The dharna of JUI-F and the warning to the Prime Minister to resign have divided opinions on motives, tactics and utility, even among liberals. Some think it can strengthen civil supremacy. Others like me oppose, given the use of the faith letter and possibly strong weapon tactics, although the PTI also used similar tactics before.
One can analyze this dharna better by extracting lessons from past dharnas (street protests) worldwide. Dharnas, where large crowds drown major cities for weeks, have replaced armed revolutions as the main tool to end autocratic regimes in recent decades. They are often called revolutions too. But the great armed revolutions not only overthrew the regimes. Crucially, the types / systems of regime also changed, for example, from monarchy to single-party government or democracy and / or from capitalism to communism.
Equally crucial, they also overturned the old-fashioned security apparatus that underpins autocracy. But even then they could not quickly improve governance by much. Even after the French and American revolutions led to democracy, governance slowly improved over decades, even centuries, through social movements. Elsewhere, armed victors even established long, brutal and inept regimes (for example, China and Russia).
The short dharnas have recently overthrown many sick autocratic regimes without a prolonged armed struggle given the growing power of the media, decreasing the global tolerance of autocracy and global economic ties. But autocratic regimes whose economic power and security apparatus remain intact, for example, China, can still suppress them, even armed revolts.
Distilling lessons from past protests is important.
Even successful dharnas have a mixed record in producing fundamental system changes. Previous protests, such as those in Iran in 1979 and those in Eastern Europe in 1989, did. In Eastern Europe, there was also a single governance gain. But without the emergence of strong social movements later, governance has not reached the levels of Western Europe.
In other places, earnings were even more limited. Dharnas in Egypt overthrew Hosni Mubarak to establish democracy, but not the underlying security apparatus, which then overturned democracy. Other dharnas replaced one weak civil regime with another, with few achievements in delivery or gains in human rights, for example, Ukraine. In Lebanon, the recent protests ended with the government of Saad Hariri. But now there is talk that he will be replaced by a technocratic regime led by Hariri.
The organizational features of the main Dharna groups influence their levels of success. The best hope is when progressive coalitions of ordinary citizens, for example, student unions, teachers and peasants, lead Dharnas and are organized enough to continue as social movements even after the end of the autocracy. But such cases are rare. Where protest groups soon disintegrate after victory, they end the autocracy but do not govern badly. Protests led by conservative forces rarely offer large profits. Finally, protests to overthrow elected regimes are generally called undemocratic and, instead, must focus on changes in specific policies through non-disruptive tactics.
Pakistan has seen many failed armed struggles, but also some lucrative street protests that overthrew Ayub and weakened Zia and Musharraf. But they had many inconveniences. Even where they were led by ordinary citizens, their coalitions were weak and did not survive to press for social gains later. More critically, they only demolished open facades, but not the deep state that soon regained power.
Other dharnas had regressive goals. Where does Maulana Fazlur Rehman's dharna fall on this canvas? The first drawback is its unreliable ideology. Neither is yours a progressive coalition of ordinary citizens who can continue to press for social gains. And it goes to the facade, not to deep state structures.
Read: in the blink of an eye
You could also object by saying that your goal is to overthrow an elected regime. But this is a gray area given the serious doubts about the 2018 surveys. Therefore, the report of the EU electoral mission and credible national entities allege serious fraudulent manipulation by the security apparatus. Recent government measures suggest to many a plan to weaken the opposition, civil society and the media and establish a one-party autocratic regime. Some say there is even a parallel movement to strengthen the custom rule in a critical state institution.
Past struggles have made open autocracy unlikely. Therefore, there seems to be a movement to establish an undercover behind a thin civil facade. Such movements must be resisted, but not through the dharna JUI-F. A coalition of progressive civil society groups together with opposition parties must openly call for civil supremacy. Tactics must be democratic, for example, to raise the problem in the media, intellectual centers and parliament, while gradually increasing the pressure if sections of the establishment remain committed to perpetuating autocracy. Pakistan's deeply fractured society cannot afford open or covert autocracy.
The writer is a principal investigator at UC Berkeley and directs INSPIRING Pakistan, a progressive policy unit.
murtazaniaz@yahoo.com
www.inspiring.pk
Twitter: @ NiazMurtaza2
Published on Dawn, November 5, 2019
Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1514999/dharna-politics