The dilemmas of civil disobedience

Ongoing protests against the government in Pakistan bring to the fore a question that dogs democracies across the world.

Should civil disobedience, a method which was crafted on the Indian subcontinent to militate against colonial regimes, be used to oppose democratically elected home-grown governments?

If yes, then what are the parameters of civil disobedience in a democracy? Is civil disobedience always creative and progressive, or can it be used as a tool by forces that could undermine equality and due process?

If, on the other hand, civil disobedience is deemed to be inappropriate as a tool in critiquing or opposing elected governments, then what is the future of dissent?

Political turmoil in Pakistan triggered by the “Azadi March” (Freedom March), provides an interesting context in which to address these questions.

Imran Khan, leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf party (PTI), and Canada-based cleric Tahir ul-Qadri, chairman of the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) have brought together tens of thousands of protesters to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Both camps are agitating against the poor shape of the economy, rampant corruption, growing militancy, and failure to deliver core services such as a steady electricity supply.

On the eve of Pakistan’s Independence Day, on August 14, Khan gave Sharif’s government an ultimatum to resign within 48 hours, failing which he would declare civil disobedience which would take the form of people not paying taxes, electricity or gas bills.

In the general election last year, Sharif’s party Pakistan Muslim League (M) won 190 of the 342 seats, while Khan’s party got 34 seats. Khan alleges that the election was rigged.

Commentators in the Pakistani media have criticised both Khan and Qadri for taking a populist approach that could jeopardise Pakistan’s hard-won democracy. As one commentator noted, the Nawaz Sharif government may not have quickened the pulse of the public with any displays of strong governance, but that is not sufficient reason to dislodge an elected government, and weaken the country’s already fragile constitutional process.

A painful dilemma underlies these tussles. There is no doubt that mass protest is an important tool of a democratic society. However, there is also a danger that if a large enough group ‘occupies’ public spaces until a government resigns, it can undermine the very basis of electoral politics. This danger is further heightened if the groups leading the protests are themselves partisan-players with a political stake – rather than a broad mobilisation of citizens fighting for some fundamental ideals.

The test of civil disobedience within a democracy is whether it broadens and deepens spaces for negotiation, participation and eventually cooperation across ideological divides.

As Babar Sattar, a Pakistani lawyer, wrote in the newspaper Dawn last week, people are wary of any politics which fosters an environment of polarisation and political hostility – thus shrinking space for the peaceful coexistence of political rivals.

Above all, it is vital that institutions not be de-legitimised. There seems to be little dispute within Pakistan about the need for reforms that ensure fair and credible elections. While protests are an important way of creating pressure for such reforms, bringing down a government may not facilitate that, because then fresh elections would have to be conducted as per the prevailing rules and under the same institutions that are unsatisfactory.

Revolutionary zeal is an important energy in an open society – provided it is aimed at refining and improving the due process of law and related institutions. The litmus test for civil disobedience is whether those who mobilise it are committed to creating a new, truly democratic paradigm of power. Otherwise inquilab (revolution) can easily become a rallying cry that brings a demagogue to power. This results in less not more democracy.

Underlying many such protests across the world – particularly in India over the last few years – is a poignant longing for the reins of governance to be put in the hands of people with integrity. Qadri had called for protests to continue until a new government of technocrats, bureaucrats and politicians “of good repute” takes over. But, even the best of individuals are rendered helpless if claims of virtue are given more importance than the integrity and sanctity of institutions.

The right to participate, to be heard, to dissent are crucial in a democracy but they come with responsibilities – to seek collective solutions and accord greater importance to institution-building, rather than partisan ambition. This is the key lesson of civil disobedience as defined by Mahatma Gandhi – focus on the duties makes the demand for rights more just and worthy.

Media reports from Pakistan have quoted both ordinary people and commentators voicing these concerns. What is at stake is not merely the future of the incumbent government. The weeks ahead will show whether the Pakistani people reject partisan disobedience in favor of more sustainable modes of dissent that can help strengthen and deepen democracy.

Rajni Bakshi is the Gandhi Peace Fellow at Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

This article was exclusively written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. You can read more exclusive content here.

For interview requests with the author, or for permission to republish, please contact outreach@gatewayhouse.in.