(Written By: Abdul Basit Alvi)
The general elections in Pakistan are set to occur on February 8 of this year. Despite extensive preparations to facilitate the elections’ smooth execution, certain elements are contributing to controversy surrounding the event.
These factors advocate for the establishment of a fair and impartial environment for all participants, devoid of any discriminatory practices. There is unanimous consensus on the pivotal role of a level playing field in the electoral process. A fundamental principle of a resilient democratic system is the establishment of such a playing field, guaranteeing equal opportunities for all political entities.
Affording a level playing field to individuals involved in riots conveys a disconcerting message regarding the sanctity of the rule of law. Those engaging in violent or disruptive conduct undermine the fundamental pillars of a democratic society founded on principles of order, justice, and respect for the rule of law. Riotous activities are often linked to public disorder, property damage, and threats to public safety. Permitting participation in elections by individuals engaged in such actions may heighten the risks of further unrest, creating an environment where electoral processes become arenas for violence rather than peaceful civic engagement.
The involvement of terrorists and rioters in elections has the potential to corrode trust in the democratic process. Citizens rightfully expect candidates to uphold the values of civil discourse, respect for differing opinions, and a commitment to peaceful coexistence. Allowing those associated with violent activities to contest elections may undermine public faith in the political system. Granting a level playing field to rioters risks normalizing violence as an acceptable means of expressing political dissent. This normalization establishes a hazardous precedent, potentially encouraging others to resort to disruptive and violent tactics to advance their political agendas, further destabilizing the democratic landscape.
Riotous activities often contribute to social polarization and divisiveness. Permitting individuals associated with such behavior to participate in elections may perpetuate and exacerbate existing divisions within society. The political discourse may become increasingly hostile, hindering the ability to find common ground and address critical issues collaboratively. The inclusion of rioters in the electoral process may compromise the core democratic values of peace, tolerance, and respect for diverse perspectives.
Democratic systems are founded on the idea that individuals can peacefully express their views and compete for support without resorting to violence or coercion. Allowing rioters into the political arena challenges this foundational principle. While democracy encourages the participation of diverse voices, there are inherent challenges when individuals associated with riotous activities seek a level playing field in elections. The consequences of such a decision extend beyond the electoral arena, impacting public safety, civic trust, and the overall health of democratic institutions.
Governments and electoral bodies must carefully consider the implications of allowing rioters to participate in elections, weighing the principles of inclusivity against the potential risks to the democratic process. Striking a balance between ensuring a broad representation of political views and safeguarding the foundations of a peaceful and just society is essential for maintaining the integrity of democratic governance. As societies grapple with these complex issues, it becomes imperative to navigate the fine line between political participation and the preservation of the values that underpin a robust and resilient democratic system.
These elements assert that the majority constitutes authority and is always correct. In democratic societies, the principle of majority rule is often celebrated as a fundamental aspect of fair and representative governance. However, it is essential to examine the idea that the majority should always translate to authority. Throughout history, there have been numerous instances where the decisions of the majority have resulted in injustice, discrimination, and the marginalization of minority voices.
The concept of the “tyranny of the majority” has been eloquently articulated by thinkers such as Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill. It underscores the potential for the majority to wield power oppressively, overlooking the rights and interests of minority groups. Cases of discriminatory legislation or policies driven by majority sentiment underscore the inherent dangers of unchecked democratic power. A robust democracy is not solely judged by the extent of majority rule but by its dedication to protecting the rights of all citizens, including those in the minority. Safeguarding minority rights ensures that the democratic process remains inclusive, just, and reflective of the diverse needs and perspectives within society.
The strength of a society lies in its cultural diversity, encompassing various beliefs, customs, and identities. Assuming that the majority should always be an authority risks stifling this richness and suppressing the unique contributions of minority cultures. Embracing cultural pluralism fosters a more vibrant and inclusive democratic environment. Progress and innovation often arise from exploring diverse ideas and perspectives. A system that blindly places faith in majority authority may stifle creativity by neglecting valuable contributions from minority voices. Inclusive decision-making processes encourage a more dynamic and forward-thinking society.
