The political environment in Pakistan since April 2022 and in the USA over the last four years bears many similarities. The fateful incidents and opposing winds faced by former PM Imran Khan and former POTUS Donald Trump in numerous ways appear as mirror images. Consequently, the resulting political polarisation and instability are also common to both. Is this due to the similarities in the two personalities, or is it a result of the commonalities among the perpetrators, their unified interests, and similar end goals within the local contexts as well as on the Global Deep State’s chessboard? Make your own guess!

According to American constitutional law and human rights experts, caught up in the heavily dramatised electoral showdown between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, Americans have become oblivious to the multitude of ways in which the government is encroaching on people’s freedoms on a daily basis. Almost the same has been practised in Pakistan from April 2022 until the enactment of the controversial and hasty 26th Constitutional Amendment on 21 October 2024. Particularly appalling in both countries is the extent to which people on both sides of the political, bureaucratic, and judicial divides allow themselves to be manipulated by political opponents on critical issues of the day, selectively choosing to hear only what casts the opposition in a negative light. This pertains to issues such as the protection of human rights (i.e., safety of life, respect and property, freedom of speech and movement, provision of healthcare, food, clean water, and breathable air), internal and external national security, immigration and border control, the maintenance of multiple turbulent fronts, and the excessive use of state machinery against its own citizens, treating them as though they were enemies of the country.

The thoughtless, abrasive, derogatory, and even abusive hate speeches by individuals in both the USA and Pakistan is another regrettable commonality, which only fuels public anxiety, frustration, and aggressiveness within society. Accepted norms of dialogue and regular speech appear to have been replaced by debauched language, resulting in rebellious behaviour in parliamentary houses, as well as on electronic and social media. But can muzzling free speech by banning media be considered a solution? Or does the remedy lie in putting the horse before the cart—that is, the legislature, executives, and judiciary setting exemplary personal and institutional examples by being fair and impartial, proven by actions rather than by the usual hollow rhetoric?

The US Department of Defence’s recent reissuance of Directive 5240.01, empowering the military to assist law enforcement “in situations where a confrontation between civilian law enforcement and civilian individuals or groups is reasonably anticipated,” is being viewed as martial law; however, American respect for the unadulterated Constitution ensures a republic bound by the rule of law. Similarly, in Pakistan, calling in the Army under Article 245 of the Constitution at every opportunity by successive governments has mostly proven ineffective, though legitimised by amending the Constitution.

What we have observed in the USA over time includes domestic terrorism fuelled by government entrapment schemes, civil unrest stoked to dangerous levels by polarising political rhetoric, a growing intolerance for dissent challenging the government’s power grabs, police brutality tacitly encouraged by the executive branch, conveniently overlooked by the legislatures, and granted qualified immunity by the courts, a weakening economy exacerbated by government schemes favouring none but a select few, and heightened foreign tensions and blowback due to endless conflicts. More of the same in Pakistan too!

In every country, there are those who don’t support the government due to poverty, inflation, hunger, deprivation of basics of life such as health, shelter, education, food, water, and security. But is the State justified in labelling them as traitors, terrorists, khawarij, or fitna, who must be identified, targeted, detained, or, if necessary, eliminated? We should remember that a State is not just a piece of land with a government firmly seated with one foot on the executive and the other on the judiciary’s shoulder. The people are the most crucial element of the state; they create the constitution meant to govern and serve them, with the three branches of the state operating in well-defined orbits. Any trespassing or alteration of the Constitution is akin to cutting the trunk of a tree on which all branches of the state rest. Pakistan’s 1973 Constitution has been moulded like a piece of wax, having undergone 26 amendments, hardly any of which serve the people, but nearly all of which aim to legalise legitimacies. The necessity of respecting the Constitution is also evidenced by the fact that despite the many similarities between the USA’s and Pakistan’s political environments, the USA remains a superpower because its people, superior judiciary, and Armed Forces fiercely defend their Constitution. This element is what appears to be missing in Pakistan. Please revisit “Protecting the People and the Constitution” published on 21 March 2021.

Saleem Qamar Butt
The writer is a retired senior army officer with experience in international relations, military diplomacy and analysis of geo-political and strategic security issues.