Dutch NGOs Oxfam Novib, PAX and The Rights Forum successfully sued their government for violating Dutch laws. In this particular case, the NGOs represented civil society’s sentiments in challenging their government for supplying Israel spare parts which built Israeli F-35 fighter jets, which in turn, killed Palestinian civilians. The people of the Netherlands decided they did not want to be a party to genocide, and sued their government – and won.
I think this is a wonderful example for Pakistanis. I wrote a piece several months ago, which wasn’t published as it was written. I will try again and advocate in light of the above amazing case.
The human rights organizations in Pakistan must take a leaf from this example. Pakistani human rights organizations – donor funded no less, not even government funded – refuse to litigate against parliamentarians, who unabashedly pass laws against the welfare of the vulnerable citizen. Why?
What could possibly be worse than the House of the People making citizens more vulnerable than before? The harm done in this way is all too real.
In the Dutch case, the three NGOs were funded by government and yet had the moral and ethical spine to sue them! They acted in the interests of citizens, civil society, fundamental rights, anti-war sentiments and with an understanding of protecting human rights as a principle – values that the Netherlands claims to stand for. This is a wonderful example of civil society, exercising collective agency in direct action. It is how democratic rights are defended outside of the board rooms, and not merely on the pages of such platforms you are reading.
If writing and bringing to attention important issues does not reach the ears, eyes or hands of those who must respond, then there is no choice but to litigate for foundational protected fundamental rights of the citizen. If you are an organization which works and gets paid to raise and defend human rights in Pakistan, I think there is no other non-violent civic alternative left.
In Pakistan, given that there is genuine fear of violent reprisals by the government, there is no doubt this is a valid and massive deterrent; therefore, it is incumbent for organizations rather than individuals to challenge the policy legislatures who act in aid of undemocratic quarters at the expense of citizens’ welfare.
The 2024 parliament has been called illegitimate for many valid reasons; but its actions and legislation speak louder to this fact. Since the February 2024 sham elections, this parliament and parliamentarians keep on taking – literally. The House has only focused on how to undermine the privacy of the citizen by legislating invasive eavesdropping laws, emboldening authorities to be able to threaten citizens in a multitude of ways into submission. A parliament which legislates that anyone can enter the privacy of homes and create and enable an environment of fear in the privacy of homes, is the most dangerous threat to Pakistanis’ welfare.
A legislature which continues to slow and shut down communication networks of citizens – an infrastructure which is critical in any modern functional society and also aids economic, social, political, cultural connectivity in the 21st century – should not be deemed representing citizens interests. Worse still is a parliament which ignores countless criticisms of the above and instead defends its actions. To spend tax payer’s money on disempowering the people is anything but working in aid of citizens welfare. The impunity knows no bounds. Redlines do not exist. Accountability has completely been suspended. Legitimacy is unimportant.
In Pakistan, the democrats may or may not be in large numbers, but nothing prevents us from taking these issues to court
A legislature which lies about ‘prioritizing an education emergency’ by raising the budget lines of those who strip citizens rights and safety and allocates naught towards strengthening education and literacy for Pakistanis, is not a government of the people for the people.
The final straw is a legislature which attempts to bring in a constitutional amendment without sharing it with its constituents nor discusses it on the floor of the House. It doesn’t stop here, once the amendment document is leaked revealing its anti-civilian nature, where military courts would pronounce judgement on civilians, army personnel and positions posts would not come under the purview of civilian oversight. Worse and frighteningly an already compromised parliament would now control and dictate the high courts and supreme court justices. Thereby leaving absolutely no space where citizens of Pakistan can seek justice. I think it is time human rights organizations in Pakistan, NGOs and collectives must take legal action while we still have a legal system.
It is time Pakistani civil society organizations mustered their strength and focused on challenging these nefarious actions in court.
Civil society protests in urban Pakistan have had limited success, in terms of swaying policy corrections; nevertheless, they continue to be important for some to see that not everyone is sitting and doing nothing.
Today, those are also being muffled and violently threatened.
There are many reasons why citizens who want to come out are unable to do so in urban areas. We have not seen Pakistani citizens come out in the millions, as we see in Europe and America, on a variety of issues.
When a society is enraged at its policymakers, it is time to protest. Non-violently.
In Pakistan, the democrats may or may not be in large numbers, but nothing prevents us from taking these issues to court. We have not seen a single parliamentarian made accountable. If nefarious pressures are what ‘force them into anti-democratic positions,’ then it is better that they resign.
That decision to do the right thing can only be enabled if there are consequences. Those consequences cannot merely extend to the ballot, which has been compromised too many times. Instead, there must be legal consequences from the people who can litigate.
For organizations which espouse and professionally work in the areas of empowerment, democracy, voice, accountability, human rights, women’s rights, and governance – the list is endless – it is time to put these outputs into outcomes. The project framework needs a few new interventions to enable outcomes.
Without accountability of parliamentarians, there is no project human rights, democracy, governance, women’s empowerment or disaster risk reduction.