Abdul Basit Alvi
A few days ago, I engaged in a profound discussion with my close family members. They expressed the view that Imran Khan and the entire PTI should be granted a fair chance, questioning why there is apprehension about them. They suggested letting them emerge from legal proceedings and imprisonment, asserting that they could return to power with a two-thirds majority, as they believe the majority of the people support them. Furthermore, they pointed to the recent Virtual Jalsa of PTI as evidence of significant public backing. While I lack the authority to determine right from wrong, I acknowledge that it is the judicial and legal system that will ultimately make such decisions.
Nevertheless, I find the act of targeting military installations, including the GHQ, and the properties of civilians within our own borders to be an unforgivable offense. Such actions are typically expected from rival countries, not from within. I don’t align myself with any political party and recognize that not everyone in PTI is anti-state. However, allowing individuals associated with unlawful activities to openly participate in elections without due process could set a dangerous precedent. Terrorist groups, like the TTP, might demand similar treatment based on claims of having popular support.
In my perspective, those who attack our Army installations, the very entities ensuring my secure living and working environment, as well as civilian properties, must face punishment. This is essential to set an example for the future and discourage such actions. The issue, as I see it, is profoundly serious and warrants thorough discussion.
Understanding the concept of anti-state elements is crucial. Internal stability and the preservation of state sovereignty are fundamental to a nation’s well-being. Anti-state elements, driven by extremist ideologies, separatist sentiments, or other motivations, can pose a significant threat to a country’s fabric. They often target the unity and integrity of a nation. Responding resolutely is necessary to preserve national identity and cohesion, thwarting attempts to sow discord.
While democracies thrive on peaceful dissent, concerted efforts to undermine democratic institutions require strict measures to protect the values that form a nation’s foundation. Internal anti-state elements may resort to terrorism, endangering innocent lives. A robust response is essential not only to neutralize immediate threats but also to deter potential perpetrators and ensure the safety of the population.
Dealing strictly with such elements is vital for maintaining law and order within a country. A strong legal framework, coupled with law enforcement, prevents the breakdown of societal norms. Internal anti-state elements directly threaten national security and may be influenced by external actors seeking to exploit divisions. A strict approach helps mitigate external interference and strengthens a nation’s ability to determine its own destiny.
Strict measures underscore the importance of upholding the rule of law. By adhering to legal procedures, respecting human rights, and ensuring due process, a nation demonstrates its dedication to justice while countering internal threats. A stable internal environment fosters economic development, encouraging investment, growth, and prosperity.
Dealing with internal anti-state elements is not just about maintaining law and order; it is imperative for preserving a nation’s essence—its sovereignty, unity, and citizens’ well-being. Governments must adopt a robust approach while ensuring measures align with the principles of justice, human rights, and the rule of law. This balanced approach effectively counters internal threats, creating an environment conducive to sustained growth, stability, and the realization of national aspirations.
Now, let’s delve into the discussion regarding a fair playing field for anti-state elements. In the intricate fabric of democracy, the principle of a level playing field holds paramount importance. However, when it comes to individuals or groups identified as anti-state elements in politics, a nuanced approach becomes necessary to safeguard the very foundations of democratic governance. The foremost concern in denying a fair playing field to anti-state elements is the imperative to preserve national security. Individuals or groups advocating for the overthrow of the government, supporting violent extremism, or engaging in activities that undermine the state pose a direct threat to the safety and well-being of the nation. Allowing them an unimpeded role in politics risks compromising the very security that democracy seeks to protect.
A fair playing field implies fairness within the bounds of democratic norms. However, extending this principle to those actively working against the state may inadvertently become a tool for the abuse of democratic principles. Anti-state elements may exploit the democratic process to further their agendas, using the very mechanisms designed to uphold democracy against itself. The rule of law is a foundational pillar of democratic societies. Granting a fair playing field to individuals or groups openly opposed to the state challenges the rule of law. It raises questions about the commitment to legal order and adherence to constitutional principles, potentially eroding public trust in the fairness and legitimacy of the legal system.
Democratic institutions, including the electoral process, are vulnerable to manipulation by anti-state elements. Allowing individuals or groups with explicit agendas against the state to participate freely in elections can undermine the integrity of these institutions, creating avenues for subversion rather than constructive participation. A fair playing field for anti-state elements can fuel social discord and unrest. By providing a platform for those advocating radical ideologies or engaging in violent activities, the potential for societal divisions and conflicts increases. A democratic society thrives on social harmony, and measures must be taken to prevent elements that may disrupt this harmony.
Democracy is not a suicide pact. While it values inclusivity and diverse opinions, it also requires protection from those seeking to exploit its openness to subvert the very principles it upholds. Denying a fair playing field to anti-state elements is a measure in defense of democratic values and the preservation of the system itself.
For me, the country and the Pakistan Army are everything. The significance of the Pakistan Armed Forces for the country cannot be overstated. In an ever-changing and complex world, the armed forces play a crucial role in ensuring the security, stability, and prosperity of a nation. Beyond their primary function of defending against external threats, the Pak Army contributes significantly to various aspects of a country’s development and global standing. Like any other army in the world, the primary role of the Pak Army is to safeguard a nation’s sovereignty and protect its citizens from external threats. The Pak Army acts as a shield, deterring potential adversaries and ensuring that the country can respond effectively to any form of aggression. A strong and capable military is essential for maintaining peace and stability within our borders.
