The protests the world saw

Protests and demonstrations take place all over the world. They are considered an important and integral part of the democratic culture and norms of the civilised world. Usually, people take to the streets to pressure the ruling elite of their countries into accepting their legitimate demands.

But before resorting to this extreme action they hold several talks with the relevant authorities and present their charter of demands, and they decide to agitate for the redressal of their grievances only when they have exhausted all options.

In democratic societies, most protests remain peaceful though some of them have the tendency to turn violent. For instance, the anti-capitalist demonstrations of the 1990s turned violent when some anarchists vented their anger in an unruly way, smashing shops and damaging property. A few years ago, the famous Paris demonstrations also turned violent when a number of cars were set ablaze by angry mobs.

The recent demonstrations held by the Black Lives Matter movement were non-violent, except for a few instances where it was not the protestors but some white supremacists who tried to sabotage this peaceful movement by attacking the participants.

Perhaps one of the most violent agitations in recent years was launched by the supporters, mainly white Americans, of former US president Donald Trump who was accused of inciting the crowd, urging them to take the law into their own hands. Trump and his supporters vehemently denied these allegations asserting that the people had come to protest what they called the theft of the presidential elections which dashed the hopes of the Republican leader to win a second term.

On the other hand, protests in autocratic and totalitarian states tend to be violent. For instance, the violent repression of the French nation by the monarchy led to the bloody revolution of 1789 that abolished feudalism in France, besides destabilising this archaic system across Europe. The brutal crackdown on peasants and ordinary people by the Tsarist regime in 1905 sowed the seed of a radical change that culminated in the October revolution of 1917, in Russia. Actions such as stifling dissenting voices and employing sledgehammer tactics plunged many countries into a state of crisis, paving the way for bloodshed-riddled political changes.

During the cold war, dictators all over the world ruthlessly crushed people’s movements. The Shah of Iran, General Suharto in Indonesia, General Pinochet in Chile, General Mubotu in Zaire, and Gen Ayub, Gen Yahya and Gen Zia in Pakistan resorted to draconian practices to suppress such movements.

Among these tyrants, Suharto was the worst who not only presided over one of the biggest carnages of the modern times, but also committed massive violations of human rights. He was accused of eliminating more than five hundred thousand people who were vehemently opposed to his dictatorship. On the other hand, General Pinochet was lambasted by rights groups for enforced disappearances on an epic scale.

Totalitarian states did not learn from history, and some autocratic leaders brutally repressed their people in recent decades as well. For instance, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain was responsible for the brutal killings of the Kurds, who were demanding their legitimate rights, allegedly going to the extent of using chemical weapons against them. It was not only what the Saddam regime called Kurdish separatists but the country’s Shia community was also brutally repressed for staging demonstrations against the dictator. The autocratic leader of Libya and the totalitarian ruler of Syria also resorted to coercive state apparatus against their opponents. Foreign support for these opponents further led to instability.

Such suppression was one of the factors that pushed the two countries towards a conflagration, besides claiming the life of Qaddafi in Libya and over 550,000 people in Syria. Many believe that had the regimes in Syria, Libya and Iraq granted democratic rights to their people, the three states would not have plunged into the terrible crises that not only destroyed their infrastructure but also did an unimaginable damage to the social fabric of these societies.

Many third world countries adopted democracy during the last few decades to ensure fundamental rights of their citizens, but unfortunately in reality, these rights were denied, compelling people to take to the streets to press their governments for the acceptance of their demands.

Indian farmers recently held massive demonstrations to oppose agricultural reforms that largely favour the business sector. Despite all provocations from the state and right-wing Hindu extremist forces, the protest remained peaceful.

Pakistan has also had a long tradition of protests and demonstrations. Some of them were genuine and meant to force the government to accept their rightful demands. The country’s valiant people challenged the mighty dictatorship of Ayub Khan, forcing him to step down. They also proved to be tough against the brutal regime of Yahya and bravely fought against the autocratic rule of General Zia.

The Movement for the Restoration of Democracy is a glorious chapter in the history of Pakistan when people offered tremendous sacrifices for the future of this country. Though some critics have reservations towards the way this movement was run, on the whole it was a pro-people move that helped put an end to the dark era of General Zia.

In Pakistan, while some protests were considered genuine, others were declared orchestrated for the achievement of ulterior motives by invisible powers and unscrupulous politicians. For instance, the religious movement during the decade of the 1950s is believed to have been orchestrated by anti-democratic forces who wanted to undermine the authority of then prime minister Khawja Nazimuddin. The second prime minister of the country was later sent packing unceremoniously. Some critics believe that the crisis that was triggered by the religious movement against Nazimuddin culminated in the imposition of martial law in 1958.

The Pakistan National Alliance movement in 1977 is also believed to have the patronage of non-democratic forces that were not happy with the government of Z A Bhutto. The agitation led to the imposition of martial law, lending credence to speculations that it was all orchestrated to pave the way for the illegal rule of General Zia.

During the decade of the 1990s, the three protest movements that were led by the PPP and the PML-N were also believed to have the support of invisible powers. They were meant to oust the sitting prime ministers. Some analysts believe that since after the 18th Amendment, it is difficult to dislodge a sitting prime minister, various groups are encouraged to pile pressure on the government for the acceptance of certain demands. Many opponents of Prime Minister Imran Khan assert that the sit-ins of the PTI and that of Tahir ul Qadri had the support of certain non-democratic forces. Pro-democracy analysts claim that in the past, some ethnic parties in urban areas of Sindh and the Tehreek Nifaz-e-Shariat e Mohammadi in Malakand were used to destabilise the elected governments. Now they assert that the TLP is being used for the same purpose.

The strike with the TLP might end the debate about the motives, but people will definitely ask questions about the lives that were lost, the damage that was caused to both public and private property, and the destruction inflicted by the protests on the country’s infrastructure.

It is time we strengthened our democratic institutions for solving problems, coming up with a mechanism to protect lives and public property during protests, preventing groups’ undue pressure through their street power.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

Email: egalitarianism444@gmail. com