the narratives of division
and hatred are intentionally injected in public minds. These rhetoric amplified in media further
brings democratic evolution to a complete halt.

Thus, the media in Pakistan is eroding the concept of mutual respect and is questioning the very
existence of diversity of opinions in Pakistan.

Pakistan, an already disgruntled society, has been further propelled into political commotion by
the way the politicians deal with their rivals.

Resultantly, the public seems weary of such an unprecedented division of the society. The
gloomy picture of state of affairs in the country has squeezed the space for the various narratives
to exist causing public alienation from the system.

The country where merely a 55 to 60 per cent of public turns over to vote cannot live up to the
threats posed by political polarization.

Conclusively, the only way to come out of this crisis is to stop mud-slinging and to keep the
difference aside for the greater national cause.

The national cause is to develop Pakistan into a formidable democracy and a prosperous nation.

Our politicians need to come to a negotiating table set a standard in political system from which
no one would be able deviate. Instead of dirty politics, they ought to focus on more genuine
economic and social issues. If this polarization in the country is not checked, it may unfold
undesirable consequences for us
Pakistan needs Political consensus
AS a result of General Elections-2024, no political party could attain even simple majority at the
federal level, therefore the expected political stability is unlikely to be attained in near future. In
the absence of political stability, the dream of economic growth and economic prosperity will
remain unfulfilled for a foreseeable future. Those who lost the elections are accusing Election
Commission for altering their results after the completion of voting process, thus, questioning the
very transparency of the election process. Indeed, the Elections-2024 has created more divide
among the masses rather bringing the people closer to each other for creating harmony and unity
at national level. There is an immediate need to redress the grievances of the people through a
fair play and judicious investigations. At this critical juncture of our history, Pakistan needs a
cohesive society, unity at national level and tolerant social and political environment.

The people of Pakistan questions that; for decades they have been told that ‘state is in turmoil
and we are passing through a critical stage of our history’. No one has ever told the nation that
who is responsible for creating this instability and disorder and how the state and society of
Pakistan will come out from this insecurity, injustices, political polarization, ethnic and sectarian
prejudices, recurrent socio-political chaos and economic destitution of Pakistan. In the absence
of consensus among the national leadership over the national issues there is a rapid rise of chaos
and confusion among the masses at large. The political instability gives rise to social unrest and
segmentation in the society. These factors further impact economy while simultaneously
exposing Pakistan for exploitation by external forces.

Unfortunately, despite passage of seventy-six years, Pakistan has not come out from these
elements of instability and chaos at national level. Each government face the challenge of its
political survival from the day it is elected and instead of working for the national development
and economic prosperity of the people, the governments have been taking all legal and illegal
measures to complete their tenure. This includes; political bribe, violation of merit system,
undesired and harmful alliances at home and abroad and above all ignoring the implementation
of national interest and wellbeing of the people. This all is happening in Pakistan besides so
many other ills and evils for decades now. The unfortunate aspect of this all is that, there is no
realization among those who cause these problems and play with the future of Pakistan and its
230 million resilient people and yet remains at the helm of affairs.

The on-going struggle of powers among the political parties is badly damaging the national
image and process of democratization as insinuated in the constitution of Pakistan. The
unfortunate political polarization in Pakistan is impacting the country on two significant aspects;
a) creating a chaos at domestic level and b) augmenting state’s vulnerability for external forces
and rising trends of militancy. Internally, the people of Pakistan are confused about the future of
state. Economy of the state is getting bad to worse with each passing day, questioning the very
economic survivability of the state.Taking advantage of the political instability in Pakistan, the
external rival forces find an opportune time to further destabilize the Pakistan by exploiting its
existing fault lines; using militancy and economy as the main tools. Militancy emanating from
western borders is spreading all over Pakistan, targeting security personnel and civilians alike.

History proves that, states with strong domestic order, social cohesion, political stability,
unbiased judicial system, national harmony and a visionary leadership are less susceptible for
foreign invasions and aggressive acts of external forces. On the other hand, countries with
domestic chaos and political disorder can easily become victim to external conspiracies and
aggression. Some of the recent examples are; Libya, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. These states once
had admirable living standards and harmonized domestic order, giving job opportunities to rest
of world. The domestic unrest, political rivalries, bad governance and lack of statesmanship
among the top national leadership exposed them for external exploitation and current level of
state breakdown.

Such a happening can take place anywhere with any country, since international system is based
on power politics where states tend to weaken the rival states for the expansion of their influence
and power. The state of Pakistan itself became a victim of external aggression in 1971, mainly
because of political polarization, self-seeking political leadership, bad governance, festering
social cohesion and self-centered leadership at the help of affairs. Today, once again the foes of
Pakistan are all out to create domestic chaos and political unrest in Pakistan. This is a dangerous
situation, facing Pakistan, since it cannot afford a political instability, social unrest and
fragmented national image. Unfortunately, this all is happening after this resilient nation
successfully defeated the globally imposed war on terror against the state and society of
Pakistan. This externally imposed terrorism was defeated through valiant act of heroism,
undertaken by Pakistani Military where masses firmly stood behind them wholeheartedly.

The evolving post elections political instability, social unrest, economic melt-down and
resurgence of militancy can provide the rival forces with an opportunity to fuel the situation for
the disadvantage of Pakistan. Therefore, the rising social and political unrest among the masses
must be addressed on priority through a fair play, keeping in view the ground realities and in
accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan.
Polarised Pakistan
PAKISTAN is experiencing a unique magnitude of political crises. Here political polarities are
rising and have reached a stage where there seems almost no scope for compromise through
dialogue.

Imran Khan, other than when it suits him and his party, has always given priority to a
confrontational style of politics rather than normal parliamentary democracy.

Because of repeatedly and unabashedly displaying a personal degree of hatred for the previous
opposition, he has produced a profoundly split society and this fact has expectedly started to hit
home.

It is the inability of the ruling elite, their diverse regional background, personal vested interests
in power grabs and for this purpose, engineering of political manipulation to wreck governments
and form a new one.

Factions of the same elite under different party platforms have always kept displacing one
another from power endlessly.

Political elites actually played against one another as puppets by the civil and military
bureaucracy.

This is too charitable a perspective to excuse the political elite and their never-ending
factionalism which continues to this day.

Pakistan has been a polarized polity and consequently, a divided society since its independence
75 years ago which is being celebrated today like every year.

It started with the serious differences among the political elites of the country over the character
of the state, quality of federalism, relationship between religion and governance and ideological
choices.

One may argue that it could be a normal process in a diverse nation’s struggle to take a definite
direction and achieve stability in the formative phase.

But one wonders why it would take nine years in writing the first constitution and then its
annulment within three years without any general elections or transfer of power happening under
it.
Generation after generation, coming from the same feudal-tribal social background, Pakistan’s
political elite have promoted political values that run counter to nation and state-building.

If they had played by the rules, demonstrated political solidarity on principles and forged a
political consensus, the democratic norms and convention would have gelled over time.

The ouster of (former) Premier Imran Khan, despite the fact that he had the largest party in
Parliament with 156 members losing power to a motley group of political factions, the closest
second having only 86 members and forming the new government, speaks a great deal about
persistent polarization.

The sad story of Pakistan is that naked factional elite interests have shaped these power plays,
often by seeking friendly intervention from the powerful judicial and security institutions.

It is a continuation of the same historical pattern, only the main characters have changed. Each
successive confrontation has been more severe than before.

The ongoing clash looks like political warfare with no-holds-barred, barely covered with a fig
leaf of constitutionality.

This has been in the making for the past nine years when Imran Khan challenged the fairness of
the 2013 elections.

The others, in return, questioned the accuracy of the 2018 vote and vowed to oust him from
power by forming a joint alliance, launching street demonstrations, and finally succeeding by
winning over dissidents from his party and coalition partners and moving successfully a vote-of-
confidence motion in the National Assembly.

The normal and expected role of the political elite in any form of political system is working
toward stability, order, national unity, solidarity and continuity along with ensuring progress,
social and economic development.

The Pakistani elite have done quite the opposite: polarizing and dividing people along ethnic,
religious, ideological and narrow political lines.

Generation after generation, coming from the same feudal-tribal social background, they have
promoted political values that run counter to nation and state-building in ethically and
demographically diverse society.

Ultimately, it is the rapacious character of the Pakistan ruling classes, their low commitment to
rule of law and accountability and access to power as means of material benefits that have
stunted the growth of democracy.

In such conditions, the military has assumed the role of guardian of the state, and has regularly
managed political conflicts erupting over power struggles among the elite.
The present polarization between the PTI and the rest of the political parties and factions is not
new.

Imran Khan has instantly decided to engage in popular agitation against what he calls an
imported government by weaving a narrative of foreign conspiracy and accusing some as
traitors.

His decision to resign from the National Assembly en-masse is stunning and may prove to be an
adventurous path.

He will be doing politics now not in Parliament but on the street, rousing public anger
demanding fresh elections.

The sudden change of heart by coalition groups supporting Imran Khan and the open betrayal of
members of his party have raised many troubling questions about the neutrality of powerful state
institutions.

This adds another dimension to the political conflict playing out in the media, civil society and
the masses.

The way political groups disseminate, the hatred has made politics volatile and political
polarities high.

