December 3, 2024
Islamabad – Last week’s showdown between the government and the opposition may have ended sooner than anyone expected, but with it came serious unresolved issues.
It has deepened the country’s political divisions and increased polarization. Tensions remain high. The government and its establishment supporters used force to eventually disperse protesters mobilized by Imran Khan’s Pakistan People’s Party, whose leaders fled the capital for strongholds in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. But this may only be a temporary reprieve for the governing coalition.
It is true that PTI failed to achieve its objectives. The retreat of supporters is a setback for the party and exposes its lack of strategy. Internal disagreements erupted, making matters worse. The resignation of party secretary-general Salman Akram Raja further reflects the chaos within the party. But the incident also damaged the government.
The panicked government ordered a siege of the capital, erected roadblocks to prevent demonstrators from entering the city, cut off Punjab from Islamabad, restricted media coverage and disrupted internet and mobile phone services, all of which exposed the government’s instability and failure to respond. Solve the situation through political means.
Dozens of people were injured after excessive force was used to break up the protests. Several protesters were killed, the media was banned from reporting, and hospital authorities were forced to remain silent. PTI leaders claimed that many supporters were killed, but government ministers denied this and instead congratulated themselves on quelling the protests. More than 1,000 demonstrators were arrested in Islamabad, while a sweeping crackdown on party activists continued across Punjab. A journalist investigating the deaths of protesters has been arrested on terrorism and drug possession charges.
All of this undermines the government’s credibility. Both the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and the Committee to Protect Journalists called for the journalist’s “immediate and unconditional release”.
The crackdown prompted the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association to issue a statement condemning “the brutal and reprehensible treatment of civilian protesters, which has resulted in countless lives”. It also noted that “bullets were fired directly at unarmed protesters”. Amnesty International called for an “urgent and transparent investigation” into the “deadly crackdown”.
The economic losses are also difficult to estimate. How can the country be viewed as a safe or attractive investment destination amid violent clashes on the streets of the capital?
Moreover, the ongoing war of words points to the possibility of more rounds of confrontations between the government and the opposition, which will do little to build or restore business confidence. Political uncertainty and fears of more unrest will clearly harm the business environment. At present, the economic recovery is still tentative and fragile, and economic structural problems still need to be resolved.
Suppressing protests does not mean establishing political stability. The danger shown by the government’s victorious mood is that the ruling alliance may impose governor’s rule in KP, thereby dealing a “final” blow to the PTI. This possibility was reinforced when a number of ministers recommended governor’s rule at a cabinet meeting last week. The administration apparently plans to consult with allies before making a final decision. Although the implementation of governor-general rule is a complex political and legal process, it would be a catastrophic move if it happened.
Removing an elected government in a province with an overwhelming parliamentary majority and public support is not only a blow to democracy and federalism. This would fuel public anger and lead to widespread alienation and even Balochistan-like unrest in the province. This would make any arrangement imposed on the province difficult to govern. This will have an extremely detrimental impact on managing the insurgency in Khyber and resolving the sectarian tensions that continue to erupt in the Gurram region. 100 people have died in the conflict so far.
PTI leaders said their protests would continue and the KP chief minister warned the party would not back down in the face of threats of imposition of governor’s rule or emergency. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called the PTI a “terrorist organization” and warned of tough measures in future. This shows a denial of the widespread popular dissatisfaction that has fueled repeated protests. But what does this mean for democracies and countries? Can anything be done to reduce political tensions?
Democratic backsliding is evident, with parliaments becoming irrelevant and the political system becoming increasingly dysfunctional. Recent developments also imply a breakdown in politics, as political problems are not solved by deploying political solutions.
There is no way out except through serious negotiations to reach an agreement to ease the political tensions that are taking a heavy toll on the country. Given the lack of trust between the government and the opposition, political reconciliation may be a bridge too far. But both sides need to step back and reach some kind of compromise for the good of the country.
To achieve a political settlement, the government must end repressive measures, withdraw frivolous cases against opposition leaders, end regulation of the media, release those imprisoned for bailable “offences” and release thousands of recently detained PTI Activists. It should also implement the Supreme Court judgment on allocation of reserved seats. This will incentivize the PTI to fight in parliament rather than on the streets.
For its part, the PTI must suspend its politics of demagoguery and refrain from destructive behavior inside and outside Parliament. The Khyber chief minister should focus on running his province instead of leading protest rallies. In the current challenging environment, this compromise may seem unrealistic, but the alternative would create more instability and uncertainty.
In the past, arbiters have always been needed to broker truces between warring political parties to end political crises. This role has traditionally been played by the military. But today it appears to have adopted a position that disqualifies it from its role as a neutral arbiter. The question is whether, for the sake of domestic peace and stability, it is ready to revisit this position and help end what has become a permanent political confrontation.
