Imran’s call to civil disobedience raises questions regarding viability of democratic norms in the country in future.
ISLAMABAD: Whether the call to civil disobedience and a half-hearted decision to resign from the assemblies is a bluff by Imran Khan or whether he is serious about this all remains to be seen. Regardless of the course of action that will be taken by his party in the coming hours, Imran’s strategy since the start of this imbroglio has been coercion to bring about the fulfilment of his demands.
While his party members rejoice on the announcement of civil disobedience, they fall short of realising the repercussions and the precedence this might bring in a country where the road to democracy is already strewn with many hurdles. Glorifying his call to a civil disobedience movement by alluding to similar movements in history, the PTI leader, wittingly or unwittingly, has decided to lead his people into further disarray.
In 1919, Egypt’s Wafd party led a civil disobedience movement against British occupation. Under the leadership of Saad Zaghoul, civil disobedience carried on till 1922 and was successful, but at the cost of almost 800 lives. Although, civil disobedience is characterised as non-violent based on boycotting, non-payment of taxes, the message it sends is not salutary.
Furthermore, this sets a bad precedent where any political party based on its political strength can gather people and incite them to attack state institutions. Demonstration and protests constitute as essentials of human and political rights and are widely acceptable symbols of democracy but not when they come with incitement to violence.
Thus, critically speaking, Imran’s call to civil disobedience raises many questions, especially regarding the viability of democratic norms in the country in future.
Kulsoom Belal
Published in The Express Tribune, August 25th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