The PTI and the PML-N are both instigating political polarities. The trouble with discussing
political opposites is that it is impossible to avoid making them into absolutes, and this is even
more so when we are dealing with constantly changing movements and definitions.

It has to be noted that the decisions of political parties have a significant influence on a nation
and its destiny. These decisions and their polarizing effect cannot be avoided.

—The writer is editor, book ambassador political analyst and author of several books based in
Islamabad.
Pakistan’s deepening political crisis
THROUGHOUT history, Pakistan has grappled with a series of challenges, each posing a unique
challenge which has shaped its growth trajectory and tested its resilience. However, the ongoing
political crisis is proving to be detrimental to the nation with its far-reaching consequences
staggering economic progress, deteriorating security situation, eroding public trust in state
institutions and intensifying political polarization that reaches deep into the core of Pakistan.

The economic meltdown, resulting from the political turmoil has immensely impacted the lives
of people across Pakistan. Despite multiple efforts, the coalition government is unable to secure a
crucial deal with IMF, exacerbating the already dire economic situation of the state. The
devasting impact of economic downfall has resulted in sluggish economic development, shortage
of foreign currency, soaring inflation and scarcity of essential food items. The shortfall of
essential food items has led to a sharp price increase where inflation soared to 36.4% in April-
2023 alone.

International financial institutions have cautioned that the economic crisis could undo the
poverty reduction achieved in the last two decades. The concerns regarding Pakistan’s ability to
meet its debt obligations are all-time high, adding to the gravity of the situation. The recent tragic
Greece boat incident serves as a bitter reality check that people are willing to take desperate
measures in the face of political and economic uncertainty, in the hope of stability and a bright
future.

This politico-economic instability has provided perfect conditions to terrorist organizations for
the growth, strengthening and reorganization of their networks. As the government and people
are focused primarily on the political turmoil and economic uncertainty, these groups are
restructuring themselves to expand their operational networks.

The formations and announcements of new factions of banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)
in the south and north Punjab indicate a worrisome development in their operational and
organizational capabilities. This calculated move to target the already vulnerable and volatile
regions of Pakistan poses challenges to security and national unity, adding further to the
complexity of the situation. The interplay between politico-economic instability and the
expansion of terrorist networks is alarming for Pakistan’s security and stability, demanding
urgent attention to address underlying issues.

Another significant impact of the ongoing political crisis is the degradation of the rule of law.
The crisis has escalated to the point where various state institutions are clashing with one
another, deepening the turmoil. Controversies surrounding the leading institutions – the
Judiciary, the Election Commission of Pakistan and the Establishment have led to accusations of
manipulation of legal process, political bias, unnecessary political interference and selective
approach in application of laws has undermined the public trust in state institutions.

The political crisis has multidimensional impacts on the State of Pakistan, therefore, a grand
national dialogue is necessary to steer Pakistan towards stability and progress. The only way
forward is to engage in a constructive dialogue and build consensus among political leaders to
address governance issues, institutional reforms, electoral process and socio-economic
development. The former President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, has rightly suggested engaging
in a constructive dialogue with all political stakeholders and signing a “Charter of Economy” as
a potential solution for the ongoing challenges plaguing the country.

The collective effort of all political forces in setting aside their personal and political interests to
work for the prosperity and stability of Pakistan is a challenging task, yet not impossible. The
“Charter of Democracy” signed in 2006 by rival political parties is a promising endeavour for
strengthening democracy in Pakistan. By building upon this foundation, only political leaders
can foster a conducive environment for collaboration, reconciliation, compromise, long-term
progress, prosperity and stability in Pakistan.
From polarization to
reconciliation
POLARIZATION is shaking societies across the world, the political divisions intensifying
locally, nationally and globally to varying degrees.

Polarization has the potential to tear the fabric of fragile democracies, from Brazil and India to
Poland and Turkey to Pakistan. It isn’t just a Pakistan dilemma but rather a global one.

Why has polarization come to a boiling point in so many countries in recent years? Are there any
similarities in the patterns of polarization across different countries? Most importantly, once
societies have become deeply polarized, what can they do to start healing their divisions?
Countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Poland, Turkey,
and the United States had to face this one way or the other, for the unwanted outcomes though.

The degree of similarity that could be found across these countries is startling, even in
democracies as different as Pakistan, Colombia, Kenya, and Poland, many of the roots, patterns,
and drivers of polarization showed gross similarity.

Thomas Carothers is co-director of Carnegie’s Democracy Conflict and Governance Program.

He mentions that particularly striking is just how decisive polarizing leaders often are.

Figures like US Ex-president Donald Trump, Narendra Modi in India, and Jarosław Kaczyński in
Poland, have relentlessly inflamed basic divisions and entrenched them throughout the society.
They’ve aggravated tensions not only by demonizing opponents and curtailing democratic
processes but also by pushing for radical change, like rejecting the election outcome and protests
for packing up the government.

There is significant media hype around these personalities primarily due to the technologically
fuelled utilization of the media industry and the handy social media.

Any amount of polarization needs the combustible woods which in most cases are the gullible
populace, the more the political ignorance the wilder the fire. The Thomas’s research work
informs that besides many other drivers of polarization the empowering of an urban middle-class
educated lot added to the menace.

One might expect, for instance, that a growing economy would ease polarization. Yet the
research found that in some places, such as India, it made things worse. Indeed, the growth of
India’s middle class has led to rising support for polarizing Hindu nationalist narratives.

The author adds that the rampant patronage and corruption leave voters disgusted with the
traditional parties and that fuels the rise of divisive populist figures, like Hugo Chávez in
Venezuela and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. Severe polarization historically damages all institutions
essential to democracy.

It routinely undermines the independence of the judiciary, as politicians attack the courts as
biased especially when on the receiving end. It can reduce the legislatures to a rubberstamp
function. Most importantly, polarization shatters informal but crucial norms of tolerance and
moderation, – the backbone of national cohesion-.

These consequences generate a vicious cycle of more polarization. Attacks on the judiciary, for
example, only diminish its capacity to arbitrate conflict and heighten distrust between the people
and the institution. Other key institutions like the military, democracy, media and even civil
society receive a similar fate.

Polarization reverberates throughout society as a whole, poisoning everyday interactions and

relationships even at the household level. Thomas’s research informs that in Turkey almost eight
out of ten people there would not want their daughter to marry someone who votes for the party
they most dislike.

Nearly three-quarters would not even want to do business with such a person. Such Partisan
conflict takes a heavy toll on civil society, often leading to the demonization of activists and
human rights defenders.

More seriously still, divisions can contribute to a spike in hate crimes and political violence:
India, Poland, and the United States have witnessed such increases in recent years.

A distinctive feature of Pakistan polarization is the unique alignment of anti-imperialism, anti-

establishment, and pro-religious narratives; the famous “iron triangle”. This has buyers across
the society at least for one if not all three.
Once a society becomes deeply divided, it is very difficult to heal. Polarization tends to escalate
at a dizzyingly fast pace, often in the span of just a few years or less. Polarization then
entrenches itself and becomes self-perpetuating.

Polarizing actions and reactions feed on each other, dragging countries into a downward spiral of
anger, hatred and division. Despite these challenges, there are different types of remedial actions,
ranging from dialogue efforts and media reforms to national/ international action.

1st, several promising efforts to limit polarization have focused on institutional reforms, such as
decentralizing political power or changing electoral rules, and going for inclusive setups.

Kenya, for instance, after massive election riots, adopted a new constitution in 2010 that sought
to ease ferocious competition for national office by giving regional officials greater autonomy
and control over state resources.

Other efforts involve legal or judicial action to limit polarization. In India, for example, the
Supreme Court has spoken out in defence of democratic institutions and demanded greater
accountability for hate crimes and political violence.

Sane political leadership can play a crucial role in de-escalating partisan divides. In Ecuador,
President Lenin Moreno rejected the polarizing tactics of his predecessor, even though the two
come from the same political party.

And in Turkey, opposition parties have achieved modest success by uniting to form a coalition:
their candidate for mayor of Istanbul won a resounding victory in 2019 with a campaign that
emphasized overcoming divisions. Another antidote to the plight is the creation and digestion of
an equally appealing counter-narrative.

This requires the same charisma, demagogue leadership, who can build on the popular tide wave
and hypnotise the masses. An organic negotiated reconciliation mechanism mayn’t serve all
parties the same results yet it is a “sine qua non” for forging national unity.

No doubt the potential for destructive divisions exists in almost all societies, even the ones that
seem relatively homogeneous. It’s the character of national polity and political matrix that
determine the magnitude and impact of polarization.

It may have a colossal impact in one part while quite benign in the other and in this mix lies the
embers of hope. Democracies will need to rise to this challenge in an inclusive, unified and
logical manner if they are to swim successfully against the swelling threat of polarization.
Democracy, democracy & democracy
DEMOCRACY is a system that promotes responsible governance, rule of law, human rights,
civic participation and peaceful power transfer through electoral processes, fostering a stable and
peaceful society. Despite much discussion and opposition over the nature of democracy, the
majority of nations worldwide continue to operate under this system. Out of 167 countries
worldwide, 96 have opted for democracy to govern their nations. If the figures are computed,
57% of nations have chosen democracy, 13% have chosen autocracy and 28% displayed
characteristics of both autocracy and democracy. This enormous success and the quick
development of democracy over the past four decades are inextricably linked.

