Peaceful path By Dr Niaz Murtaza

Peaceful path By Dr Niaz Murtaza

WHAT have peaceful democracy protests achieved in our long autocratic history? A look at those against Gen Ayub, Zia and Musharraf, and the murkier 1977 protests, offers clues.

Political and economic exclusion and repression fuel protests. A shocking abuse, disputed polls, power grab or economic pain often provides the spark. Movement traits (coalition size, muscle, leadership and tactics) and context (urban density, external aid etc.) provide circuitry for the fire to spread. Regime cohesion, repression and foreign help provide the fire brigade. But even if they win a battle, they may lose the war if allies lack the strength and a democratic agenda.

Exclusion and repression fuelled all four. Economic pain added fuel in 1969 and 1977. Three targeted outright autocrats; the 1977 a more legitimate civilian. A student’s killing under Ayub Khan, poll disputes under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf’s firing of the chief justice were sparks. The 1983 protest lacked a clear spark, so it stoked a smaller fire despite the fact that repression was at its peak. Context decided no one’s fate, ties with the US were strained under Bhutto in 1977 and strong under Zia in 1983.

Movement traits varied. All were coalitions with varied social bases. The 1969 one was mainly a leftist student-worker-political one. The 1977 protest mainly rallied conservative parties, traders and clergy. The 1983 protest united the PPP, its 1977 foes and progressive groups. The 2007 demonstrations drew in centrist lawyers, parties and activists. But the social base or ideology always counted less than the size of the coalition. Major politicians led more in 1969 and 1977 than in 1983 and 2007.

Without a democratic agenda, political allies can lose the battle.

Tactics differed too. All had shutdowns, but 1969 had more worker strikes, 1977 business closures, 1983 civil disobedience and 2007 court boycotts and marches. But unlike some global protests where mammoth crowds paralysed capitals to topple regimes in days, all four were smaller, spread across cities and unfolded slowly. So, regime strength was decisive. The US cut support to Ayub in 1965. The army did so in 1969 after 10 years as his health failed, letting the fire raze the autocrat’s fort. Bhutto too alienated the military, which ousted him; Zia survived via a cohesive military and coercive capacity in 1983. Musharraf slowly lost US and military support. So, fractured fire brigades let small crowds win three times.

But the autocratic base always survived to reverse even small gains. In 1969, a general took over to hold our first fair polls but rejected their result, leading to tragedy. Bhutto gained power but ruled harshly. The 2007-09 gains yielded the most fruits: freer polls, freedoms and good laws. But most gains were ironically reversed with help from their architect parties. So, the main legacy of decades of struggles is the badly mauled 1973 Constitution. This reflects autocracy’s strengths: institutional cohesion, strong control and surveillance, a business empire to reward allies, and hold over the piety, propriety and patriotism mantra. Coalitions broke soon, while political leaders, often veterans of past autocracies, ruled harshly.

Our failures mirror global ones. Our review suggests only about 40 per cent of successful postwar peaceful protests outside Europe led to durable democracy. Most had strong pro-democracy parties and iconic democrats like Nelson Mandela. But peaceful protests rarely defeat a cohesive autocratic establishment; they usually succeed when the autocratic base itself lets an autocrat fall. Armed struggles do worse: only 26pc after 1900 won, and just 6pc led to democracy. They may topple decaying orders but often build a new autocracy later. Nei­ther can defeat a strong autocracy. But there is a third way: constitutional cha­n­­ge often backed by grassroots work that slowly ends auto­­­­-cracy.

Repression today provides ample fuel; disputed polls, power grabs, economic pain, abuses and judicial curbs have given many sparks. Yet no fire has spread. The missing circuitry is a coalition able to integrate local anger into national action. This reflects regime tactics based on past lessons — arrests, speech bans and co-optation of civil society — plus the impact of past curbs on student and worker groups. But anger against repression is like dammed floodwater that finds new outlets to cause havoc.

The current hybrid set-up may face the same fate, leaving us for the umpteenth time to rebuild democracy from autocracy’s wreckage. However, durable democracy will require politicians to commit to democratic norms and grassroots work.

The writer has a PhD degree in political economy from the University of California, Berkeley, and 25 years of grassroots to senior-level experiences across 50 countries.

SOURCE: https://www.dawn.com/news/2026551/peaceful-path