On protesting peacefully

Some Pakistanis just want to watch the world burn

With electricity loadshedding spiralling out of control, this week several cities of Punjab saw angry protestors take to the streets to vent and register their grievance publicly. Result? Vandalised LESCO and WAPDA offices, vehicles ablaze, blocked roads, burnt tyres, and skirmishes between the protestors and the police. And this was a peaceful week, by all Pakistani standards!

But the situation brings to the fore an issue that strikes at the core of our democratic freedoms and civic responsibilities: what, if any, limitations define the contours of our fundamental right to protest in a democratic set-up?

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first: there can be no denying that the government, after four years in power, has failed in its responsibility to enact policy measures that ensure a reduction (let alone stoppage) in the power shortages across Pakistan. And as a result, demonstrations to register protest, with the aim of creating pressure and bringing about change, are not just people’s right but also their responsibility!

The right to assemble and protest (peacefully) is one of the ‘core freedoms’ of democracy, according to International Law. In other words, the right to protest (along with right to life/dignity, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience) is even more ‘fundamental’ than some of the other fundamental rights.

In Pakistan, this right emanates from a reading together of four different articles the Constitution – Article 15 (Freedom of Movement), 16 (Freedom of Assembly), 17 (Freedom of Association), and 19 (Freedom of Speech). And the Constitution meticulously mandates that this right shall be unfettered so long as the demonstration is conducted “peacefully and without arms, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order”. These parameters delineate the thin line that separates a protest from anarchy. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom. To do so peacefully is the character of a civil and tolerant society.

Still, however, protests in Pakistan are hardly ever peaceful. Whether it is outrage against the power-cuts or gas-shortage, or some anti-American/Israeli rally, or a procession in favour of some religious fanatic, or simply some college students demanding that their exams be rechecked, there is hardly a jaloos or ‘strike’ in Pakistan that retains its moral high-ground by staying peaceful. It is as though we are a nation that only recognises a cause or a grievance that announces itself through the smell of burning rubber and the clamour of a vandalising mob. And we have become so accustomed to this routine that no legal action is even contemplated against those who damage public or private property during a protest or, worse yet, cause physical injury to fellow citizens.

Perhaps we have forgotten that throughout history, peaceful and nonviolent protests have yielded much better and longer-lasting results than violent ones. Buddha, St. Francis of Assisi, Mohandas Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, all encouraged various forms of nonviolent demonstrations to achieve their goals of peace and justice. Intellectuals like Leo Tolstoy have passionately argued for social change via peaceful protests. The Solidarity movement in Poland used strikes and other peaceful methods to take control of the government from the communists. And fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany inspired peaceful activists in Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and other Eastern European states to achieve independence from Soviet-dominated governments.

The right to demonstration, in order to be healthy, must in fact be peaceful and non-violent. Any transgression of that – no matter how minor – breaks the tender fabric of the democratic social contract. Churchill encapsulated this when he famously said that one man’s freedom ends where the other’s nose begins. But that lesson seems lost on the demonstrators in Pakistan.

Martin Luther King once cautioned, “The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be follow be a sense of futility.” We must pay heed and understand these words. A declaration of the will of the people, for it to be heard, does not have to be accompanied by gunshots. It does not have to be shouted from rooftops or from the corpse of a charred building. The will of the people can be heard – unequivocally – even when it is expressed as a lowly whisper, as a quiet banner, as a well-delivered speech, or even as a moment of silence. And only through such (peaceful) ways, is it worth expressing.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He has a Masters in Constitutional Law from Harvard Law School. He can be reached at: [email protected]