Pakistan was established as a Nation-State to ensure the supremacy of the people, equal rule of
law, active citizen participation in politics and protection of human rights. From the very outset,
the founding father of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah emphasized the importance of equality of
rights and freedom of faith. He stressed upon the need of a Constitution based on consensus,
aiming to achieve a high quality of democracy. Post Jinnah’s death, political polarization and
strife led to delays in framing the Constitution. The Objective Resolution, which remains a
preamble of the 1973 Constitution, outlines the principles of democracy, freedom, equality,
tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam. Nevertheless, democracy exists as a
temporary transition between quasi or full-blown military rule in Pakistan. Over 32out of 76
years of Pakistan’s history were plagued by martial law, with constitution abrogated or
suspended, denying fundamental rights to citizens, resulting in immeasurable losses to
democracy. On top of that, there has been a kind of quasi-democracy in the country since 2008,
where strong but unelected and unaccountable state institutions, particularly the military and
judiciary, have undermined, sabotaged and destabilized democratic administrations.

Pakistan has experienced numerous political, economic, institutional, democratic and social
upheavals due to military intervention, political polarization, authoritarian leadership,
bureaucratic red tape, constitutional crisis, feudalism, mismanagement, accountability rhetoric
and underperforming Judiciary. Economic and social issues have arisen in Pakistan as a result of
the public’s declining faith in democracy and the military. Electoral rights have suffered as a
result of the political and military establishment in Pakistan being accused of interfering with the
electoral process. In the line of kowtowing to the military, the elected governments have been
undemocratic, where democracy is not just about elections but suppressing the opposition and
hushing the media. This has led to a domination of parties with no inner party democracy,
paralyzing policy-making and creating dissatisfaction. It is no sarcasm that the political
opposition in Pakistan always takes a holier-than-thou stance, insists on seeing the military
establishment as its harbinger into power.

Pakistan’s institutional structure has to be drastically changed in order to maintain democracy.

To achieve a future for the country, the basic rights of the people to govern themselves must be
unreservedly and unequivocally recognized. Democracy is often confusing, but in Pakistan’s
circumstances and the structures supporting it such as the Constitution, Parliament and Judiciary,
have been systematically weakened. The Quaid’s ideals have been faded, making them
questionable as a frame of reference. It would be a mistake to compromise further on his faith in
democracy as the only course for Pakistan to follow. Pakistan’s deviations from universally
accepted principles have made it an anachronism in today’s world moving towards political and
social emancipation.

To develop democracy based on excellent governance, strengthening the democratic institution

and implementing socio-political changes is crucial. A successful governance charter should
include the rule of law, an accountability culture, institutional harmony, political stability and
effective public service delivery. Political stability, political education, involved citizens, free,
fair elections, merit-prioritizing political parties and a sense of public duty are essential for good
administration. Institutional cohesiveness and responsiveness are crucial for nation growth, while
a culture of accountability increases transparency and merit in national affairs. A just society
emphasizes the rule of law and legal equity and good governance requires its enforcement.

Pakistan needs a unified vision based on its founding principles and 76 years of experience.
Overhauling the Constitution to empower both the people and federating units is crucial. While
provincial autonomy has been discussed, a realistic power division scheme is yet to be presented.
Stability can be achieved by granting constituent units a significant stake, ensuring economic
development in less privileged areas and devolving powers from the Centre. True democracy
necessitates participation at all government levels, fostering freedom from want in urban slums
and underdeveloped regions. Embracing democratic principles and norms is essential for a
purposeful and productive future. Despite its flaws, shortcomings and setbacks, democracy is the
only system of governance that can get Pakistan back on track. The majority of people’s freedom
is best granted by democracy, which has continuously been demonstrated to be the most
successful form of government. Democracy is a beneficial form of governance because it
incorporates the roles and interests of many people in deciding how a nation is to be governed.
Democracy is often chaotic, but if citizens are well-educated and elected leaders have the will to
make tough choices, this chaos may be mitigated. All things considered, if freedom and civil
rights are emphasized, it is difficult to argue that any form of governance is superior to
democracy.
Political Polarization: Navigating
the Intersection of Governance
and Society
Political Polarisation: Navigating the Intersection of Governance and
Society

Introduction:

In today’s turbulent political context, the danger of political polarization

looms large, casting a significant shadow over governance and societal
cohesion. This piece, delves into the heart of political division, examining its
various effects on governance and society. While the discussion is centered on
Pakistan’s specific setting, lessons from various political theaters expand our
understanding, offering a complex picture of the difficulties and opportunities
that lie ahead.

Anatomy of Political Polarization:

At the heart of our investigation is an examination of the causes and dynamics

of political division. Political polarization emerges as a powerful force
shaping the patterns of governance and societal cohesion, owing to
ideological splits, cultural cleavages, and socioeconomic disparities. However,
underneath the superficial veneer of political allegiance is a tapestry of
opposing worldviews, conflicting narratives, and entrenched identities that
define the political landscape.

Implications for Democratic Governance:

Amid political division, democratic government faces unprecedented

problems. Governance, which is supposed to be a process of consensus-
building and compromise, becomes entangled in a web of political interests,
impeding efficient policymaking and implementation. The loss of trust in
democratic institutions exacerbates governance inadequacies, undermining the
legitimacy of elected governments and decreasing public confidence in the
democratic process itself.

The Quest for Good Governance Amid Polarization:

In the face of polarization-induced governance issues, the search for good

governance becomes critical. In today’s polarized political scene, good
governance, defined by transparency, accountability, and responsiveness, has
become increasingly difficult to achieve. Partisan deadlock, institutional
dysfunction, and policy paralysis impair the effective delivery of public
services and progress on crucial issues, deepening societal differences and
undermining public trust in government institutions.

Societal Fractures and Polarisation:

Beyond the area of administration, political polarization exacerbates
underlying societal fractures and divisions. Polarized politics creates a hostile
environment in which ideological differences become fault lines dividing
groups and polarizing society. societal cohesiveness, the glue that keeps
diverse communities together, erodes as trust and empathy give way to
mistrust and hate, endangering the fabric of societal unity and stability.

Economic Implications of Polarisation:

Political polarization has far-reaching economic implications, including

investment, economic growth, and income inequality. Polarized politics
fosters uncertainty and instability, discouraging investment and impeding
economic growth. Furthermore, polarization exacerbates economic disparity
since political policies emphasize the interests of certain groups of society
over others, deepening the divide between the haves and have-nots.

The Imperative of Social Cohesion:

When faced with societal divisions, the imperative of social cohesion arises as
a guiding principle for collective action. Building social cohesiveness
necessitates concerted efforts to bridge gaps, promote conversation, and foster
a sense of common identity and purpose. Civil society organizations, religious
leaders, and grassroots movements all play important roles in creating social
cohesion and cultivating an inclusive and mutually respectful environment.

The Role of Leadership in Bridging Divides:

Leadership, both political and societal, is critical in overcoming political
division and building social cohesion. Political leaders are responsible for
bridging partisan gaps, prioritizing the common good, and reaching consensus
on crucial topics. Similarly, religious leaders, community organizers, and
educators play an important role in promoting discussion, understanding, and
empathy across societal divisions.

Towards a Path of Renewal:

In the crucible of political divisiveness, the imperative of renewal beckons,

challenging us to cross partisan lines and establish a new route ahead. By
embracing the virtues of tolerance, empathy, and civility, we can bridge the
chasm of polarization and cultivate a more inclusive and resilient democracy.
Through debate, compromise, and a commitment to the common good, we
can recover the promise of governance and society, securing a future marked
by unity, solidarity, and mutual prosperity.

Conclusion:

In this piece, we have taken a journey into the heart of political polarization,
investigating its complex interactions with governance, society, and the
economy. Our research has shed light on the challenges and opportunities that
lie ahead, drawing on experiences from other political theaters and Pakistan’s
distinctive environment. As we navigate the tumultuous waters of
polarization, let us heed the siren cry to renew, paving the way for a more
inclusive, resilient, and cohesive democracy.
Polarization harms democracy and
society

Severe polarization makes democracy vulnerable. In healthy democracies, opposing sides are
seen as political adversaries to compete against and at times to negotiate with.In deeply polarized
democracies, the other side comes to be seen as an enemy needing to be vanquished. A
collaborative research project I led1 on polarized democracies around the world examines the
processes by which societies divide into political “tribes” and democracy is harmed. Based on a
study of eleven countries including the U.S., Turkey, Hungary, Venezuela, Thailand and others,
we found that when political leaders cast their opponents as immoral or corrupt, they create “us”
and “them” camps –called by political scientists and psychologists “in-groups” and “out-groups–
in the society. In this tribal dynamic, each side views the other “out group” party with increasing
distrust, bias and enmity. Perceptions that “If you win, I lose” grow. Each side views the other
political party and their supporters as a threat to the nation or their way of life if that other
political party is in power. For that reason, the incumbent’s followers tolerate more illiberal and
increasingly authoritarian behavior to stay in power, while the opponents are more and more
willing to resort to undemocratic means to remove them from power. This damages democracy.
Drivers of polarization Our research finds that severe polarization is affected by three primary
factors2 :

1. Politicians Divide

First, it is often stimulated by the rhetoric of political leaders who exploit the real grievances
of voters. These politicians choose divisive issues to highlight in order to pursue their own
political agenda. They might exploit real grievances and anxieties about unemployment or
crime, or they may even manufacture a threat, such as Donald Trump calling Central
American refugees an “invading army”. In extreme polarization, people feel distant from and
suspicious of the “other” camp. At the same time, they feel loyal to, and trusting of, their
own camp – without examining their biases or factual basis of their information. Thus they
are susceptible to the rhetoric of political leaders aiming to generate votes based on fear of
the “other”. Although this is a common phenomenon long identified by social psychology, it
is even more pronounced in the age of social media 24-hour news cycles and more
politicized media outlets who repeat and amplify the political attacks.
“ In extreme polarization, people feel distant from and suspicious of the “other” camp. They
feel loyal to, and trusting of, their own camp –without examining their biases or factual basis
of their information ”

2. Oppositions React

Polarization, though, is a two-way street. How the political opposition reacts is the second
factor explaining the impact of polarization on democracy. If the opposition returns the bitter
rhetoric and winner-take-all tactics with similar political hardball and demonizing language,
they risk locking in place a cycle that leads to entrenching the politics of polarization

On the other hand, if they mobilize voters around a positive democratizing message and
resist tit-for-tat strategies, they can begin to depolarize.

3. Polarizing Rifts

The third, and most difficult, obstacle is what our research found about the underlying basis
of polarization. When countries polarize around rifts3 that reflect unresolved debates present
at the country’s formation, then that polarization is most likely to be enduring and harmful.
These rifts are often around concepts of national identity and citizenship rights. This type of
polarization is particularly pernicious because it revolves around debates over who is a
legitimate citizen and who can legitimately represent them. For example, the U.S. was
founded on unequal citizenship rights for African-Americans, Native Americans and women.
As these groups reasserted their rights in the 1960s civil rights movement and the 1970s
women’s movement, polarization around these rights and changing group status grew. In
Spain and Canada, unresolved rifts around regional identity and autonomy have periodically
erupted into national conflict, most recently seen in the debate over Catalan independence
versus Spanish unity in the 2019 election

The Dangerous Logic of Polarization

1. Polarization rewards extreme positions and weakens centrist moderates

Polarizing leaders and parties need enemies to establish a dividing line between “Us” and
“Them.” They stoke fear of these enemies to keep winning elections. The enemies can be
external (immigrants in Hungary, foreign imperialists in Venezuela) or internal (Kurdish
terrorists in Turkey, the media in the U.S., and anyone who does not agree with the leader).
The extremists on either side of the divide then label moderates willing to compromise as
“traitors colluding with the enemy” or “sell-outs.” In this way, the center disappears and
radical positions dominate, resulting in political gridlock or even violent conflict.

2. Polarization affects individual perceptions and is hard to reverse once in place

Once a polarized way of thinking seeps in and voters feel deeply divided psychologically and
spatially, it is very hard to reverse. Research4 on motivated reasoning helps us understand
this problem. Emotions and unconscious desires and fears5 influence the way we interpret
information, especially if we feel threatened. Voters are motivated to eliminate cognitive
dissonance by rejecting facts that challenge their worldviews or self-concepts. Polarizing
leaders learn that exploiting supporters’ fears and anxieties will win elections –and encourage
that motivated reasoning. As a result, when the Venezuelan government spins conspiracy
theories to explain the nation’s dire problems, its hard-core supporters apparently believe
them without question. Similarly, Trump’s birther movement resisted factual information
about President Obama’s birthplace.

“ Once a polarized way of thinking seeps in and voters feel deeply divided psychologically
and spatially, it is very hard to reverse ”

3. Tit-for-tat tactics deepen polarization and often backfire

An obstructionist strategy deepens polarization and can endanger democracy. Treating

politics as a tit-for-tat game may result in being pushed off the field of play. For instance, in
Venezuela, the political opposition refused to negotiate6 with President Chávez, and instead
tried for three years to oust him from the presidency through both constitutional and
unconstitutional methods. When that failed, they boycotted a legislative election –and
forfeited control of the Congress entirely to Chávez’s party, giving it the power to make
Supreme Court and Electoral Council appointments for the next decade.

Backing away from polarization

 It is possible to sidestep polarization or even depolarize without either allowing undemocratic
behavior or running away from a fight over principles and issues. To avoid deepening the
state of division and distrust that seems to pervade our societies, both political leaders and
citizens must play a part. Simply withdrawing from politics is not effective. Citizens can
protect themselves and their democracy by being aware of the political and psychological
workings of polarization and the early warning signs of democratic erosion. They can refuse
to participate in the trap of demonizing politics, while insisting on voting massively against
those who use polarizing methods. Political leaders should be conscious that their words and
actions can advance, prevent or reverse severe polarization. For those who prioritize winning
for their team above all, the realization that they will eventually be the losers of their re-
engineered rules should be sobering. For those who have a broader perspective focused on
the collective interests and welfare of the society, understanding the logic of polarization that
blocks cooperative problemsolving could instill the courage to cross the divide rather than
reciprocate pernicious polarizing strategies.

Polarised society

ONLY the weak-minded people let their emotions overpower them to the extent that
they abuse and fight with everyone and anyone who disagrees with them. Pakistani
politics has become a game of defaming, demeaning and degrading everyone who
does not agree with one’s ideas and opinions. Our so-called ‘leaders’ are willfully
dragging society into a pit where everyone hates the other to the extent that has
never been witnessed before.

Such a society have we become, that there is a lot of frustration between close
friends and office colleagues over which political side one happens to be. Any word
you speak can be used against you to harass you online or even in the physical world.
This is hardly the politics where we were supposed to measure the performance of
governments based on the living standards of the common people.

Instead, what we have is accusations and abuses without anybody providing any kind
of legal evidence. It is high time the media played its due role and educated the
masses to make them aware enough not be become hyped up and emotional at the
whim of a speech without any kind of evidence.

The masses imitate, follow and replicate their leaders. They will, and they do, use the
same abusive language and even escalate it to the physical level in society that is
bound to have dangerous consequences, the responsibility of which will of course
not be taken by any leader.

It is the need of the hour that the nation should remain united and not let political
differences lead to personal abuses and harassments. We need to move forward.
Pakistan’s new fault lines
PAKISTAN’S enduring political fault lines are well known. But newer ones have
emerged to make the political environment more challenging if not combustible.

Key among the more long-standing fault lines are ceaseless government-opposition
confrontations and the country’s persisting structural economic problems, which the
lack of political consensus has left unresolved. These have been consequential for
the country and have undermined both the evolution of democracy as well as
economic and political stability. They continue to be perpetuated by tediously
recurring conduct and policies.

New fault lines may resemble long prevailing ones but are distinct in many ways. The
most obvious is the political polarisation that today characterises the country. There
are few if any precedents of this even though divisive politics is not new. This
polarisation has divided people, society and families as never before along intensely
partisan lines. The brand of populist politics practised by PTI, with its either-with-us-
or-against-us stance, has drawn rigid political battle lines especially with its leaders
now casting all its opponents as venal, unpatriotic and pawns of foreign powers.
Its narrative of being ousted from office by a foreign conspiracy finds ready believers
among its base of angry urban youth who are willing to discard facts. This narrative
also helps to delegitimise opponents in the eyes of its followers. The xenophobic
nationalism purveyed by its leaders is sowing further division in the country.

Polarisation and the narrative defining its contours has meant that politics has
assumed the form of ferocious political warfare in which opponents have to be
eliminated from the political scene in a terminal conflict and not competed with,
much less accommodated. This take-no-prisoners approach has erased any middle or
meeting ground and ruled out any possibility of bridging the divide. Extreme
partisanship is making the working of the political system near impossible.

True that democracies elsewhere are also floundering in the face of intolerant
populist forces polarising their societies. But that only testifies to how democratic
systems are being challenged because of weak commitment to democratic norms by
demagogues, rising intolerance and lack of restraint in politics. In fact, democracy is
rendered dysfunctional when denuded of the essential ingredients to make it work
— tolerance, consensus and accommodating the interests and views of ‘others’. The
danger Pakistan faces today is of democratic backsliding.

An aspect of the country’s polarised politics is how this has injected a toxic quality
into political conversation and debased what passes for debate. The language and
political narratives deployed by party leaders increasingly flout the basic norms of
civility.

Politics has, of course, never been polite in Pakistan. The 1990s, for example, saw a
good deal of political name-calling, character assassination, and accusations of
disloyalty to the country, with top leaders frequently dubbed as ‘security risks’. But
the political culture today has sunk to even lower depths of incivility.

Provocative rhetoric and statements that routinely fail the truth test are made with
abandon and with no regard for the consequences. The no-holds-barred vilification
of opponents has also meant insults have become a principal political weapon. The
weaponisation of politics has spawned a culture permeated by incendiary allegations
and norm-breaking behaviour. The political fabric is now in danger of being
perverted on a more lasting basis.

Weaponisation of politics has spawned a culture of norm-breaking conduct.

There is no doubt that social media has amplified the country’s polarisation and
reinforced this political fault line. Again, this is part of a broader worldwide trend.
Demagogues and their followers elsewhere have vigorously used digital platforms for
political gain by purveying misleading information to manipulate opinion. Here the
social media has become a new arena or war zone for a political battle aimed mostly
at maligning opponents and disseminating sensational ‘revelations’ about them.

