Case of a violent civil society

A key stakeholder in the UN’s prevention agenda against extremism, the civil society is expected to develop non-violent alternatives to conflict transformation and curb extremism. With this expectation, a global drive is underway to empower civil society. But what would this empowerment bring if civil society itself is a contributor to violence? This is the case for Pakistan.

Globally, civil society is seen as a contributor to peace, a positive force ensuring social change. ‘Violence’ and ‘civil society’ are antonyms. But together, like in a “violent civil society”, it becomes an oxymoron. This paradox is, unfortunately, Pakistan’s reality.

Instances and incidents where civil society acted violently are no more exclusive events rather a common story. From the violent actions of young doctors to attacks of lawyers, civil society actors in Pakistan seem more violent than peaceful. In 2019, lawyers and doctors clashed in Lahore. Recently, lawyers attacked the judge’s chambers in Islamabad High Court. This and other such stories indicate that this trend has become consistent to a particular segment of civil society. This, no doubt, is only one aspect of civil society, as other platforms are actively engaged in mitigating violence. But such incidents undoubtedly mar the entire arena of civil society.

The question is: why do these civil society actors behave like that? In a 2006 paper, Simon Stacy and Megan Meyer argued that the relationship between civil society and violence has been understudied and the capacity of civil society for violence has especially been neglected.

As an association of various groups, civil society inherits a “force”. But the positive and negative manifestation of this force is contextual. What factors cause the civil society to manifest either a positive or negative force is a question that needs attention.

I would reiterate my argument presented in this newspaper a few months ago, where I discussed the structural issues of Pakistani civil society. Out of the many contributing factors, the uneven structure and subsequent unclear relationship between civil society and the state can be counted as a reason for this negative manifestation.

In this confused and unclear milieu, civil society’s actions are likely to be arbitrary — thus are the frequent violent actions of civil society actors.

While criticising this arbitrary and violent action, it is pertinent to understand that there are other actors within civil society who are actively engaged in dialogue with state and society for the betterment of both, and they need to be duly appreciated. Also, not to forget — a vibrant civil society is always helpful in surviving crucial times when the state trembles, as was pointed out by Antonio Gramsci.

At a time when segments of Pakistani civil society are being violent, it is imperative for the government to take strict action against elements which cause violence. Meanwhile, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the government establishes a platform where the government and civil society can come together for rational dialogue. This will, on the one hand, build trust between the state and civil society and, on the other hand, help in clarifying the relationship, roles and mutual responsibilities actors have.

This clarification will help in reorganising civil society along non-violent patterns and help the state in realising and materialising the aim of the welfare state. Pakistan is going through a critical time, and without the support of the civil society it would be difficult to come out of this critical situation. Therefore, it is necessary for the government to take corrective measures, eliminate violent elements and work with the civil society to deliver its best.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 17^th, 2021.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.