Pakistan, in the grip of politics of "protests", witnessed on 30 October 2011 a renewed optimism for 'change' in the wake of an impressive congregation of Pakistan's Tehreek-e-Insaf (Pakistan Justice Party), led by Imran Khan. The rally which was termed as the Minar-e-Pakistan tsunami by Imran, media and some analysts has jolted Pakistan Peoples Party and its allies in government as well as the Muslim League Nawaz.
After a long time, the public at large-men and women of all ages and youth in great numbers-came out to express their indignation against the rulers. The misgoverned showed the "elected" ones that they had not granted them a licence to corruption using the pretext of "respect for mandate". The mandate was for acting within the law and not to violate all norms of democratic dispensation.
As per Wikipedia "a protest is an expression of objection, by words or by actions, to particular events, policies or situations. Protests can take many different forms, from individual statements to mass demonstrations. Protesters may organise a protest as a way of publicly making their opinions heard in an attempt to influence public opinion or government policy, or they may undertake direct action in an attempt to directly enact desired changes themselves. Where protests are part of a systematic and peaceful campaign to achieve a particular objective, and involve the use of pressure as well as persuasion, they go beyond mere protest and may be better described as cases of civil resistance or non-violent resistance."
Those in power, being elected representatives, have been reminded by the participants of the Tehreek-e-Insaf rally in Lahore that it is always the Constitution that represents the will of the people and not the legislature itself. The legislature exercises delegated powers given by the mandate of the people within the framework of constitution, which should not be mutilated by elected representatives, let alone by any individual-whether an elected President or Prime Minister or Chief Minister or nominated Governor-usurping power through unconstitutional means. If this realisation prevails and there is consensus amongst all political parties, the present political chaos in Pakistan can be remedied.
Under normal circumstances, when people are faced with problems, they seek solutions. If these problems can be resolved by themselves, fine and if not, then they accept their fate with patience as one cannot protest against one's self. The trouble arises when solutions lie with someone else and that someone else refuses to address the issues, unnecessarily causes delay, or just appears indifferent. Then the person who is going through tough times has no option but to raise his voice and to protest against his tormentors.
In a nutshell, those who are in control of their lives have no reason to protest compared to those helpless people whose lifeline is held by someone else. Take the example of a child who desperately wants a toy off the shelf in a shop but due to some reason the parents are unable to buy it. He would patiently bear this pain or possibly cry out or throw tantrums-perhaps his way of showing indignation. Thus, if students in Punjab lodged protests against the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education for playing havoc with their results, it makes sense as they had no hold over the acts of the Board but were only seeking justice for themselves.
Remarkable research has been conducted on the reasons, psychology and characteristics of protest. A variety of theories have emerged questioning a number of related aspects but the one that is very popular is the classical theory of protest: "People participate in protest to express their grievances stemming from relative deprivation, frustration, or perceived injustice"-Berkowitz, 1972; Gurr, 1970; Lind and Tyler, 1988. The main reason given by scholars is: "At the heart of every protest are grievances, be it the experience of illegitimate inequality, feelings of relative deprivation, feelings of injustice, moral indignation about some state of affairs, or a suddenly imposed grievance"-Klandermans.
If Anna Hazare went on a hunger strike to show his resentment for rampant corruption in Indian government, it was because he had no authority to enact and enforce any bill. By his protest, he could only exert pressure on the Parliament to introduce the Jan Lokpal Bill. Imran Khan, not being in power like Anna Hazare, demanded at the end of his speech that those in power or heading the political parties must declare their assets in Pakistan and abroad within few months or his party would initiate a civil disobedience movement. Imran Khan, in fact, has given a warning to the rulers to avoid what has been witnessed recently in many Middle Eastern countries.
Only a few months back, political unrest swept across Egypt wherein the dissatisfied came out in the open to display their disgust with Mubarak's regime. They did so because they had nothing in their hands to redress their sufferings. The only remedy left to them was stage long sit-in protests till their demands were met. The 'politics of protest' proved as an effective weapon in many places where masses had no recourse to any other method against the monarchs or dictators who refused to abdicate their unpopular rule.
Drawing from this analogy that protests are held in frustration by persons who have no control over things, it becomes quite an interesting and at the same time ridiculous situation when those who enjoy full control, decide to hold protests themselves-for example the recent rallies of the PML-N, PPP and MQM. This is just like someone has a running nose yet he screams and points out his malady to others instead of using a tissue to clean up. So, if a federal or provincial government in power has grievances against corruption within its ranks, poor governance on its part, price hikes and such other problems, then rather than rallying against them, they must resign if they are incapable of resolving these issues. Hurling abuse at others is very easy but to bring about reform within oneself maybe difficult but not impossible, especially if the resources are there.
If the leading party in the Punjab Assembly holding key posts in Punjab has remained unsuccessful in establishing a responsible malaise-free government they, instead of accusing the federal government (just because it is headed by a rival party) must resign en bloc. Anyone in power, protesting against manageable problems, in fact, openly admits his failure. The same is also applicable to members of the federal government. If they think that their people (in Punjab) are suffering because of the provincial government's incompetence, they should do what the Constitution requires them to do rather than block roads or shout anti-government slogans. By protesting on different avenues, they endorse the view that once in power, a political party conveniently abandons its electorate and leaves them at the mercy of their rivals.
Rather than rallying against common concerns, action is required to straighten them up. Mere rhetoric cannot bring relief to the people suffering from innumerable ailments that could easily be handled by those in power. However, those in power appear more interested in raising a sandstorm of protest to camouflage their own misdeeds instead of concentrating on resolving the ever-growing menace of corruption, bad governance, economic collapse, wastage of public funds, directionless education, poor health, unemployment, unbalanced development, inflation-just to mention a few.
The writers, tax lawyers, are Adjunct Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)