Recent weeks have seen malicious campaigns by supporters of the former ruling
party not only against leaders of the coalition government but also against the
country’s military and judicial authorities. Accusations of no less than treachery have
been made against almost anyone who doesn’t support this party.

Anonymity on digital platforms gives party activists deniability and frees their trolls
from fear of any retribution. That encourages them to continue efforts to create an
‘alternate reality’ by spreading false information. The ‘foreign conspiracy/imported
government’ narrative, for example, has been trending on Twitter for weeks even
though it doesn’t rest on a shred of evidence.

Apart from influencing gullible minds, social media’s magnifying power generates
paranoia by such messages and promotes a hollow form of nationalism in this post-
truth environment. By playing off and reinforcing polarisation, messages spread
through digital channels that call out others as traitors, are not just deeply offensive
but also corrosive of the political system.

This brings up another new political fault line. Defiance of institutions be it the
judiciary, parliament or the Election Commission, when they do not deliver decisions
that suit a particular political party, encourages disrespect for them, breeds cynicism
and widens divisions in society. This is now happening on a scale rarely witnessed
before.

Supreme Court judges have been the target of criticism by PTI leaders who have
also demanded the resignation of the chief election commissioner. This has
translated among the party’s supporters into a blanket rejection of these institutions
and refusal to accept their decisions. The most damaging consequence of this is that
it rules out resolution of political disputes through institutional means.

Unwillingness to play by the rules is hugely destabilising for the political system. It
can also sow public disorder and lead to a chaotic situation that poses a danger to
the democratic system itself. This, sadly, is where the current political situation may
be headed today.

We have seen in other parts of the world, including our neighbourhood, populist
demagogues show contempt for their nation’s constitution and its institutions and
upend democratic norms. The question is whether Pakistan’s fragile democracy can
survive such assaults at a time when social cohesion itself is at risk from old and new
fault lines.
Uncivil politics

IN Pakistan’s deeply polarized environment, the political conversation has been

reduced to a slanging match between political leaders who increasingly resort to
provocative rhetoric. Partisanship is so intense that supporters of rival parties
applaud such conduct by their leaders and revel in their displays of hurling bitter
invective at opponents. The lack of civil discourse has become an unedifying
feature of the country’s political landscape.

Two aspects of the political culture are not new, but have become more
pronounced and pervasive today because of greater polarisation. One, excessive
preoccupation of political leaders with maligning opponents and accusing them of
every transgression or crime. The allegation is no longer that the other side is
unfit to govern, but that it is guilty of nothing less than being unpatriotic or a tool
of foreign powers. And two, the severity of language being used and the political
rancour it reflects. Offensive remarks by party spokesmen now border on the
crude and even vulgar, as exemplified at a recent presser by PTI’s Shahbaz Gill.
Not to be outdone in this game, spokespersons of the ruling coalition have also
been using unseemly language against the PTI leader.

Rarely has the public discourse plunged to this level — and the general election
isn’t even near, as campaign season usually sees an escalation of intemperate
rhetoric. Such is the animosity between political rivals, who act as if they are
engaged in a terminal conflict, that saying anything and everything to vilify the
other is regarded as fair game with nothing deemed off-limits.

Inflammatory statements that fail the truth test are frequently made with little
regard for their implications. The no-holds-barred denigration of opponents has
turned insults into a political weapon.

Read: Pakistan’s angry political culture

Of course, unbecoming conduct was witnessed in the past too, when political
leaders traded wild allegations, often during election campaigns. But the
uncontrolled language and norm-breaking behaviour on display today is
unprecedented.

The angry and toxic environment this is creating is in turn giving rise to an
unparalleled level of intolerance among followers of rival parties and further
dividing the country.

People are left with the impression that power, not public purpose, drives political
leaders.

The 24/7 broadcast media, especially television talk shows, play off combative
politics and reinforce it by pitching political opponents against each other and
encouraging noisy clashes. But it is social media that has magnified polarisation
and provided a platform for scurrilous political content. Because party activists
have anonymity on digital platforms such as Twitter, this minimises the risk of
retribution. It is therefore easy for them to disseminate disinformation and
unsubstantiated allegations against political foes. The social media has also
enabled people seeking partisan sources of information to live in digital bubbles
and shut their minds to views different from their own. This produces hyper
partisanship and further deepens the political divide.

Four major consequences follow.

First and foremost, this debases the political discourse and denudes it of focus on
serious issues. There is little political debate on policy issues and challenges facing
the country, much less on addressing them.

At a time when Pakistan’s problems need sober debate on how to solve them,
personal attacks and name-calling hold sway. This obviates reasoned or informed
discussion. What passes for political debate is dominated by invective, not
argument. With unrestrained language becoming the norm rather than exception,
this degrades the political conversation.

Read: Conduct unbecoming

Two, this toxic political culture makes the working of the political system near
impossible. As the middle ground is eliminated by extreme positions held by
political leaders, tolerance, compromise and mutual accommodation needed to
make the democratic system work becomes elusive. With the ethic of war — to
vanquish the ‘enemy’ — rather than the ethic of competition shaping political
behaviour, this rules out efforts to engage rivals, much less show them respect.
Rabid partisanship has made the political centre ground shrink, with no one
making any effort to bridge or even manage differences.

Moreover, when both sides accuse each other of treachery or the most egregious
crimes, it eliminates room for dialogue and even minimal cooperation in the
political process. This exposes the political system to the risk of paralysis and
dysfunctionality. What is lost is the obligation to work the political system in the
public interest.

Boycotts, disruptive behaviour and shouting matches are hardly the way for
public representatives to live up to their responsibilities. It is certainly not why
their constituents have sent them to parliament to represent their interests.

This undermines democracy and puts the political system on a slippery slope to
democratic erosion.

The third consequence is the kind of issue-less politics that emerges in this
environment. Rather than focus their competition on public policy issues, political
leaders prefer to demonise their opponents. This distracts them from articulating
what they stand for and explaining their party programme. It is left to talk show
hosts to tease out their stand on national issues, but even then their responses
are directed more at berating opponents than explaining their party’s view. This
environment is inimical to the generation of new ideas needed to deal with the
country’s multiple challenges. It also leaves people with the impression that
political leaders are either indifferent to serious issues or the party platforms of
erstwhile political rivals have become indistinguishable — as power, not public
purpose, drives them.

Editorial: Uncivilised politics

The inescapable impact of this on people is to feed the perception that political
leaders are more interested in outdoing each other and unseating the
government of the day than in issues of concern to them. Politics is then seen as
little more than a power struggle among elites disconnected from the problems
and aspirations of citizens.

Constantly squabbling leaders, accusing each other of sleaze and uncivil conduct,
erode public trust. What people want instead is well known and reflected in a
recent Gallup poll. This found that a decisive majority of people, 78 per cent, want
political differences to be resolved by dialogue and not resort to agitational
activity. When this doesn’t happen, public cynicism and disenchantment with
both politicians and political institutions follow. This leaves democracy in
disrepute.
Intense polarization and Pakistan’s democratic future

Pakistan has been a polarized polity and consequently, a divided society for the
past half century, and even longer if we look back deeply into its history. It started
with the serious differences among the political elites of the country over the
character of the state, quality of federalism, relationship between religion and
governance and ideological choices. One may argue that it could be a normal
process in a diverse nation’s struggle to take a definite direction and achieve
stability in the formative phase. But one wonders why it would take nine years in
writing the first constitution and then its annulment within three years without
any general elections or transfer of power happening under it.
Without getting into the details, it was the inability of the ruling elites, their
diverse regional backgrounds, personal vested interests in power grabs, and for
that purpose, engineering of political manipulation to wreck governments and
forms new ones.
Factions of the same elite under different party platforms kept displacing one
another from power endlessly until the military took over in 1959. There is
another view that political elites were innocent and they were actually played
against one another as puppets by the civil and military bureaucracy. This is too
charitable a perspective to excuse the political elites and their never-ending
factionalism, which continues to this day, after a long history of 74 years. If they
had played by the rules, demonstrated political solidarity on principles and forged
a political consensus, the democratic norms and convention would have gelled
over time. The recent ouster of former prime minister Imran Khan, despite the
fact that he had the largest party in the parliament with 156 members losing
power to a motley group of political factions, the closest second having only 86
members and forming the new government, speaks a great deal about persistent
polarization. The sad story of Pakistan is that naked factional elite interests have
shaped these power plays, often by seeking friendly intervention from the
powerful judicial and security institutions.

Generation after generation, coming from the same feudal-tribal social

background, Pakistan’s political elites have promoted political values that run
counter to nation and state-building.

