BHTN2EU5YBHVZLPTZCRZYVHMFY

Political polarisation is not something new. All states around the globe practicing any form of government have had to deal with this phenomenon with varied degree of severity. Its undesired consequences (from varied examples) include societal division, communal anger, formation of hostile camps, violence against opposing groups, military coups, institutional delegitimisation, and erosion of democratic ethos. These make political polarisation a threat to the national, political, and social fabric of a country. This article is an attempt to examine the concept of political polarisation and its consequences in the context of diverse societies, like Pakistan.

‘Severe’ or ‘pernicious’ polarisation has been defined by Jennifer McCoy and Murat Somer as ‘a process whereby the normal multiplicity of differences in the society increasingly align[s] along a single dimension, cross-cutting differences become reinforcing, and people increasingly perceive and describe politics and society in terms of ‘us’ versus ‘them’’

According to McCoy and Somer, ‘pernicious polarisation’ has become a tool in the hands of political entrepreneurs to pursue their political interests and power game driven by declared perceived morals than actual values and morality. Such actors portray themselves and their opponents in highly contrasting terms of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. They use blame game tactics and push their opponents to the wall by holding them responsible for all the ills in society. This infusion of good and evil, moral and immoral, honest and corrupt activates ‘ethnocentrism’ in the population, according to Marc Hooghe – the belief that one’s own political ideology is superior to other existing ideologies and that one’s political ideology/strategy is the solution to all evils. This rising tendency can impact the social fabric and exacerbate social isolation and enmity amongst people with divergent political views.

Pakistan’s political history is replete with examples where political polarisation was used to achieve vested political results or to retain power. This has been evident since pre-partition when the anti-Pakistan Muslim polity labelled the idea of separate country with denigrating labels like ‘Paldistan’ and ‘Kafiristan’. Even the Founder of the Nation Quaid-i-Azam was belittled by them as ‘Kafir-e-Azam’. In the same vein, Mohtarma Fatima Ali Jinnah was drawn into controversies and labeled as a traitor during her election campaign in 1965. Unfortunately, such politically motivated controversies and blame games have dominated the country’s polity over decades. Even today, Pakistan’s political ethos has not improved, and the country is still vulnerable to controversies and conspiracies leading to political chaos.

A more current example is the ongoing party-political turmoil in the country in which various political parties are actively employing all kinds of polarisation tactics and engaged in disputes about who is a ‘patriot’ and who is a ‘traitor’. Such conduct of political leadership poses serious threats to the security and stability of the country and is inimical to the long-term national interests of the state.

This growing polarisation in our society calls for an effective ‘depolarisation mechanism’ based on four basic pillars, i.e., strengthening legal institutions, empowering the judiciary, independent election administration, and ensuring more civil participation in political affairs of the country. Other than this, there is need to deliberate and understand at the national level what has gone wrong over the past few years that has been slowly eating away at the political and social fabric of our society. Every political chaos leads to economic crises, and ultimately, it is the citizens of the land who suffer; thus, compromising the human security. Hence, for the same of the citizenry, there is a dire need of broader political and institutional reforms that will help overcome the current turmoil and crisis. This will help promote a more pluralistic democracy and restore the trust of people in the democratic process and institutes of the state.

Lastly, a political crisis of this nature calls for political acumen and a sense of responsibility from our political elites to minimise the negative effects of polarisation on society. At this point, the situation necessitates that both the ruling and the opposition parties should dispel antagonism towards each other in favour of collective national interests and join hands to detoxify and stabilise Pakistan.

Amna Tauhidi is a Researcher at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in The News International. She can be reached at [email protected].  


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »