For five weeks, Pakistan has been gripped by a political showdown between the ruling elite and the former cricket star who was ousted from the Prime Minister office this year, who then turned into a populist politician. The drama has laid bare the perilous state of Pakistani politics— a winner-takes-all game, in which the forces and the justice system are wielded as weapons to sideline those who have fallen out of favour with the country’s powerful political elite.
In an echo of political script, a case under anti-terrorism law was registered in the Margalla Police Station of Islamabad against the former Prime Minister Imran Khan for inciting and intimidating the police officials, and esteemed members of the judiciary during his address at a political gathering. Without going into the details of the charges against the former Prime Minister Khan, the matter being sub judice, the former Prime Minister faces the prospect of arrest.
A few weeks ago, his Chief of Staff, Shahbaz Gill, was arrested for sedition and inciting the public against state institutions. During the course of investigation, and after being subjected to torture, it was unveiled that he had handed over his mobile phone to his driver, Izhar, which contains considerable information on the matter, while being arrested. Few days later, the disgruntled opposition sanctioned the arrest of the wife of Shahbaz Gill’s driver, Mehreen, separating her from her 10-year-old child on charges of rioting, assaulting police officials and theft. Among the myriad ways the ruling elite can violate due process through vindictive uses of its law enforcement powers and through public comments on the purported guilt of a subject that impair the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial. Meanwhile amid condemnation, Mehreen was ordered to be released on bail.
Under the American criminal justice system is a fundamental piecemeal “due process of law”, which requires law enforcement officers and prosecutors to safeguard fundamental fairness in the administration of justice, that is, the presumption of innocence and a fair process by which an individual is investigated, charged, and tried. If an investigation or prosecution does not or cannot provide due process for its subjects, the prosecution is duty-bound to stop it in its tracks.
The mere fact that the Former Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, has been charged under the anti- terror law sends out an off-putting message to the western democracies, that we aspire to be, of our intrinsic democratic values. The debate over political parties, are they an inevitable evil? Are they what makes democracy democratic? remains unsettled.
That playbook has been decades in the making, and it has turned the country’s political sphere into a brutal playground in which only a few elite leaders dare play. It has also rendered the Pakistani public deeply disillusioned with the political system and the handful of family dynasties that have been at the top of it for decades. In the past two months, former Prime Minister Khan has managed to parlay his widespread support into electoral prowess. His party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, won sweeping victories in local elections in Punjab, a province that has often served as a bellwether for national politics.
A central claim of democratic theory is that democracy induces governments to be responsive to the preferences of the people. Political parties organize politics in every modern democracy, and some observers claim that parties are what induce democracies to be responsive. Yet, according to others, parties give voice to extremists and reduce the responsiveness of governments to the citizenry. The debate about parties and democracy takes on renewed importance as new democracies around the globe struggle with issues of representation and governability.
A vindictive investigation or prosecution is a due process violation of the most basic sort. A few days ago, the Islamabad police asked the high command to issue a search warrant for former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Banigala residence in connection with the case against Dr Shahbaz Gill. Perhaps, the acuteness and gravity of the situation stopped further proceedings.
The magnitude of these violations renders nearly any potential prosecution of the targets of this conduct fatally compromised. The apt realization of human rights seems like a remote and unattainable goal. These international human rights laws serve as a restraining function but are insufficient to provide adequate human rights protection, as evidenced by the stark reality of abuses perpetrated daily. Thousands are in prison for speaking their minds. Torture and politically motivated imprisonment, often without trial, are commonplace, condoned and practiced. They are recognized at least in principle by most modern nations and form the heart of many national constitutions. Yet the actual situation in Pakistan is far distant from the ideal.
Former Prime Minister Khan’s own meteoric rise from the fringes of politics to the office of the Prime Minister in 2018 was a showcase for how hard-bitten Pakistan’s politics have become. His competitors were winnowed from the electoral field by criminal charges, and by threat and intimidation. Certainly, former Prime Minister Khan’s predicament is only the latest salvo as nuclear-armed Pakistan lurches from crisis to crisis, with potentially grave implications for regional and global security. Instability gripping Pakistan including rumors of splits between pro- and anti-Khan factions across the corners, which undermines the invaluable security apparatus.
In a country, where we support a return to a truly democratic dispensation and urge the relevant authorities to adhere to and ensure fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and safeguard from torture, Pakistan faces a disturbing trend of suppression of media freedom and the inhumane means of torture to subdue political opponents. The actions are nothing less than being fascist in nature and against the basic tenets of any functioning democracy.
“Read (someone) the Riot Act” : In the 18th century King George I and his stalwarts would read the Riot Act, to the loyalists of the Stuart Dynasty, fearful of being overthrown to get the unruly persons to stop what they are doing. This idiom most likely comes from the real Riot Act, an act passed by the British government in 1714. However, it had to be read out whenever a mob was asked o disperse. After that, troops would be ordered o fire.
The mere fact that the Former Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, has been charged under the anti- terror law sends out an off-putting message to the western democracies, that we aspire to be, of our intrinsic democratic values. The debate over political parties, are they an inevitable evil? Are they what makes democracy democratic? remains unsettled.