Rasul Bakhsh Rais

The normal and expected role of the political elites in any form of political system
is working toward stability, order, national unity, solidarity and continuity along
with ensuring progress, social and economic development.
The Pakistani elites have done quite the opposite: polarizing and dividing people
along ethnic, religious, ideological and narrow political lines. Generation after
generation, coming from the same feudal-tribal social background, they have
promoted political values that run counter to nation and state-building in ethically
and demographically diverse society.
Ultimately, it is the rapacious character of the Pakistan ruling classes, their low
commitment to rule of law and accountability and access to power as means of
material benefits that have stunted the growth of democracy. In such conditions,
the military has assumed the role of ‘guardian’ of the state, and has regularly
managed political conflicts erupting over power struggles among the elites.
The present polarization between the PTI and the rest of the 11 so-called political
parties and factions is not new. It is a continuation of the same historical pattern,
only the main characters have changed. Each successive confrontation has been
more severe than before. The ongoing clash looks like political warfare with no-
holds-barred, barely covered with a fig leaf of constitutionality. This has been in
the making for the past nine years when Imran Khan challenged the fairness of
the 2013 elections. The others, in return, questioned the accuracy of the 2018
vote and vowed to oust him from power by forming a joint alliance, launching
street demonstrations, and finally succeeding by winning over dissidents from his
party and coalition partners and moving successfully a vote-of-confidence motion
in the NationalAssembly.
The sudden change of heart by four coalition groups supporting Khan and the
open betrayal of 20 members of his party have raised many troubling questions
about the neutrality of powerful state institutions. This adds another dimension
to the political conflict playing out in media, civil society and the general public.
Khan has instantly decided to engage in popular agitation against what he calls an
‘imported’ government by weaving a narrative of foreign ‘conspiracy’ and
accusing some as ‘traitors.’ His decision to resign from the national assembly en-
masse is stunning and may prove to be an adventurous path to Azadi‘liberation’
for the country. He will be doing politics now not in the parliament but in the
streets, rousing public anger against the ‘corrupt mafia’ and demanding fresh
elections.
The new normal in Pakistan politics

IN a vibrant democratic dispensation, it is a rather encouraging notion to have

diversity of opinions. Diversity opens up new avenues to rid society of status-
quo. Democracy itself has always been an explicit proponent of the freedom of
speech and encourages the right to association. With diversity emerges a
vigorous democratic society. Ironically, diversity turns into ignominy when it
causes fragmentation and polarisation in society along ethnic, religious,
political, economic and all other possible lines. And who knows it better than
we do in Pakistan? None.
Pakistani society has gone through deep political changes in recent times that
caused systematic polarisation, leading to sharp differences not only within the
country, but within families and social circles … even within WhatsApp groups.
The deeper we slide down, the more frightening outcomes we are bound to meet.

Initially, it all started with the political rhetoric of maligning the rivals. Coming
from the leadership, the tone and tenor of discourse turned into farcical frenzy on
the back of the so-called fifth generation warfare. In turn, social media madness
encouraged people to go nuts on the streets.

Polarisation and blind belief lead to disproportionate and irrational animosity

towards the rivals.

In contrast, societies rooted in sound politics do not stoop this low. In fact,
societies having deep-rooted political wisdom and mature institutions do not
succumb to the curse of polarisation. Thus, political awareness allows society at
large to function smoothly and peacefully with all the different shades of opinion
flourishing under a democratic dispensation.
Pakistani society has always been divided on political grounds, but in recent times
this trend has seen an unprecedented rise, where politics has become a tool to
exploit religious, ethnic and political opinions of people. Some have become so
efficient in this game that they successfully exploit conflicting opinions
simultaneously. The leaders alone are not at fault. At best, they can try to do all
this because it suits them and their designs. But it is an indication of the low,
almost non-existent, level of political and social awareness in society that the
majority fails to pick up such exploitative tendencies, and even when they know
what is going on, they prefer to believe that it is happening for the larger good.
After all, everything is fair in love and war. And what we have in society today is
not love. It is all war, and tactics are fair. Blatant ridicule with the intent to hurt is
the new normal in society.

Ironically, the media has always served as the platform where the indoctrination
of certain narratives is carried out through selective promotion on TV channels.
Such biased rhetoric amplified in the media further brings democratic evolution
to a complete halt. Thus, the media is eroding the concept of mutual respect and
is questioning the very existence of diversity of opinions in the country.

The gloomy state of affairs in the country has squeezed the space for the multiple
narratives to exist, causing public alienation. Politics in a country where just about
50 per cent people turn out to vote cannot survive such intense polarisation.

Conclusively, the only way to come out of this crisis is to stop mud-slinging and to
keep the differences aside in the larger national interest. The agenda should be to
develop and to let others develop Pakistan into a formidable democracy and a
respectable nation. The politicians need to standardise the system from which no
one would be able to deviate.

Instead of dirty politics, they ought to focus on more genuine economic and social
issues. If this polarisation is not checked, it may unfold undesirable consequences
for us in the long term.
Democratic regression
EARLIER this month, the world marked the International Day of Democracy,
celebrated every year on Sept 15. But this hardly masked the reality of democratic
backsliding that is pervasive in the world today. Pakistan, too, has seen
democratic regression.

Many democracies across the world are challenged by polarisation, intolerance,

and toxic politics. They have also seen an erosion of civil liberties and media
freedom and the suppression of dissent. This is happening against a backdrop of
economic stress and rising but unmet public expectations.

Several reports by international organisations and publications have recorded the

global trend of democratic erosion. In its annual Democracy Report 2023, the V-
Dem Institute (based in Sweden) finds democracy has deteriorated in many
regions, with the level of democracy enjoyed by the average global citizen having
dropped to 1986 levels.

Over 35 years of international advances in democracy have been wiped out in the
last decade. It found there are more “closed autocracies” than liberal
democracies for the first time in over two decades, with the current “wave of
autocratisation” sweeping across all regions. It also found 72 per cent of the
global population (5.7 billion people) live in autocracies — a substantial increase
from 46pc a decade ago.

The Economist Intelligence Unit conducts an annual survey of the health of

democracy in 167 countries, assessing them across five measures. They are
electoral processes and pluralism, political participation, a functioning
government acting in the public interest, civil liberties and political culture. Its
2022 report concluded that only 8pc people in the world live in a ‘full democracy’,
with over a third residing in an authoritarian regime, 37pc in a flawed democracy
and 18pc in a hybrid democracy, which is how it classifies Pakistan.

The latest edition of the Global State of Democracy 2022 report by the
Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
(IDEA) sees a record number of democracies in decline. It calculates over two-
thirds of the global population now live in backsliding democracies, authoritarian
or hybrid regimes. It attributes the ongoing wave of democratic erosion to the
political consequences of the economic crisis that began with the coronavirus
pandemic and economic fallout of the war in Ukraine, especially the cost-of-living
crisis.

The report’s list of backsliding countries includes the US, which faces “problems of
political polarisation, institutional dysfunction and threats to civil liberties”. India
and Brazil are listed among the rest. It says authoritarian governments have
intensified repression with the previous year being the worst on record.

Pakistan is among countries that have seen democratic backsliding.

A more recent assessment by Washington-based Freedom House comes to a

similar conclusion. It says global freedom declined for the 17th consecutive year
with civil liberties and political rights being undermined in several countries. This
also involved repression of civil society organisations and worsening of the quality
of elections. Forty-seven countries are faced with tighter government censorship
of the media while freedom of expression deteriorated in 35 countries last year.

What is apparent is that while many countries still maintain an outward façade of
democracy and hold elections of some sort — usually manipulated — they follow
illiberal policies, suppress civil liberties, muzzle the media, undermine the rule of
law, persecute minority groups and undermine any system of checks and balances
that hold governments to account.

Often described as illiberal democracies, the recent proliferation of such regimes

has much to do with the rise of right-wing populism. Populist leaders in a diverse
number of countries such as India, the US, Hungary, Poland and Austria, have
shown a disregard for democratic institutions and norms, engaged in
authoritarian conduct and used hyper-nationalism to rally support, often
orchestrating anti-minority sentiment. This has deeply divided and polarised their
societies.
A thoughtful piece in a recent edition of The Economist names “paranoid
nationalism” among devices used by populist politicians to “prey on their citizens’
fears” in the pursuit of power. This kind of scaremongering is deployed as a tool
to “dismantle the checks and balances that underpin good governance: a free
press, independent courts, NGOs and a loyal opposition”.

The global trend of democratic backsliding raises the question of what might be
the underlying factors responsible for this as for the rise of anti-pluralist populist
leaders. Each country’s case is different so there is no uniform set of factors. But
some common features can be singled out, although this is not an exhaustive list.

They include the growing disconnect between political elites and people, failure
of established political parties and their policies to meet rising public
expectations, poor governance, increasing inequality, lack of response by
institutions to public concerns, political polarisation, economic and social
discontent spawned by globalisation and the cost-of-living crisis.

What about Pakistan’s experience with democracy — or the lack of it? The
country’s troubled political past has seen it swing between long bouts of military
rule and periods of fragile civilian democratic governments.

Even the post-1988 revival of democracy and subsequent ‘democratic decade’

saw interventions by the military-backed president to oust elected governments
with none able to complete their term. The bitter feuds between political rivals
and lack of tolerance for the opposition enabled the ubiquitous establishment to
manipulate politics and undermine democratic rule.

Another democratic phase that began in 2008 set a much better record with
political leaders showing mutual tolerance and respect for civil liberties and the
media being able to function independently in a relatively free and open
environment.

But the 2018 election ushered in a period of hybrid rule that continues to this day.
The post-2018 period has seen democratic regression and reversals as the hybrid
arrangement has entailed the military establishment acquiring an expansive role
in politics, governance and even the economy. This has been accompanied by
mostly politically motivated corruption cases against opposition leaders, jailing of
political figures and activists, media controls, defiance of the rule of law and
marginalisation of parliament.

The Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency

correctly described the phase that ended with parliament’s dissolution last month
as one of democratic decline, rather than democratic consolidation. The
unanswered question is whether the future will be any different.
PAKISTAN: A LAND OF DENTED DEMOCRACY AND
INCREASING POLARIZATION

Pluralism is a key feature of democracy, that is often accompanied by tolerance.

These ideas are intertwined, as a pluralistic society acknowledges and respects
the diverse opinions, beliefs, and interests of its people. However, when pluralism
lacks tolerance and regard for the rights of other groups, it can lead to political
polarization. Political polarization occurs when there is a deep divide between
different ideological or political groups, and there is little to no room for
negotiation or finding common ground within the political system. In such a
scenario, the lack of tolerance and respect for differing viewpoints can hinder the
functioning of democracy. Polarized politics can be understood as a growing
divide between people with different political views, leading to an environment of
mistrust and animosity. It often involves zero-sum disagreements on various
policies and rules within the political system. This phenomenon is not limited to
any one country but is a global trend. Even the world’s oldest democracies, such
as the United States, have faced challenges posed by polarized politics. Pakistan,
with its turbulent history of civil-military relations, military interventions,
ineffective civilian governments, and linguistic and ethnonational divides, is no
exception to polarized politics and the challenges facing democracy. The socio-
political fabric of Pakistan is greatly polarized on all levels, from the political elite
to the masses, with a noticeable lack of consensus on fundamental democratic
norms.

In Pakistan’s context, political polarization can be better understood as a top-

down phenomenon rather than a bottom-up one. Throughout the country’s
history, political elites have shaped narratives and influenced public sentiments.
Thus, political polarization among the masses depends on what occurs in the
corridors of power which penetrates the social fabric and polarizes the masses.
The struggle for power between state elites (such as the establishment and
judiciary) and political parties can be seen as the primary level of political
polarization in Pakistan. Due to this polarization and a lack of consensus, Pakistan
has experienced prolonged influence of state institutions in political affairs,
including direct military interventions, and judicial activism. The seventy-five
years of Pakistan’s history have witnessed limited periods of political harmony
and convergence between state institutions and political parties. Pakistan’s
journey towards its first constitution took nine years due to a lack of agreement
on the basic mode of governance between state institutions. The parliament,
which is meant to represent the people, has often succumbed to external
pressures. Parties in power tend to avoid crossing a certain point to maintain their
position and not antagonize the institutions. Moreover, the long history of martial
law has further divided political parties into pro-establishment and anti-
establishment factions.

Pakistan’s political system was established on democratic principles, but it is

questionable if the country has experienced true democracy. Instead, Pakistan
has had various forms of democracy. Mohammed Wasim in his book Political
Conflict in Pakistan refers to democracy in Pakistan as “Establishmentarian
Democracy.” He describes different variants of democracy briefly mentioned
below:

 Direct Military Rule: Pakistan’s political landscape has seen various forms
of governance throughout its history. Direct military rule was imposed on
the country for a total of 17 years, with General Ayub Khan leading from
1958 to 1962, General Yahya Khan from 1969 to 1971, General Zia-ul-Haq
from 1977 to 1985, and General Pervez Musharraf from 1999 to 2002.
 Military-bureaucratic oligarchy: During the early years of Pakistan’s
independence, a bureaucratic polity with an elected government existed
for 11 years, from 1947 to 1958. However, this period was characterized by
a military-bureaucratic oligarchy, where power was concentrated within
the military and bureaucracy.
  Military government under a civilian president: Another form of
governance witnessed in Pakistan was military government under a civilian
president, following the King’s party model. This lasted for 16 years, with
General Ayub Khan serving as the president from 1962 to 1969, General
Zia-ul-Haq from 1985 to 1988, and General Pervez Musharraf from 2002 to
2008.
 Elected governments under civilian presidents: where the rule of the Trica
model was followed, involving the establishment, judiciary, and parliament.
This lasted for 11 years, with Benazir Bhutto serving as the president from
1988 – 1990, Nawaz Sharif from 1990 to 1993, Benazir Bhutto again from
1993 to 1996, followed by a caretaker government in 1996-1997, and
Nawaz Sharif again from 1997 to 1999.
 Elected governments that constantly faced military tensions: For a period
of 10 years, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) held power from 2008 to
2013, followed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) from 2013 to
2018.
 Two years of an elected government and the establishment seemingly on
the same page: This occurred from 2018 to 2021, during the tenure of the
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. However, this short-lived marriage of
convenience had a bitter ending.

Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, and chairman of PTI was
removed from office through a vote of no confidence in the national assembly.
Initially, he alleged it was a U.S. conspiracy aimed at removing him from power.
However, a few months later, he shifted the blame to the Pakistan army and
effectively gathered a substantial political following that openly expresses its
disapproval of the military. What sets Mr. Khan apart from other political leaders
is his embrace of populist politics. The populist tendencies of Khan’s leadership
have never been more evident before than now. From circumnavigating the
constitutional processes, questioning, and targeting constitutional structures, and
creating binaries among the masses as outsiders and insiders, Imran Khan seems
to have checked all the boxes of a populist leader. Moreover, the tone and the
political discourse that Khan has introduced in Pakistani politics are
unprecedented.

The current political crisis in Pakistan is being referred to as extraordinary and

unprecedented by some, while many political experts and journalists believe it is
a recurring loop or vicious cycle that repeats itself every few years. What sets the
current crisis apart from past events is the unprecedented level of openness to
the public and the public outrage against the military institutions. In a recent
event on 9 May 2023, Imran Khan was arrested by Islamabad high court under
some corruption charges. The arrest of Khan led to significant outrage and anger
among supporters of the PTI. The situation took a chaotic turn when attacks were
carried out on the Army General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi, and the
Corps Commander House, also known as Jinnah House, in Lahore. These events
not only caused havoc for those involved in the attacks but also for the PTI’s
political leadership. Many PTI leaders were arrested, imprisoned, released on bail,
and re-arrested, and many have quit not only their political party but politics
altogether.

Those responsible for the attacks on the GHQ and Corps Commander House are
being tried in military courts rather than civil courts. Furthermore, thousands of
PTI supporters have been arrested in less than a week. While these actions are
condemnable, it is crucial to question where the problem lies. Looking back at
recent history, when the PTI itself was in power, a long list of false cases was
made against their opposition. Many people were falsely imprisoned, accused,
and persecuted. At that time, when it suited the PTI’s interests, they did not take
any measures to stop or at least condemn the mistreatment of their political
rivals. On the contrary, they not only endorsed it but also threatened severe
consequences for their political opposition if they did not comply. It now appears
that the actions they took against their political rivals are returning to haunt
them, albeit with greater speed and severity. And now the current government is
doing the same.
The Pakistan army, previously an obscure force operating from behind the scenes,
has thrust itself into the public eye, shedding its taboo status and becoming a
subject of open discussion. The former Chief of Army Staff General
QamarJavedBajwa, on the verge of retirement, boldly accepted complete
accountability for the chaotic state of politics. He reassured the public that the
army would prioritize its core responsibilities and refrain from any political
involvement. This declaration initially brought a sense of renewed hope, akin to a
breath of fresh air. However, the relief was short-lived.

Immersed in a pool of problems and formidable challenges, it seems difficult to

pinpoint a direct and singular solution for Pakistan. The challenges faced are
multifaceted and demand an intricate solution. While many solutions have been
proposed by the experts over the years, there appears to be an absolute lack of
political will to address these issues. The underlying reason for this indifferent
attitude is that personal and short-term goals consistently take precedence over
national and long-term goals.

Nevertheless, to bring democracy into practice and reinstate the sanctity of

institutional boundaries, Pakistan needs to take certain measures. First and
foremost, Pakistan army would have to take a clear and strong stance by
distancing itself from politics, maintaining neutrality, and avoiding involvement in
political processes. Such a step can be a significant turning point in Pakistan’s
democratic journey.

Similarly, the judiciary in Pakistan should not confine itself to juristocracy and
hyperactive judicial activism, which can encroach upon political sovereignty.
Instead, it should operate within a balanced framework that respects the
separation of powers. Legislative assemblies should introduce reforms aimed at
strengthening democracy and minimizing external influences in political
processes.

Political parties have a vital role to play in upholding democracy. They should
strive to build political consensus on shared norms and a code of conduct. Key
aspects such as free and fair elections, civil liberties, free media, equality, and
peaceful transfer of government must be areas of convergence among political
parties. It is crucial that all political parties accept the democratic practices and
results thereof. Populist rhetoric should be avoided to gain public support, as it
can undermine democratic processes.

Therefore, it is imperative that all the stakeholders identify and acknowledge the
magnitude of the issues and display a collective resolve to address these issues
effectively.
Polarized politics are tearing Pakistan apart

ISLAMABAD — The stakes have never been higher in Pakistan.

Its economy is on the brink, society is politically polarized, millions are still
recovering from last year's devastating floods, terror attacks are increasing and,
as inflation soars ever higher, many are struggling to feed themselves and their
children.

While the country suffers, politicians and institutions have been pulled into a
power struggle over who should run Pakistan.

Despite the hours of air time, ferociously delivered ultimatums and street stand-
offs, Pakistan seems no closer to answering that question than it was a year ago.

"What makes this current situation unprecedented is the backdrop of other

serious crisis," says Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the
Wilson Center.