The Pakistan Army acts as a deterrent against potential adversaries, dissuading them from engaging in hostile activities. A well-equipped and trained military presence not only prevents conflicts but also contributes to global peace. Additionally, the Pak Army actively participates in peacekeeping missions, collaborating with international organizations to uphold stability in conflict-affected regions. Beyond their traditional roles, our armed forces play a pivotal role in providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief during natural calamities or emergencies. Their logistical capabilities, disciplined personnel, and organizational structure enable them to respond quickly and effectively to crises, ultimately saving lives and minimizing damage. Investments in the armed forces positively impact the country’s economy by generating employment opportunities, stimulating technological advancements, and fostering innovation. Furthermore, a secure and stable environment, facilitated by a robust military, promotes economic growth, attracting investments and fostering trade. The Pakistan armed forces often drive technological innovation, pushing the boundaries of research and development. Technologies initially developed for military purposes, such as GPS, the internet, and medical advancements, find applications in civilian life, contributing to progress and improving the quality of life for people. The Pakistan armed forces also play a crucial role in fostering a sense of national unity and pride. The commitment and sacrifice of military personnel create a bond among citizens, transcending regional, cultural, and socio-economic differences. The Pak Army serves as a symbol of the nation’s strength and resilience, instilling collective pride in the country’s achievements and values. A strong military enhances Pakistan’s standing on the global stage, providing it with the capacity to influence diplomatic negotiations and international relations. The Pak Army contributes to alliances, engages in peacekeeping missions, and participates in cooperative defense efforts, strengthening the country’s diplomatic position and fostering collaboration with other nations.
No country allows rioters to contest elections, irrespective of their popularity, as exemplified by the United States. The United States experienced an unprecedented event that sent shockwaves across the nation and reverberated globally—the Capitol Hill incident. What began as a protest against the certification of the Electoral College results transformed into a chaotic and violent breach of one of the most iconic symbols of American democracy. The Capitol Hill incident unfolded during the joint session of Congress convened to certify the Electoral College results of the 2020 presidential election. Supporters of then-President Donald Trump had gathered in Washington, D.C., to voice concerns about alleged election irregularities. Tensions escalated as the president and his supporters claimed the election had been rigged. As the day progressed, the peaceful protest took a dark turn when a faction of the demonstrators breached security barriers and stormed the Capitol building. This breach led to the evacuation of lawmakers and the suspension of the certification process. The live broadcast of chaos, vandalism, and violence inside the Capitol left Americans and the world in disbelief. Regrettably, the Capitol Hill incident resulted in casualties and injuries, impacting both law enforcement officials and protesters. The aftermath left a lasting scar on the nation’s collective consciousness. Political leaders, both domestic and international, widely condemned the incident, expressing shock at the attack on the heart of American democracy. The response of law enforcement agencies faced scrutiny, prompting a review of security protocols on Capitol Hill and raising concerns about domestic extremism. The aftermath saw resignations and calls for accountability, deepening existing divisions and sparking debates about the role of political rhetoric in influencing public behavior. The incident underscored the challenges of preserving democratic norms in an era marked by intense polarization. It triggered a national reckoning, prompting reflections on the state of democracy, the rule of law, and the fragility of political institutions. Leaders across the political spectrum called for unity, emphasizing the need to heal the wounds opened on that fateful day. The incident served as a wake-up call, forcing a reevaluation of the nation’s commitment to democratic values.
A significant development has occurred in the political annals of the United States, with the recent declaration by the Colorado state court disqualifying former President Donald Trump. The court ruled that his involvement in the Capitol incident rendered him ineligible as a candidate, applying this decision specifically to Colorado. The Supreme Court of the U.S. state of Colorado pronounced Donald Trump unfit to participate in the primary for the upcoming presidential election, scheduled for March 5, 2024. This marks the first instance in U.S. history where a court has disqualified a presidential candidate under the 1868 clause.
In the aftermath of various instances of civil unrest and rioting, nations worldwide confront the challenge of preserving the integrity of their democratic processes. An intriguing aspect of this challenge lies in determining the eligibility of individuals involved in riots to contest elections. Numerous examples exist globally where restrictions are imposed on anti-state elements participating in the electoral process. In the United Kingdom, individuals with criminal records, including those arising from participation in riots, encounter limitations on their eligibility for public office candidacy. The Representation of the People Act 1983 outlines disqualifications, emphasizing the importance of preserving public trust in the electoral process by excluding those engaged in criminal behavior from seeking political office.
Bangladesh has also taken steps to address the matter of individuals with a history of involvement in riots seeking public office. The Representation of the People Order (RPO) empowers the Election Commission to disqualify individuals convicted of specific offenses, including acts of violence and rioting, from participating in elections. This legal framework underscores the nation’s commitment to upholding democratic values and the rule of law. These examples underscore global efforts to balance democratic principles with the necessity to prevent individuals engaged in violent or criminal behavior from gaining political power. While specific legal mechanisms may differ, the underlying objective remains consistent—to safeguard the democratic process from individuals whose actions undermine the foundations of a free and fair electoral system.
As nations grapple with the complexities of maintaining democratic norms in the face of civil unrest, disqualifying rioters from electoral contests stands as a tangible step toward preserving the essence of representative governance. Examples from around the world unequivocally demonstrate that no one allows anti-state elements to claim a level playing field.
Readers, there is a pressing need to expedite the legal proceedings in the trial of the rioters involved in the attacks on May 9th, as it reflects the voice of the nation and the families of our martyrs. The state is ensuring a level playing field for all those not implicated in attacking military and civilian installations. It is a national demand that anti-state elements should not be allowed to emerge without strict punishment in accordance with the country’s laws and regulations.
