This text is a passionate political commentary, likely from a Pakistani newspaper article, criticizing the actions of a powerful political figure. The author vehemently denounces this figure’s tactics, accusing them of undermining democratic processes, manipulating the legal system, and suppressing dissent. The piece highlights concerns about freedom of speech, the rule of law, and the potential for escalating violence. It ultimately calls for a return to democratic principles and respect for the judiciary.

Analysis of Pakistani Politics and Governance

Quiz

Instructions: Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the provided text.

1. According to the text, who is considered the most capable authority within a society?
2. What basic rights are mentioned as fundamental for citizens, and what limitation is placed upon these rights?
3. What specific instructions were given to the Deputy Commissioner by Juster Sahib?
4. What event led the pressure group PTI to call for a demonstration on November 2nd?
5. The author criticizes someone for using what kind of statements while also behaving hypocritically?
6. What accusations were made against the person who “broke the law twice,” and how did this person initially react to the 2013 election results?
7. How did the individual’s stance on the courts change after the election results?
8. What was the “panty puncture” issue, and what was the individual’s response when it was taken to court?
9. According to the text, who is ultimately responsible for deciding the leadership of Pakistan?
10. What does the author argue is the appropriate method of expressing public opinion in a democratic society?

Quiz Answer Key

1. The text states that the law and the parliament are the most capable authorities within a society, implying a belief in the rule of law and representative government.
2. The basic rights mentioned are freedom of expression, writing, speech, and movement. These are limited by the necessity that they should not infringe upon the basic rights of other citizens.
3. Juster Sahib instructed the Deputy Commissioner to ensure that no roads, schools, or hospitals would be closed and that children’s work schedules would not be changed, thereby preventing disruption of daily life.
4. The text implies that the plans being made in the name of Aitzaz led PTI to call for a demonstration on November 2nd, likely a protest against the political climate.
5. The author criticizes someone for making nonsensical statements while trying to highlight faults in others, accusing them of cunningness and hypocrisy.
6. The person who broke the law twice is accused of flattering those in power for personal gain and is also described as having spread a fake referendum. Initially, this person is stated to have congratulated the winners of the 2013 election.
7. The individual was initially critical of the court until a decision they liked was not reached, at which point the court and judges were said to have become “bad and arrogant.”
8. The “panty puncture” issue is described as a political statement that the person used repeatedly and then later dismissed as simply a political statement when taken to court, displaying a lack of responsibility and respect for the issue.
9. According to the text, the people are the sole authority to decide the leadership of Pakistan; it is a country of 220 million people.
10. The author argues that public opinion should be expressed through the power of the vote, not through force, violence or bloodshed, emphasizing democratic processes and peaceful transitions of power.

Essay Questions

Instructions: Answer each of the following essay questions using information from the provided source material, combined with your own critical thinking.

1. Analyze the author’s criticisms of a specific political figure in the text. How does the author use language to portray this figure’s actions and motivations? Discuss the different aspects of hypocrisy that the author emphasizes.
2. Discuss the role of the judiciary according to the text. How does the author describe the proper function of the courts and how does he critique the behaviour of specific individuals?
3. Based on the text, explain the author’s concerns about the state of democracy in Pakistan. How does the author view political protests? What specific examples from the text contribute to this viewpoint?
4. How does the author address the interplay between the rights of citizens and the state, and what does the author suggest are the limitations of the basic rights of freedom of expression, writing, speech and movement?
5. What role does the author assign to the media in Pakistani society? How should the media, according to this text, respond to political tensions and unrest? What does the author imply is the media’s responsibility?

Glossary of Key Terms

Democracy: A system of government where power is held by the people, typically through elected representatives. The text emphasizes voting as the correct expression of the popular will.

Parliament: The legislative body of a government, responsible for making laws. The text holds the Parliament as a key institution of government.

Rule of Law: The principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to the law, which is applied fairly and equally. The text emphasizes that the law should be the most capable authority and the importance of upholding it.

