Political action can be broadly defined as any activity aimed at influencing the policies, decisions or behaviour of a governing body or political system. This can include voting, campaigning, protesting, lobbying and other forms of civic engagement. Democracy is distinct from mere majoritarian rule. Political actors must disabuse themselves of the notion that power is the only reality.

Several political theorists have argued that logic and persuasion should take precedence over physical force in political action. This argument is rooted in the idea that sustainable change arises from consensus and understanding rather than imposition. Persuasion encourages dialogue and can lead to more inclusive and legitimate outcomes, fostering a sense of community and shared purpose.

A reliance on force alone often breeds resentment and further conflict. That exactly is what historian Yuval Harari calls political conversation among various sections of the citizenry that holds the key for the sustainability of political action. In order to make this conversation possible, the free press and efficient and non-partisan system of justice constitute the fundamental components.

Jean-Paul Sartre and Herbert Marcuse have contrasting views on political action, both relevant to contemporary Pakistan. Sartre, an existentialist, emphasised individual freedom and moral responsibility, arguing that authentic political engagement arises from an awareness of one’s choices and their societal implications. He believed that individuals are “condemned to be free” and must act to shape their world, highlighting the necessity of personal commitment to justice.

In contrast, Marcuse, a Frankfurt School theorist, critiqued capitalist society and viewed political action as a means to transcend oppressive structures. He argued for liberation from consumerism and repressive tolerance, advocating for critical thought and revolutionary change to create a just society where human potential can flourish. Marcuse’s ideas are particularly relevant to Pakistan, where political control often stifles transformative action.

Hannah Arendt emphasised the importance of public action as a means of human interaction and community building. John Stuart Mill advocated for persuasion over coercion in democratic discourse, underscoring the need for open dialogue to achieve truth and progress. MK Gandhi’s strategy of non-violent resistance aligns with these views, positing that moral persuasion is more effective than violence in effecting change. Together, these theories illuminate the complexities of political action in Pakistan’s contemporary landscape.

Harari discusses the concept of self-corrective mechanism in human societies, suggesting that civilisations have built-in mechanisms for recognising and correcting their mistakes, largely through the discourse surrounding human rights and social justice. This self-corrective mechanism enables societies to evolve and adapt, fostering a continuous pursuit of improvement. In the context of political action, this means that while injustices may occur, societies have the capacity to recognise the wrongs and mobilise for change, often through peaceful means. Harari’s view underscores the importance of dialogue and moral reasoning in facilitating societal progress.

That is what Pakistani political institutions need to develop so that they keep evolving along progressive lines and through intersubjective conversation create an open society in which democratic dispensation can flourish. Such conversations give rise to a very vibrant public sphere and such interaction is even more important more the multi-lingual, multi-ethnic and multi-national states like Pakistan. Any bar on such interaction at various levels would be counter-productive.

A political system that fails to protect human and civil rights is likely to provoke dissent and conflict, rather than fostering the dialogue and persuasion necessary for a healthy political environment.

Political action is a crucial aspect of engaging with and shaping political systems. Influential thinkers have emphasised the importance of logic and persuasion over physical force, advocating for a dialogue-based approach to political change. In any democratic polity, human rights and civil rights are foundational. They are not only principles to be upheld but also essential for ensuring that all citizens can participate fully in political life. In the case of Pakistan, where many citizens face violations of these rights, the struggle for recognition and protection of these rights becomes paramount. Denying fundamental rights undermines democracy and can lead to instability.

A political system that fails to protect human and civil rights is more likely to provoke dissent and conflict than fostering the dialogue and persuasion necessary for a healthy political environment. Advocating for these rights is not just a moral imperative but also a necessary condition for political stability and societal progress. To sum it up, in the light of Harari’s insights on self-correction, the recognition of human rights and civil rights remains central to democratic practices, particularly in contexts where these rights are under threat, as seen in Pakistan. Emphasising these rights is essential for building a just and equitable society.

Strong-arm tactics in countries like Pakistan can be profoundly counterproductive to nurturing a democratic order. When political adversaries are disenfranchised through bans on political factions without legitimate justification, several detrimental effects arise.

First, these tactics undermine the foundational principles of democracy, which include pluralism, representation and the right to dissent. Banning political parties or groups effectively silences opposition voices and reduces the political landscape to a single narrative, which stifles public discourse and critical debate. This lack of diversity in political expression can lead to a sense of disillusionment among citizens, who may feel that their voices are not represented.

Second, the use of force and repression breeds resentment and alienation among the disenfranchised groups. When political opponents are silenced, it often leads to increased radicalisation and unrest, as marginalised populations may resort to more extreme measures to express their grievances. This cycle of repression and resistance can destabilise the political environment, making it harder to achieve lasting peace and democratic governance.

Moreover, the absence of legitimate political competition can erode the credibility of the ruling government. When power is maintained through coercion rather than consent, the legitimacy of the government is called into question, which can lead to widespread protests and civil unrest. Citizens may lose faith in democratic institutions, viewing them as tools of oppression rather than mechanisms for representation and accountability.

Additionally, such tactics can hinder economic and social development. A stable democracy fosters an environment conducive to investment and growth, while political repression can lead to uncertainty and deter both domestic and foreign investment. The resultant instability can further entrench poverty and hinder progress.

Strong-arm tactics that disenfranchise political opponents undermine the very essence of democracy, create a cycle of conflict and destabilise both political and economic systems. A healthy democratic order requires open dialogue, respect for dissent and the inclusion of diverse voices. All of these are compromised when force is employed to silence opposition. Countries like Pakistan ought to orient themselves as social welfare states and not national security states. To ensure peace, politics should be left to the politicians.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore