State action,
The government would be legally justified to physically remove the
PTI/PAT protesters from their present location who are stifling not only the
city, posing a grave national risk, but also adversely impacting the national
economy
The drama being played out in Islamabad is a farcical
tragedy. It is a farce because a lone minority representation of people is
challenging to bring down the country’s entire political system, and a tragedy
because, in the process, it is eroding whatever little authority the state or
the government is left with, while causing huge losses to our precarious
national economy with long term damage to the country’s image, democracy,
morale, unity and stability.
The two greedy, power hungry and egoistic demagogues, Imran and Qadri, along with their crazed followers, are like political vultures feasting upon the helpless carcass of a dying state. Pakistan has now been adjudged as the 10th most fragile state in the world (Foreign Policy 2014 survey on status of world states). Along with Pakistan in this bottom category of failed states are states like Somalia, Sudan, Congo and Mali.
We have been witnessing for the last three or four weeks a
subversive and debilitating siege of our capital city of Islamabad by this handful
of PTI and PAT zealots, and the corresponding near paralysis of the state
apparatus to confront and end this brazen, ubiquitous lawlessness. There exists
the real and looming threat of the total collapse of state authority if no
action by the state or the government is taken.
Supporters of PTI/PAT cite the provisions of freedom of
speech and expression in our constitution to justify their lawlessness, fascist
like raid, 24/7 ranting and sit-ins in Islamabad. Though this guarantee of
freedom of speech is valid, it is by no means absolute and without any
restrictions. For instance, the right to speak against the judiciary and the
armed forces is expressly curtailed in the constitution. More importantly, the
right to incite violence or rebellion against a lawful government or to create
and promote public disorder by words or conduct is also illegal,
unconstitutional and strictly prohibited. The hateful, provocative, subversive
and abase speeches of both Imran and Qadri along with their conduct clearly constitute
such unprotected, unlawful speech and conduct.
As far as the citizen’s right to protest and the right to
peaceful assembly, embedded in freedom of speech, is concerned, it is also not
limitless. It does not give a licence to protest and assemble anywhere, anytime
in the country. The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled, in such landmark
cases as Boos vs Barry, Grayned vs City of Rockford, New York Times Co. vs Ed
Sullivan, Plumhoff vs Rickard and Wood vs Moss, that the right to free speech
and assembly is restricted in the face of a “compelling national or
governmental interest” or to counter a “grave public risk”. Consequently, the
government, in order to safeguard vital national interest, retains full
authority to prescribe the place and time of peaceful assembly and protest.
In no democratic country of the world are citizens allowed to protest, sit, sleep, camp, make speeches anywhere, anytime they so desire for as many days as they want. Can you hang your dirty laundry, sleep for weeks in front of the US Congress, White House, or 10 Downing Street? To do so would mean anarchy, maelstrom and lawlessness.
In no democratic country of the world are citizens allowed to protest, sit, sleep, camp, make speeches anywhere, anytime they so desire for as many days as they want. Can you hang your dirty laundry, sleep for weeks in front of the US Congress, White House, or 10 Downing Street? To do so would mean anarchy, maelstrom and lawlessness.
The Pakistan government thus has a legitimate, compelling
national interest not only in protecting key government buildings, foreign
embassies and national institutions and to keep the arteries of the capital
city open and accessible to all but also in preventing the collapse of the
national economy. In order to perform this duty, the government would be
legally justified to physically remove the PTI/PAT protesters from their
present location who are stifling not only the city, posing a grave national
risk, but also adversely impacting the national economy.
If the present imbroglio ends with an inconclusive whimper by
virtue of the army’s intervention, it would nonetheless lack finality,
authority of the government and state action. For one thing, a laconic outcome
will not prevent ambitious charlatans in the future from orchestrating similar
marches to the capital. On the other hand, such marches and dharnas (sit-ins)
may provide a convenient leitmotif and a shot to some at gaining power
via a quick and easy shortcut without the imperative of the long political
grind and majority vote.
This failure of assertion of state authority by the PML-N
government is analogous to another recent debilitating chapter in Pakistan’s
history: the rise, murderous assault and relentless onslaught by the
Taliban/jihadists against the people and state of Pakistan. Yes, ultimately a
final offensive was undertaken but not before the loss of thousands of
citizens’ lives, destruction of property and assault on security bases.
In this connection, we should remember how, before the
launching of this operation, a large segment of our population created
hyperbolic hype about the fiery retaliation of the Taliban. We all know now
that this phantom fear never materialised. Along similar lines, in the present
dharna some are advising against using any force in any event whatsoever
because of the exaggerated threat of nationwide violence and upheaval by a
minority of the people. Our government it seems is acting on a mistaken
assumption that force at its disposal can never be constructively used. Well,
the whole concept of the nation state is based on its monopoly of coercive
force and its willingness to use it for the maintenance of order, protection of
the people, defence of the constitution and for the enforcement of its laws.
This is by no means an avocation of the use of force cart
blanche but only that the government must be able and ready to employ it when
and if necessary to protect legitimate national interests. If the government or
the state does not use its inherent power when necessary then the state is
bound to wither away. As the maxim goes: you loose it, if you do not use it.
The writer is a US-based attorney, author and independent analyst
The writer is a US-based attorney, author and independent analyst
No comments:
Post a Comment