Judiciary: The system of courts and judges that administer justice, interpret laws, and resolve disputes. The text notes a difference of opinion about the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan.

Hypocrisy: The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs but acting in a way that contradicts those beliefs. The text points to instances of hypocrisy from public figures in the political sphere.

Referendum: A general vote by the electorate on a single political question. The text references a specific leader who created a fake referendum in an effort to stay in power.

Public Opinion: The collective attitudes and beliefs held by a population on matters of public concern. The text posits that this should be expressed via ballot box, not via the streets.

Protest: A public expression of objection or disapproval, often involving demonstrations. The text condemns certain political demonstrations as terrorism when they infringe on the rights of other citizens.

Freedom of Expression: The right to express one’s ideas and opinions freely, often including the freedom of speech, writing, and movement. The text notes that freedom of expression should not infringe on the rights of others.

Political Cunningness: The use of devious or manipulative strategies to achieve political goals. The text uses the terms “cleverness and cunningness” to accuse certain political figures of acting disingenuously for their own benefit.

Pakistani Political Discourse and Critique

Okay, here’s a briefing document summarizing the key themes and ideas from the provided text, including relevant quotes:

Briefing Document: Analysis of “Pasted Text”

Date: October 26, 2023 Subject: Analysis of Pakistani Political Discourse and Critique Source: Excerpts from an article likely published in Jang, November 2016 (as stated in the text)

Overview:

This document analyzes an opinion piece from a Pakistani newspaper that heavily criticizes a political figure (likely Imran Khan, based on the references) and their actions against the government. The piece defends democratic institutions, criticizes the use of protests to disrupt national life, and champions the role of the courts and parliament. It argues that the political figure in question is acting hypocritically and undermining democracy.

Key Themes and Arguments:

• Supremacy of Law and Parliament:The article asserts that the law and parliament are the highest authorities for the people of Pakistan.
• Quote: “In the name of humans, there is no one more capable than the law and the parliament.”
• This suggests a belief in the importance of democratic processes and institutions.
• Critique of Disruptive Protests:The author condemns the use of protests that disrupt daily life, including road closures and disruption to schools and hospitals.
• Quote: “Juster Sahib has asked the Deputy Commissioner to ensure that this Amar is assured that No road, school or hospital will be closed. Children’s work schedule will not be changed.”
• The article argues that these actions infringe upon the basic rights of citizens.
• Freedom of Expression vs. Rights of Others:The text acknowledges the right to freedom of expression but stresses that it cannot infringe upon the rights of other citizens.
• Quote: “the rules of rugby will not allow freedom of expression, writing, speech and movement is the basic right of every citizen but it should not affect the basic rights of another citizen.”
• This emphasizes the need for responsible exercise of freedom of expression.
• Condemnation of Hypocrisy and Political Maneuvering:The author accuses the subject of the article of hypocrisy and political maneuvering for their own gain.
• Quote: “What can be bigger cleverness and cunningness than this that you show the fault and then you talk nonsense, and you kill Sharafabad and get the reward, what other opportunity is there?”
• The article highlights inconsistencies in the political figure’s stances regarding elections, the courts and other political figures.

1. Criticism of Political Figure’s Behavior During and After Elections: *The article criticizes how the political figure initially accepted the results of an election, then later claimed rigging, and attacked the courts when they didn’t rule in their favor.

• Quote: “You even congratulated the winners, but when there were signals from here and there, you just got a hair’s breadth in it…but as soon as you saw that the decision of your choice did not come then The courts and the justice sahabs have also become bad and arrogant and so have their decisions.”
• This suggests a lack of respect for democratic institutions and the rule of law.
• Condemnation of Insults and Disrespect towards Leaders and Institutions:The author criticizes the political figure for their disrespectful language and attacks on various institutions and individuals, from the courts to political opponents and even allies.
• Quote: “Whose respect have you not ruined, court And from the prominent personalities present in the arrangements to the politicians, whatever came to their mind, they said that now they should fear God and learn from their own mother”
• The writer asserts that the use of such language undermines the dignity of political discourse.
• Defense of Democratic Government and its Right to Serve:The piece suggests that the ultimate power rests with the people through the democratic process, and any leader should be held accountable to it.
• Quote: “The right to decide the leadership of this country is only and only of the real heirs of this country, the people. The people are the source of power.”
• This emphasizes that the right to elect or remove a government resides with the people.

1. Rejection of Force and Violence: *The article strongly rejects violence and forceful tactics in political discourse, stating these are not democratic methods and implying that using such methods would put the country in the same position as “the Taliban or the terrorists.”

• Quote: “if we have to give a decisive status to the bullet instead of the belt, then we should hand over the country to the Taliban or the terrorists.”
• Importance of Media’s Role:The text states that the media has a responsibility to protect the rule of law and democracy, and shouldn’t be used for personal or political gain.
• Quote: “It is the demand of the country that the media should stand firmly on the protection of law, democracy and law.”

Most Important Facts and Ideas:

• The article is a strong defense of Pakistan’s democratic institutions (law, parliament, judiciary) against what it sees as dangerous and undemocratic protest tactics.
• The article is primarily a scathing critique of a specific political figure (likely Imran Khan) for their alleged hypocrisy and actions against democratic principles.
• It stresses the importance of law and order, freedom of speech and expression within the boundaries of the law, and the need for respectful political discourse.
• It highlights that using force to disrupt society is not a solution and that the people, through democratic processes, hold the ultimate authority.
• The media plays a pivotal role in protecting democracy and the rule of law.

Conclusion:

This text provides insight into the heated political debates in Pakistan during the time it was written. It is a strong endorsement of the democratic process and institutions and a pointed rebuke of those who would undermine them through disruptive protests and rhetoric. The author clearly views the actions of the political figure they are criticizing as a direct threat to the country’s democratic foundations.

Law, Parliament, and the Abuse of Power

Okay, here’s an 8-question FAQ based on the provided text, formatted with markdown:

FAQ

1. What is the central argument of the author regarding the relationship between law, parliament, and citizen action?
2. The author strongly asserts that law and parliament are the ultimate authorities in a society, acting on behalf of the people. They argue that these institutions, rather than individuals or groups, are the most capable entities to ensure justice and progress. The author emphasizes that while freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it should not infringe upon the basic rights of others. Actions that disrupt public life, like road closures and school disruptions, are seen as violations of others’ rights.
3. How does the author portray the actions of the individual or group involved in the protest or political maneuvering described?
4. The author is highly critical of the actions of this unnamed individual or group. They accuse them of hypocrisy, cunningness, and opportunism. They point out that this entity only criticizes the system and its institutions when outcomes don’t favor them, highlighting the inconsistency of their stance. The author portrays them as willing to manipulate public opinion, spread misinformation (such as “fake referendum” claims), and disrupt public order for their personal gain. This entity is depicted as having a history of breaking the law while simultaneously aiming to influence the political system.
5. What specific examples are given to illustrate the alleged hypocrisy or inconsistency of the individual/group’s actions?
6. Several examples are given:

• Initially congratulating election winners and then crying foul when results didn’t favor them.
• Criticizing the courts and judges when their decisions are unfavorable, after initially praising them.
• Claiming political statements are meaningless or “political” after a legal challenge
• Accusing others of issues within their party when ignoring their own flaws
• Criticizing others for actions similar to their own past actions, specifically around rigging and referendums
• Making negative statements about prominent people and then turning around to treat others negatively, specifically mentioning “panty puncture” and that others should be fearing God.