"Pakistan doesn't have the luxury of saying this political crisis is a distraction,
eventually we'll get back to where things need to be."

Pakistan's economy is struggling. Its foreign reserves, which pay for imports
including fuel, have plummeted to one of the lowest levels in decades. Meetings
with the International Monetary Fund earlier this year are yet to result in a deal to
unlock $1.1bn in crucial funds.

Meanwhile, militants continue to launch attacks, often targeting security forces.

Pakistan's armed forces recently said there had been 436 terror attacks so far in
2023. And militant groups regularly release infographics showing the number they
claim to have killed or injured, and the arms they've seized around the country.

Add to this the ever-climbing food inflation, plus the fact that Pakistan is still
recovering from the damage done by last year's floods before this year's rains
begin again - and there is no shortage of big questions politicians need to answer.

"Political uncertainty is making things even more difficult for the entire system,"
says MehmalSarfraz, a political analyst. "The system is collapsing in Pakistan. If
that happens, it won't benefit anyone - neither the political parties or the people
of Pakistan."

Analysts say the current situation was sparked when Imran Khan was ousted from
his position as prime minister in April 2022 in a vote of no confidence.

"Khan refused to accept it," Kugelman says. "And it was quite clear that the
government was not going to ignore Khan's activism and agitation either."

Khan responded with a series of rallies around the country, and a long march to
the capital, Islamabad.

The number of court cases against him has been rising — his Pakistan Tehreek-e-
Insaf (PTI) party says there are over 100 — and charges include terrorism,
corruption and contempt of court. But the former prime minister has made this a
part of his campaign, accusing the government of living by the "law of the jungle".

Government ministers, in turn, have accused Khan of acting out of ego and
narcissism.

Police from Islamabad have twice arrived at his home in Lahore to arrest him after
he failed to appear in court on multiple occasions.

Khan, too, has pulled the government into court. His party dissolved two of the
country's provincial assemblies to try to force a national election. When that
failed, it appealed; the case is still in the Supreme Court.

These ongoing court battles have split the judiciary. The government has accused
some judges of bias in Imran Khan's favor, and the division and furious
disagreement has led to some fears of a constitutional crisis.

"Khan would not let the government sit and take rest," says Ahmad Bilal, a
political analyst and founder president at Pakistan Institute of Legislative
Development And Transparency. "The entire focus [for this government] has been
on maintaining their existence."

Bilal also thinks the stand-off is related to Khan's personality.

"He isn't ready to make a genuine compromise," Bilal says. He argues that Khan's
inability to do so is counterproductive and may even hurt him in the long run.

Some think that the deadlock is also a sign that Pakistan's institutions are failing.
"There is no group that can mediate. The establishment doesn't have credibility,"
Ma Sarfraz says.

The establishment is the shorthand often used to refer to Pakistan's military and
intelligence services. The army has played a prominent role in politics, sometimes
seizing power in military coups, and, on other occasions, pulling levers behind the
scenes.

Many analysts believe Khan's election win in 2018 happened with the help of the
military. Now in opposition, he is one of its most vocal critics, and analysts say the
army's popularity has fallen.

"There are clear indications that there is a lack of agreement within the army on
the proper way forward," Kugelman says.
"My sense is that the senior-most army leadership would be happy not to see him
involved in politics any more, whereas many elements in the lower and middle
ranks of the army are big supporters of Khan. Khan has polarised politics, he's
polarised the public and he's polarised the army as well, which is a difficult feat to
pull off."

General elections are due to take place this year, but the fear is that it could be
delayed using the same reasons used to delay the provincial assembly polls -
insufficient funds and the security situation. That would be very damaging, Bilal
says.

"I think it would be very unfortunate and will probably damage the democratic
process in Pakistan, maybe in an unrepairable manner. We've never seen
elections postponed."

The government and Khan's PTI party have already held talks about the elections.
While there is common agreement that the national and provincial elections
should be held at the same time, there is still no agreement about when that
might happen.

But even agreeing on dates might not be enough, according to MsSarfraz.

"Even if elections do take place now, there will not be a conflict resolution unless
and until the political parties decide what their red lines are." She argues that if
both sides don't set out exactly what they expect to keep elections fair, both will
dispute the result and continue to divide the country.

That leaves it up to the politicians to come to an agreement, a difficult task in a

fraught, politically divided country.

"You're political rivals, you're not personal enemies," MsSarfraz says.

"It's time that we take things forward and talk to each other before there's a
collapse of the entire system." — BBC
Conspiracy theories and polarisation

WHY do conspiracy theories thrive and divide political opinion so much? The
answer to this question is, perplexingly, very simple and rooted in the science of
making decisions under uncertainty. A simplified scientific dictum is that the
‘absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence’. A theory, however, cannot
be accepted just because there was no evidence to reject it. So why do people
usually start believing in conspiracy theories?

Before answering the question, it is necessary to understand decision-making

processes that are conducted under uncertainty, and how different entities
(businesses, governments, parliamentary bodies, judicial bodies, etc) make their
decisions. For instance, judicial bodies decide whether a particular act is in
accordance with the law and reach a verdict on the basis of evidence, without
going into the consequences of their decision. Non-judicial bodies react to a
particular situation or event. They have to take day-to-day decisions continuously
and under conditions of uncertainty. In making decisions, governments seldom
have incontrovertible evidence regarding the superiority of one course of action
over another.

If a government entity is confronted with a situation where there are only a few
clues or signs that point to a conspiracy against national sovereignty or security, it
must make a decision to either accept it or reject it. In conditions of uncertainty,
or lacking full evidence, it will rely on the credibility of the available, although
incomplete, evidence to form an opinion. Unlike judicial bodies, it will also think
of the consequences of its decision. The expected consequences will ultimately
drive its decision if the evidence itself is scant. One of the many reasons for the
separation of judicial and non-judicial powers is that the latter has to concern
itself with the consequences of decision-making as opposed to the former. That
difference notwithstanding, non-judicial bodies must also ensure that their
decision-making procedure is not in violation of the law.

What are the consequences in the eyes of the decision-makers? Even if there is
little to suggest a conspiracy, the expected costs of rejecting a theory that is not
substantiated by concrete proof could be immense. From this perspective, there
seems to be nothing wrong with clinging to an idea branded a conspiracy theory.
Uncertainty propels people to rely on clues and signs like Sherlock Holmes did.

Blind belief in a conspiracy theory can be dangerous, but a nuanced approach is

useful.

If the views of a large number of people match those of the decision-makers in

terms of the expected consequences of a ‘conspiracy’, then it would be naïve for
the intelligentsia to term their belief as irrational. When intellectuals start
lamenting about the naivety of people, they need to put themselves in the shoes
of those they are criticising. This, of course, is not easy, and the inability or
unwillingness to do so leads to political polarisation, which is at alarming levels
nowadays.

According to IkramJunaidi’s report in this newspaper some days ago, even seven-
year-old children are divided according to their, or their parents’, political beliefs,
and sit separately from each other in their classrooms. Nothing can be more
despicable than this. All of us have a collective responsibility to reverse this trend
in order to strengthen national solidarity.

According to political scientist Joseph Uscinski, “If conspiracy theorists are crazy
or stupid, why are they so numerous and stubborn? Perhaps the reason is that
conspiracy theories are less about specific details and more about broader
conceptions of power: who has it and what are they doing with it? In this sense,
conspiracy theories are alarm bells, trip wires, early warning systems. They alert
the vulnerable to coming threats, violations of ground rules, and the abuse of
power. The alarms sound even when the threat is not realised. The question is,
would democracy be better off with more warning bells, or with less?”
While I do not have the answers to Uscinski’s questions, we need to review two
important recent developments in the context of the debate on conspiracy
theories. One alarming event has already been forgotten by most of us: it was an
actual breach of our national borders and security when a runaway flying object
from across our eastern border hit our soil last month. Luckily, it was not
mounted with a warhead. According to the Scientific American, it was a BrahMos
missile. The Indian authorities brushed aside this dangerous event as routine
malfunction. Whether it was accidental or deliberate will not be known to us.

One theory was circulated by a defence analyst that it was deliberate move by
India that wanted to test our defence system. Whether or not this theory is
correct, it can still serve a useful purpose and lead to a review of the strength of
our defence systems. The point here is that even if there is scant evidence to
show that it was a non-accidental strike, there is no harm in accepting the
possibility of the latter and boosting our defence systems if needed. We need not
take the theory in the direction of a counter-response though. Blind belief in a
conspiracy theory can be dangerous, but a nuanced approach is useful.

The second event occurred on April 10, when a no-confidence motion in the
National Assembly was held, in line with our constitutional provisions and the
Supreme Court’s directions. A week earlier, the National Assembly had been
dissolved on the basis of the expected consequences of an alleged international
conspiracy seeking regime change through a no-confidence resolution filed
earlier. The judiciary decided on the basis of, not of the expected consequences,
but adherence to the law. Our people may be naïve, but they are not oblivious to
the current political turmoil. Some are celebrating purana Pakistan, others are
dreading it. Despite all this upheaval, two welcome developments augur well for
our future. Our judicial bodies seem to have buried the infamous doctrine of
necessity and our military authorities have committed themselves to not
interfering in politics. Aren’t these signs of an emerging naya Pakistan?