I Am NOT Charlie Hebdo

Freedom of speech is a fundamental freedom that can help to advance liberty in society. With liberty, minority opinions can be defended and heard. But freedom of speech can also be used to advance reactionary projects of hate and bigotry. This reactionary project has been embraced by right-win segments of French society in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks. Instead of reviving France's tradition of liberté, égalité, and fraternité, many of those who have embraced Charlie Hebdo are only serving to promote further divisions in French society. Charlie Hebdo has decided to double-down on its inflammatory content and there have already been numerous attacks on Synagogues, Mosques, and Muslims across the country.

If 8-10% of your country adheres to a particular religious faith and you go out of your way to marginalize and antagonize them, how do you think they will feel? Will this serve to advance freedom of speech or the project of liberté, égalité, and fraternité?

For those who believe that this "I am Charlie" slogan is somehow a liberal defense of freedom of speech, consider this thought experiment. Say Fox News was on the receiving end of a terrorist attack. Then all of a sudden people started walking around saying "I am Fox News" and replaying over and over again their most bigoted commentary. How effective would this tactic be to defending freedom of speech?

Equating poor content and inflammatory organizations with freedom of speech actually hurts freedom of speech advocates. Freedom of speech is fantastic. But when you spread hate content through hateful organizations, this only serves to create deeper divisions across society. This reduces the civility of 'civil' society and, in the end, does not help advance the cause of freedom of speech or liberté, égalité, and fraternité. Instead it helps advance the goals of reactionary bigots. Anomie increases and ultimately everyone loses. For all of these reasons and more, I am NOT Charlie Hebdo.

Pakistani Democracy Subverted

Although Imran Khan has now called off protests because of the terrorist attack in Peshawar, he has said he will continue the protests later on. 

The protest movement led by Pakistani Tehreeki Insaf (PTI) chair Imran Khan has led to a partial shutdown of Lahore, a strike in Karachi, and protests in Islamabad. Khan has threatened to paralyze the country on December 18 if his demands for an electoral inquiry into alleged vote rigging in the May 2013 election are not met. Although demands for electoral transparency are important and legitimate protest can help to bring about change, Khan’s current ultimatum only serves to subvert Pakistani democracy.

Khan’s central argument is that the May 2013 elections had massive vote rigging. While some issues existed with the elections, the European Union Election Observation noted that:

“Despite escalating militant attacks, and procedural shortcomings, the electoral process progressed with high levels of competition, a marked increase in voter participation, and overall acceptance of the outcome. The electoral reform undertaken in the last few years, particularly in regards to the leadership of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the electoral roll, provided for a significantly improved process.”

This report goes on to highlight both the strengths and failures of the election, but ultimately concludes that the election was generally free and fair.

This report contradicts Khan’s assertions and demonstrates that Pakistan is continuing to improve its electoral process. This commitment to developing a transparent electoral process will develop over time. Demanding immediate revolutionary change will not bring about complete transparency and will instead weaken nascent political structures.

Pakistani democracy is fragile and continued protests only serve to weaken the political system and country as a whole. The political system has only just begun to recover from the Musharraf dictatorship and the May 2013 elections were a positive step forward towards democratic consolidation. However, Khan continues to divide the country, waste precious political capital, and hurt Pakistan’s economic recovery through continued protests.

The biggest problem with Khan’s current gambit is that he is subverting Pakistani democracy through an increasingly unconstrained protest movement. These protests are hurting the average Pakistani and disrupting their way of life. His actions delegitimize the electoral process by encouraging democracy through mob rule. Democracy is about compromise and justice, not perpetual protest and subversion. Khan should remember this before following through on his threat to shut down the country.

This is the third part of a series of articles I've written on the fall 2014 democracy protests in Pakistan. The other pieces can be found here and here.

Can Pakistan Handle Democracy?

Are elections worth having if there are voting irregularities, little to no change occurs for the average Pakistani, and it substitutes one kleptocratic ruler for another? This question is being debated in living rooms and on the streets across Pakistan today. Pakistanis are frustrated with the lackluster pace of political reform and change. Pakistanis endlessly complain about rampant corruption, unresponsive leaders, and the problems with democracy. But does this mean Pakistan cannot handle democracy?

The answer is a resounding no. Although there are merits to these critiques, the only way forward for Pakistan is with more democracy, not less.

Democracy, at its best, can bring about a tsunami of change to politics as usual. The 2013 elections demonstrated that not only can Pakistan peacefully transition between two-parties, but that new parties can get their seat at the table. Pakistani Tehreeki Insaf (PTI) went from no seats in the National Assembly to hold 28, the third most in parliament. Voter turnout shattered records, with 46.2 million people—55 percent of those eligible—casting ballots in the election according to the Electoral Commission of Pakistan (ECP). This election demonstrated that Pakistanis want a change and that change can be brought about through the ballot box.

But the demonstrations in Islamabad by PTI chief Imran Khan and supporters of Dr. Tahrir ul Qadri have shaken many people’s confidence in Pakistani democracy. While Mr. Khan’s vehement demands for electoral transparency are legitimate, his method of protest has undermined both his agenda and Pakistan’s democracy.

In spite of this setback, Pakistani democracy can be improved and reformed. What is needed now more than ever is to get all political parties in Pakistan to agree to resolve their problems through legitimate negotiations and political bargaining, not through illegitimate demands and bombastic threats. Only through sustained arbitration can Pakistan’s fragile democratic system continue to exist.

Pakistan’s democratic system needs to continue to exist in order to gradually deliver the change people want. Change does not happen overnight, but occurs through sustained commitment and strategic planning. An excellent example of the change that democracy can deliver is the Metrobus system in Lahore. The Metrobus system allows for a clean, affordable way to get around Lahore for the average Pakistani. While it would be ideal to create mass transit systems across all major cities in Pakistan, the Metrobus system is a positive step forward and an example of how democracy can improve the lives of the average Pakistani.

Pakistan needs to expand and enhance its democracy, not question its viability. Although the problems with the current democratic structure should be vigorously debated, faith in democracy must not be lost. Democracy will provide Pakistan with the best chance for economic growth and development. It will provide the average Pakistani with a voice in government. Most importantly, it will give Pakistan a hope for a better tomorrow. A peaceful and prosperous Pakistan can happen, but only if we do not lose our faith in democracy.