Majority decisions are not inherently synonymous with moral or ethical correctness. Historical examples, such as the persistence of racial segregation or the denial of fundamental rights based on popular opinion, illustrate that the majority can sometimes be on the wrong side of justice. Upholding a moral compass requires vigilance against the potential pitfalls of majority rule. Recognizing the limitations of majority authority promotes empathy and understanding. Encouraging dialogue between majority and minority perspectives helps build bridges and reduces polarization, fostering a society where citizens are more attuned to the needs and concerns of others.
The conclusion drawn from this discussion is that a level playing field is an essential pillar of a democratic system; however, no one advocates for allowing rioters and terrorists to independently participate in elections and lead nations. In democratic cultures, the majority has the right to choose its leadership. Still, in countries like Pakistan, grappling with challenges such as terrorism, poverty, ignorance, and a lack of education, decisions cannot be solely entrusted to the majority. The principle of majority rule as authority doesn’t seamlessly fit societies like Pakistan, which have much work to do in sectors like education, awareness, counter-terrorism, and poverty alleviation.
To speak candidly, the entire world witnessed the actions of rioters and anti-state elements on May 9, achieving what our rival countries failed to do. A small group of anti-state elements attacked military and civilian installations, backed by the leadership of a political party. Nothing is secret and is on record; the whole world saw how they attacked installations, including the GHQ and Corps Commander Residence, with sticks and iron rods. Granting a level playing field to this group and their leaders is inconceivable.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is gearing up to launch a new offensive against Pakistan on the international stage, particularly in the United States. Revelations have emerged regarding PTI’s interference in general elections and orchestrated attacks on state institutions. In a bid to sway the 2024 elections, PTI has invested heavily both in America and Pakistan, with millions of dollars contributed by its overseas members and various individuals. The primary objective of this new strategy is to exert pressure on Pakistan through diplomatic channels and human rights institutions, aiming to secure favorable concessions for the founding members of PTI by leveraging international pressure on the government and establishment.
The leader of a specific political party, currently entangled in serious legal issues, seeks concessions. The main goal is to extricate the PTI founder and associates from legal troubles stemming from the events on May 9. This political leader, facing charges in five serious cases, intends to use foreign pressure to have the charges reduced, distorting facts and magnifying the legal issues to create a false impression of two hundred cases.
Additionally, the plan involves sowing discord between the military forces and the public by alleging a false flag operation on May 9, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the February 8 elections, and positioning PTI as the most favored political party. Sources indicate that the project’s implementation has already commenced to achieve these objectives, with evidence obtained by relevant institutions.
It’s worth noting that in the past, resolutions against Pakistan have been introduced in the US House of Representatives by members with pro-Israel and pro-India affiliations, often with malicious intent. Similar resolutions have been presented to human rights institutions. This lobbying group, closely associated with PTI, is actively involved in shaping an anti-Pakistan narrative. Sources suggest the production of a highly biased documentary film intended to portray the role of the Pakistani government and forces in a negative light.
The same group contends that the elections are controversial because the state is treating them with an iron hand. They claim that the majority of people are with them, so they should be given a fair chance to come outside without facing punishment for their malicious actions on May 9. Demanding a level playing field for such anti-state elements is a very ridiculous proposition. Then there’s the TTP and BLA, responsible for taking thousands of innocent lives, also demanding a level playing field, claiming that the majority is with them. If this is the democracy that allows rioters and terrorists to attack my people and my army, then at least I don’t accept it. Granting them a level playing field at the cost of the emotions of the families of our martyrs who sacrificed for the country is not fair. If such a group of rioters and anti-state elements makes the elections controversial, then, in my view, these elections are going to be the most transparent and fair in the history of Pakistan.
More From Daily The Destination: ECP issues final candidates for 44 national & provincial assembly seats in Lahore
Readers, the imperative is not to heed the cries of anti-state elements and rioters; instead, treat them strictly and make them an example. Punishing them will not make the elections controversial; on the contrary, the elections will be controversial if they are allowed to come outside and given a chance to freely mislead the people without facing the punishment for their crimes.
