Revolution or social movement?

By Dr. Niaz Murtaza

The French revolution remains the flavor of the month in Pakistan. Firebrand politicians from Lahore to London have advocated it as the only solution for Pakistan’s ill as have many other analysts. It seems that anyone who wants to appear sagacious, patriotic and cool starts talking about a French-like revolution.

A revolution formally refers to the use of armed struggle by a group to dethrone an elitist government and establish an egalitarian government. While it is also used to refer to non-violent and more modest political changes in every-day language, such people are clearly expressing a preference for a violent revolution by referring specifically to the French revolution. However, a violent revolution in Pakistan is extremely unlikely to erupt, even less likely to succeed and even less likely to produce positive long-term results.

Its emergence is unlikely since people adopt violence as a last resort only when a hated individual or group has remained firmly entrenched in power for decades and is unlikely to be unseated via other means, such as the royal family in France. In Pakistan, forget elected governments, even dictators do not enjoy such firm hold on power and can be brought down by a few weeks of street demonstrations or in ultimate elections. Thus, the principle of conservation of energy and common sense rule out a violent revolution in Pakistan in the presence of easier avenues.

In the unlikely event that a group launches an armed struggle, it will soon discover, like the Taliban, the difficulties involved in defeating our vaunted army. Revolutions have generally succeeded where armies were weak or highly disaffected with the ruling group but lacking means to remove it themselves, e.g., in Ethiopia. None of this is true for Pakistan. Finally, the history of developing countries shows that groups that capture power through violence do not become able post-revolution rulers who can foster progress. Hotheads continue to dominate and attempt to deal with major problems through force rather than sophisticated policy, leading to stagnation and dissent.

No wonder, there are hardly any instances of successful revolutions that have yielded long-term benefits in developing countries. Over the last 2-3 decades, the pendulum has tilted away from revolutions and towards social movements given the failures of the former and the decreasing number of governments relying on brutal force to stay in power. Social movements have helped in significantly improving governance in several Latin American countries, such as Brazil, Mexico and Argentina. Thus, much wiser is to look at the potential of social movements in effecting improvements in governance in Pakistan.

Social movements generally refer to loosely-linked networks of individuals, groups and agencies, which jointly pursue social and political change by increasing awareness among the public and by applying non-violent social pressure at power centers. The individuals and agencies are deeply rooted in specific communities, understand their problems and mobilize them to identify and pursue peaceful, policy-based solutions to various problems, such as unemployment and lack of social services.  They then link with other communities facing similar problems to apply social pressure for change on governments and other institutions. Their strategies for doing so range from working within the system (such as writing petitions, filing lawsuits, and negotiating personally with officials) to disrupting the system through peaceful protests (such as sit-ins, demonstrations and strikes where necessary).  In contrast with revolutions that throw up violence-prone leaders into the political arena, social movements act as nurseries for rooted, honest and peaceful activists, some of whom later join or create political parties, such as Brazil’s highly successful President Lula.

What is the likelihood of similar social movements occurring in Pakistan? The success of social movements hinges most importantly on the presence of a tolerant government not prone to using brutal force against peaceful social mobilization. Where governments react violently against dissent, as in North Korea, Eritrea and Myanmar, social movements are unlikely to thrive and armed insurrections become more likely. Governments highly integrated with democratic-minded western countries are less likely to respond with force for fear of western pressure, unless they happen to be strategic allies whose suppression of local groups evokes faint western protests at best.

In contrast, countries dependent mainly on China, such as N. Korea, Myanmar and Sudan, have a freer license to brutally repress local dissent as China is becoming not only the second biggest economy but also the second biggest supporter of autocratic regimes after the USA. High urbanization also facilitates the success of social movements as communication and coordination becomes easier. The presence of a relatively free and critical mass media and judiciary also helps the work of social movements.

Each of these trends is apparent in Pakistan. Due to the fear of western rebukes and internal strife, even a dictator like Musharraf could only go that far in repressing the lawyer’s movement, which can be considered a time-bound, issue-specific social movement. Urbanization is increasing rapidly in Pakistan, and will likely touch 70% over the coming decades.  Finally, the mass media and judiciary, despite their still many shortcomings, are playing an increasingly positive role in challenging mal-governance. Thus, Pakistan now is a country more fit for social movements rather than armed revolutions.

Not surprisingly, many highly effective community-based groups are already doing excellent work at the community-level and are increasingly linking at the provincial and national levels. The biggest obstacle to their expansion is not the fear of retribution from the government but from armed terrorist, sectarian and mafia elements. These latter groups undermine the work of social movements by targeting their leaders, infiltrating their peaceful rallies with violence and by attracting vulnerable youth away from peaceful, policy-based avenues to their own reactive, violent means. However, the experience of Latin American countries shows that social movements can overcome such violence to foster social change. Thus, change in Pakistan will more likely come through the efforts of peaceful social activists rather than of armed revolutionaries.

Article recently published in Dawn

Dr. Niaz Murtaza, Research Associate, University of California, Berkeley, murtazaniaz@yahoo.com.