1. How does the author define the ideal use of power in a democratic society?
2. The author believes that power in a democratic society should be derived from the people and exercised through the ballot box. They vehemently oppose the use of force, disruption, or any action that undermines the rights of others. The author sees the public, not individual actors or pressure groups, as the rightful source of power. Public opinion should be expressed through votes, and the media has a responsibility to protect this democratic process. The use of force over ballots is equated to allowing the Taliban or terrorists to assume power, making it an extreme, negative outcome.
3. What is the author’s view on protests or similar actions that disrupt public life?

The author strongly condemns protests that disrupt public life, emphasizing that the rights of citizens should not be trampled on by such actions. They see the act of closing roads, disrupting school, or forcing changes to children’s work schedules as unacceptable infringements on the daily lives of others. They believe the government should act firmly against these actions and that no entity or individual should be allowed to create chaos. They label extreme disruptive actions not as protests but as “terrorism.”

1. What role does the author see for the media in society?
2. The author sees the media as a crucial actor in upholding the rule of law and democracy. They believe the media should stand firmly on the side of these principles, acting as a protector of the democratic process and the public’s rights. The media is specifically called out as one of the children of the state, further emphasizing their responsibility to act in the best interest of the people and to expose wrong doing.
3. Why does the author criticize the actions of people who allegedly “close Islamabad”?
4. The author suggests these actions are a form of oppression that disrupts daily life and is not allowed in a functioning democracy. They view attempts to close a city as an arrogant claim of power that undermines democratic processes, stating that only the people should have the right to decide leadership and therefore should be voting not closing. Such actions are viewed as attempts to forcefully impose one’s will on the country without the authority of the people.
5. What does the author mean by referring to “Jihadi slogans”? What comparison do they make and why?

The author is criticizing those who engage in disruptive protests and are raising religious and potentially violent rhetoric. By referencing “Jihadi slogans,” the author is drawing a parallel between these disruptive actions and acts of extremism and terrorism, implying that both are a form of violence and disruption. The author is saying that they are no different than those who commit murder or actual acts of terrorism, and therefore should be considered criminal and not “protesting.” They then make a direct comparison of them to the Taliban, saying the Taliban should be put in charge if this type of force or violence should be valued over the power of the ballot. They make this direct comparison to illustrate how extreme the protesters are.

Political Protests and Public Order

Political protests are discussed in the source, focusing on the rights of citizens to express themselves and the need for these expressions not to infringe on the rights of others [1]. The source also highlights the potential for protests to disrupt society, especially when they involve the closure of roads, schools, or hospitals [1].

Here are some key points from the text regarding political protests:

• Freedom of Expression vs. Public Disruption: The source emphasizes that while freedom of expression, writing, speech, and movement are basic rights, they should not infringe on the basic rights of other citizens [1].
• Legality of Protests: The source mentions that courts have instructed district magistrates to take action according to the law regarding protests, specifically referencing a protest in Makhsuspuri Surat [1].
• Potential for Disruption: The source notes that a special pressure group, PTI, called for a protest on November 2, with plans that included closing Islamabad [1]. This highlights the disruptive potential of protests and the concerns of authorities to prevent chaos [1].
• Government Response: The source mentions that the government should ensure the implementation of the Islamabad High Court’s decision while respecting citizens’ rights to peace [1]. It also states that the government is trying to find an appropriate place for protests, such as a parade ground, to avoid chaos [1].
• Use of Force: The source suggests that using force or bloodshed to express public opinion is not acceptable and that the power of the vote is the appropriate method [1]. The source also suggests that using force would be akin to handing the country over to terrorists [1].
• Media’s Role: The source argues that the media should stand firmly in the protection of law and democracy, acting as a protector of the people’s rights [1].
• Comparison to Terrorism: The source claims that extreme steps, such as the disruptive protests being planned, are not a peace treaty but rather an act of terrorism [1].

The source also mentions that the people are the source of power and that the right to decide the leadership of the country belongs to the people [1]. The source indicates that public opinion should be expressed through voting rather than through force or bloodshed [1].

