A punitive state?

Throughout human history, the ruling apparatus has enjoyed unbridled authority over public welfare and a monopoly on violence. Initially, in the absence of formally defined contractual terms, force and violence remained the state's primary tools for maintaining authoritarian control. This use of violent means for social control frequently pitted the ruled against the rulers and led to instability and uprisings. However, as societies evolved and advanced, so did the formalisation and codification of the terms of engagement. This evolution manifested, among other socio-political systems, in the public-centred social contract known as democracy. Emerging in ancient Greece, democracy has theoretically evolved into a fairer and more just framework for engagement between ruling authorities and their subjects. In reciprocation for the popular legitimacy of the state and its governing apparatus, democracy demands the utmost responsibility toward public welfare. It permits the use of force only when sovereignty, security and public lives are at stake. Furthermore, the democratic social contract subjects the powerful to the public good and makes them accountable for and responsive to public grievances.

However, many modern democratic states, much like those in history, have claimed and earned legitimacy by pulling the wool over people's eyes while absolving themselves of responsibility toward the public. For this, the state, in utter disregard to the agreed-upon terms, aims at the public good and cherry-picks and twists the laws to serve its interests. This self-rejection of responsibility for the public good calls into question the state's legitimate foundations and jeopardises its sustainability on legal, moral and constitutional grounds. The threatened and questionable authority and the risk of losing entrenched interest turn the state and its apparatus rogue, leading to the monopolisation of violence often directed against its people in the name of national security and patriotism. Consequently, the use of violence against its subjects under various pretexts becomes both a cause and a manifestation of the illegitimate mandate and stakes of the state apparatus.

Amidst all this, it is the 'who', 'how' and 'what' that define security threats, pronouncements of treason and national interests - elements that pose a greater threat to the country's stability and public good than the ensuing violence. The use of religious tools and the influence of deeply entrenched clergy further reinforce this monopoly of violence against the public. In other words, democratic principles and the concept of public good yield to a punitive state that rules through punishment. The punitive state portrays genuine public grievances and outcries as national security threats and responds with violent means. The governance by force keeps the state from effectively addressing issues facing its people. As time passes, the problems afflicting the populace become even severer, as do the public voices calling for fair redress of grievances. However, these dissenting individuals or groups are treated as threats and dealt with by force. This violence in punitive states becomes the last and imploding refuge of incompetence and illegitimacy.

Although state-sponsored violence against its people has been commonplace throughout Pakistan's history, the echoes of grievances directed at the state cast doubt on the country's democratic nature. Legitimate public grievances and rights that should have received government attention for redress often invite wrath. The detention of dissenting voices and the frequent invocation of Article 144 illustrate this trend. Moreover, MPO orders issued without allowing people a chance to be heard, as well as the Fourth Schedule used as a tool to silence dissent, further undermine the state's claims of being the guardian of the people. Denying the space for the opposition and the rights groups to register their protests indicates Pakistan's troubling shift toward a punitive state. And the ongoing use of force and horse-trading associated with the proposed 26th Amendment, facilitated by the defection verdict, points toward the culmination and legitimisation of a punitive state disguised as democracy.