How did we get here, again?

We are in a place we never should have been in.

The reversal of the ECP order over use of PTI’s electoral symbol and the quashing of the iddat case by the Islamabad sessions court against Iman Khan and Bushra Bibi should be highlighted, and for PTI supporters, wronged in the first place, it seems right to celebrate. For the rest of us, it is a time for introspection.

Why did this happen in the first place? How have systems been manipulated to the point where every voice in the political arena, no longer thought necessary, is silenced through state institutions? Why have state institutions, like the ECP, allowed themselves without any real resistance, to be used in this way, when it should be the pathway to stronger, more transparent democratic processes?

The ECP’s decision to bar the PTI from using the cricket bat as its election symbol for the February 8 elections was the start of a downhill trajectory for the already weak democratic process we attempt to uphold. It (re)started what we all dread — that of demonising a political party for comments made, views held, for falling off the ‘same page’.

This time around it has been PTI. But those with even a superficial understanding of Pakistani’s political history will know that all major political parties have been in the predicament the PTI is in now. PPP were targeted, by the powers that be, for 10 years by dictator Zia for the party’s consistent and vocal stance that a constitutional democracy was the only way forward. In fact, the worst was inflicted on the PPP — Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hung, Benazir jailed (and eventually assassinated in broad daylight), party members drowned in court cases, exile, threats, bans. Dictator Musharraf’s target was Nawaz Sharif, and PML-N were rocked with allegations of corruption, followed by exile, to only recently having (re)gained favour again.

Now it is PTI’s turn. There were over 120 cases filed against Khan and various arrests, and threats against party activists continue. Regrettably, the mistake PTI hold is that it is the only party ever to be targeted, demonised and cancelled in this way. Its top leadership has instilled in its following that no one has suffered a fate like PTI before and in this it has created a false narrative. The truth is that this sad build-up towards a crumbling democracy, this targeting and this silencing of an entire party is an unfortunate precedent set a long time ago, replaying itself.

On 12 July, the Supreme Court reversed the ECP’s decision to deny the electoral symbol to PTI. But the damage is largely done. How will this decision impact the composition in the lower house of parliament and what will be the ramifications on the ruling party? Will there be a potential opposition coalition that may threaten PML-N? Uncertainty remains and this detracts parliament’s focus from its objective of representing and serving people.

What the denial of the PTI electoral symbol was to further facture the already weak democratic system, the iddat case against Bushra Bibi and Khan was to women’s rights. In fact, it is worse. Women’s rights groups have called this one of the most dangerous precedents set in the country’s history. It has collectively set us back on personal rights, particularly that of a women’s autonomy to decide when and who to marry. Filing a case that discusses a women’s menstrual cycle to determine whether a marriage is valid or not is a point so low that we will struggle to recover from it. It will set a precedent for political revenge and for ordinary women citizens. Aurat March Islamabad described the 7-year sentence as a blow to a woman’s right to dignity with the verdict carrying echoes of Zia’s 1980s Zina Ordinance that attempted to use the law as a tool to discriminate and punish women who exercised their basic fundamental rights.

To an extent, all political parties have equally played a role in ensuring that they remain pawns in the game — well aware that vocalising for truly independent institutions is heavily penalised. Only recently, PTI’s leadership has iterated its request for a dialogue with the Army. Should Khan not be seeking dialogue, and an understanding, with other political parties instead? Has PTI not learnt the lesson that democracy should be strengthened through mutual consensus by opening channels of talks with parties first and foremost? Political parties circumventing the system to gain power by seeking dialogue with undemocratic institutions, instead of with political parties, is the most obvious sign that democracy is deteriorating even further than where it has already plunged.

There are many epistemic issues facing Pakistan today — the economy; Balochistan; former-FATA; rising extremism; inter-provincial disharmony; forecasted rise in unemployment; excessive taxation (without it resulting in any improved public services; a significant rise in violence against women and girls; target killings of religious minorities; alarmingly low literacy rates; a population boom; ever growing inequality; etc.

Some segments in society, and in power, believe that non-democratic forces have the magic wand to make change happen. Yet history’s unadulterated testimony tells us otherwise. In the 1950s it was Ayub Khan; in the 1970s, Yayha Khan; in the 1980s, Zia-ul-Haq; and in the 2000s, Musharraf. It is safe to say only scars of dictatorships have survived, without any seeds of economic or human development planted for change and progression. Only political parties reaching a broad consensus — building further on the 2006 charter of democracy — to uphold constitutional supremacy have the potential to achieve real change.

History is clear about the future — change is only possible by the collective strengthening of democratic processes and creating responsive institutions. This unprincipled merry-go-round of compromises to gain temporary power may be what politicians believe politics and governance is. Ordinary, disenfranchised people trampled further into the ground recognise it for what it really is — a failed repetition of what they have already seen all too often.