Pakistan's opposition parties are right to condemn strongly a new government ordinance declaring strikes and protests ``terrorist acts''. The measure will have the effect of suppressing all public opposition to government policies and actions. It is clearly ridiculous and dangerous and should be withdrawn. Nawaz Sharif, whose government enjoys the largest democratic mandate in Pakistan's history, has come up with many undemocratic measures in his time but surely this one is the most bizarre as well. There is something quite absurd about adding to the list of ``terrorist'' offences when his government is unable to arrest and prosecute all those involved in real acts of terrorism in Sindh and Punjab. On the face of it, the ordinance betrays a complete lack of thought about the implications for the country and the government itself.An agitation scheduled to take place in Karachi in early September to protest the raising of sales tax to 15 per cent appears to be the immediate provocation for the ordinance.The Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) is planning to lead strike action which could seriously disrupt economic activity in Pakistan's premier commercial city. Furthermore, the potential for fresh mayhem cannot be discounted in that violence-prone city. These may have been the particular considerations in the government's mind. But it is wrong. Although the MQM is not the most democratic of organisations itself and has many axes to grind besides the sales tax, there is no justification for a law which curtails basic democratic rights such as the right to organise, protest and take strike action. What may have been intended as an instrument to deal with one situation could end up as a permanent instrument in the hands of the government.Many in Pakistan will fear there are wider objectives. In the light of much evidence of the Nawaz Sharif government's intolerance of critics, no one can be blamed for seeing a more menacing purpose behind this kind of ordinance. The government's propensity for authoritarianaction is well demonstrated. There is every likelihood, therefore, that it will take advantage of the ordinance to muzzle all forms of public dissent. No doubt the government will deny any wider objectives and try to justify itself on grounds of economic necessity, arguing that in the midst of a major financial crisis the country cannot afford the luxury of strikes and protests. But the systematic fashion in which Sharif has moved one after the other against every source of opposition to his government - most recently against the press - must cause serious qualms. Post-Kargil, Sharif is very vulnerable to attacks by opposition parties and may hope the ordinance will arm him to deal with all kinds of agitations since it gives the authorities the carte blanche to treat all public protests as acts of terrorism. The hope must be that Pakistan's supreme court, acting independently, will find the ordinance ultra vires and throw it on the rubbish heap where it rightly belongs.