Legal Challenges in Political Protests

The source discusses legal challenges in the context of political protests and the actions of various political figures and institutions [1]. Here’s a breakdown of the legal issues and related points:

• Court Instructions and Actions: Courts have instructed district magistrates to take action according to the law regarding protests [1]. This indicates that the legal system is actively involved in managing and regulating protests. Specifically, the court directed that action be taken as per law in Makhsuspuri Surat for a protest [1].
• Rule of Law: The source emphasizes the importance of law and parliament, stating that no one is more capable than these institutions [1]. This underscores the idea that legal frameworks and processes should be the primary mechanisms for resolving disputes and governing society. The source also mentions that the media should stand firmly on the protection of law and democracy [1].
• Implementation of Court Decisions: The government is expected to ensure the implementation of decisions made by the Islamabad High Court, while also maintaining the right to peace and respect of all citizens [1]. This highlights the need for the executive branch to uphold judicial decisions.
• Disputes and the Role of the Courts: The source states that the courts are the ultimate umpires in disputes, and the top courts are the only umpires in “Masailistan” [1]. This emphasizes the judicial system’s role in resolving disagreements.
• Criticism of Court Decisions: The source notes a situation where a political figure criticized the courts and judges when a decision was not in their favor, indicating a lack of respect for the judicial process [1]. The source also points out that when a court decision did not align with a political figure’s preference, the courts and judges were labeled as bad and arrogant [1].
• Challenge to Authority: The source refers to a situation where a political figure broke the law twice, but was still able to be elected to parliament, raising questions about the integrity of the legal and political process [1]. It highlights instances where individuals in power have been accused of rigging elections and manipulating the system for their own benefit [1].
• Legitimacy of Power: The source underscores that the people are the source of power and have the right to decide the leadership of the country [1]. This suggests that any actions or laws that go against the will of the people are legally and morally questionable. The source emphasizes that public opinion is expressed through voting rather than force [1].

The source reveals that legal challenges are closely intertwined with political actions and that the rule of law is often contested and challenged by those with political power. The text also suggests that the courts are a battleground for political disputes and that their decisions are not always respected or accepted by political actors.

Freedom of Speech and its Limits

The source emphasizes that freedom of speech is a basic right of every citizen, but it also notes that this right is not absolute and should not infringe upon the rights of other citizens [1]. Here are some key points related to freedom of speech from the source:

• Basic Right: The source states that “freedom of expression, writing, speech and movement is the basic right of every citizen” [1]. This clearly establishes that these forms of expression are considered fundamental rights.
• Limitations: The source also states that the exercise of these rights “should not affect the basic rights of another citizen” [1]. This indicates that freedom of speech is not unlimited and must be balanced against the rights and well-being of others in society. This is especially relevant in the context of protests and political discourse, as the source discusses.
• Context of Protests: The source applies these ideas about freedom of speech to political protests [1]. The source discusses concerns about how protests can disrupt public life and infringe on the rights of others when, for example, roads, schools or hospitals are closed, or when the work schedule of children is impacted [1]. In this context, the source suggests there are limits to the exercise of free speech when it interferes with the rights and well-being of others [1].
• Political Discourse: The source includes many examples of strong political speech and criticism of political opponents [1]. It highlights how political actors and figures use rhetoric and speech to criticize the government, its leadership, and the court system.
• Media’s Role: The source also mentions that the media should stand firmly on the protection of law and democracy, acting as a protector of the people’s rights [1]. The media therefore has a responsibility to allow freedom of speech, while still acting as a watchdog of democracy and holding power to account [1].

The source therefore suggests that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not without limits [1]. It should be exercised responsibly and should not infringe upon the rights of others [1]. The source highlights the tension between freedom of speech and the need to ensure public order and respect for the rights of all citizens [1].

Government Authority and Citizen Rights

The source discusses government authority in several ways, primarily focusing on the balance between the government’s power and the rights of citizens. Here’s an overview of the key points:

• Role of Law and Parliament: The source asserts that “there is no one more capable than the law and the parliament” [1]. This highlights that government authority should be rooted in legal frameworks and the democratic process, with the elected parliament as a key institution of power. This suggests that government actions should be legitimate and based on the rule of law.
• Enforcement of Law: The government is expected to ensure the implementation of court decisions [1]. This indicates that the government’s authority is closely tied to its responsibility to enforce legal judgments and uphold the judicial system. The source also notes that the district magistrate has been instructed by the court to take action as per law regarding a protest [1].
• Limitations on Government Authority: While the source acknowledges the government’s role in maintaining order, it also emphasizes that government authority is not absolute. The source makes it clear that the government should not infringe on citizens’ rights, stating that basic rights such as “freedom of expression, writing, speech and movement” are fundamental to every citizen [1]. These rights should be respected and should only be limited when they infringe on the rights of others [1].
• Government’s Response to Protests: The source describes how the government is expected to respond to protests, noting that the government should ensure the decision of the Islamabad High Court is implemented, while also maintaining the right to peace and respect of any citizen [1]. The source also notes that the government is trying to find appropriate places for protests, such as a parade ground, to prevent chaos [1]. This suggests that the government’s role is to manage and regulate protests while respecting civil liberties.
• Source of Power: The source argues that the people are the ultimate source of power, stating that “the right to decide the leadership of this country is only and only of the real heirs of this country, the people” [1]. It further notes that “public opinion is expressed not by force or bloodshed but by the power of the vote” [1]. This implies that the government’s authority should derive from the consent of the governed, through free and fair elections, not by force or oppression.
• Government Accountability: The source implies the government should be accountable to the people and operate within the framework of law and democracy [1]. The source criticizes instances of what it perceives as abuse of power and calls for government actions to be fair, just, and in the interest of all citizens [1]. The source also highlights the importance of media as a watchdog over government [1].

In summary, the source presents a nuanced view of government authority, arguing that while a government has the right and responsibility to maintain order and enforce laws, it is also limited by the rights of citizens, and that the government derives its authority from the will of the people and should act in their best interests, while respecting the rule of law [1].

Public Opinion and Democratic Governance

The source emphasizes the importance of public opinion, particularly in relation to government authority and political processes. Here’s a breakdown of how public opinion is presented in the source:

• Source of Power: The source clearly states that “the people are the source of power” [1]. This suggests that the ultimate authority in the country resides with the citizens, not with any individual or governing body. The source indicates that the people are the “real heirs” of the country, further emphasizing their primacy [1].
• Right to Decide Leadership: According to the source, the “right to decide the leadership of this country is only and only of the real heirs of this country, the people” [1]. This underscores that the legitimacy of any government or political leader is derived from the consent of the governed. This implies that leaders should be chosen through a process that reflects the will of the people.
• Expression of Public Opinion: The source specifies that “public opinion is expressed not by force or bloodshed but by the power of the vote” [1]. This highlights the importance of democratic processes, particularly elections, as the legitimate way for citizens to express their views and preferences regarding leadership and governance.
• Rejection of Force: The source strongly rejects the idea that force or violence should be used to express public opinion [1]. The source suggests that using force to express public opinion is akin to surrendering the country to terrorists, showing the value the source places on peaceful, democratic expression.
• Media as a Voice: The source mentions that the media should act as a protector of people’s rights and should stand firmly on the protection of law and democracy [1]. This highlights the media’s role as a means of expressing public opinion and holding the government accountable. The source implies that by holding the government accountable, the media is one of the avenues of expressing the will of the people.

In summary, the source presents public opinion as the foundation of government legitimacy and underscores the importance of democratic processes, especially voting, as the legitimate means for expressing public opinion. The source rejects violence as a means of expression and highlights the role of the media in safeguarding and communicating public opinion.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!