It is imperative to recognise that while individuals are entitled to political beliefs, expressing them in a manner that upholds respect and rational discourse is paramount.....
society
Political inclinations are only pleasant when articulated within bounds of intellect and dignity. However, when emotions surge and tempers override reason, wrath transforms the disagreement into irreparable hostility, fracturing bonds and destroying relationships. Such chaotic madness unfolded in 2018, as supporters of various political factions resorted to lawlessness, exhibiting behaviour unbecoming of civil society. The pre-post virtual wars in cyberspace for elections left even the most thick-skinned in shock. Astonishingly, much of the vitriol stemmed from educated elements with degrees, donning Western attire and espousing progressive ideals, even those living in Canada and the US proudly proclaiming an awakening - ‘shaoor aa gya hai’. However, amidst this supposed enlightenment, the essence of civilised dissent was interred in the graveyard of animosity and hate. It is imperative to recognise that while individuals are entitled to political beliefs, expressing them in a manner that upholds respect and rational discourse is paramount. The descent into vitriol and aggression only widened divides and eroded the society’s ethics and values. Navigating the complex landscape of politics, let us remember the values of civility, understanding, and mutual respect that underpin a healthy democratic society.
One may dislike the message, yet it is imperative not to assail the messenger. Disagreement with an opponent does not warrant the condemnation of their choices. Regrettably, I observed so-called ‘educated’ individuals resorting to unacceptable behaviour on Facebook, with crude name-calling, harassment, and obscene language against opponents. With no second thought, I promptly removed such individuals from my circle. Moreover, what grounds does one have to consistently assert their infallibility and denounce others as wrong? Lines have to be drawn somewhere. No individual should be vilified for their affiliation with an opposing party. The fundamental principles of democracy hinge upon the respect for human rights and basic freedoms; without them, democracy may appear compromised. Elections serve as the conduit, but active yet democratic participation of citizens remains paramount. Once personal biases morph into tyrannical tendencies, the essence of democracy perishes. Silencing the voices of opponents through vitriolic abuse is antithetical to democratic values.
Democracy embodies the principle of majority rule, yet it equally safeguards the rights of minorities against marginalisation or domination. In a truly democratic framework for democracy to thrive, openness and diversity of thought is vital and rights of all citizens stand on equal footing. The vitality of democracy hinges upon fostering openness and embracing diversity of thought. While Pakistan may not overtly exhibit authoritarian rule, even amid recurring doubts and accusations of electoral misconduct and rigging, elections serve as crucial exercises or dress rehearsals for the advancement of democracy. Nonetheless, it is imperative that citizens have access to multiple candidates representing diverse political parties. The notion that a singular party could represent the preferences of millions of people, irrespective of the sentiments of its supporters, contradicts the essence of democracy. The hegemonic stance of a single party portends a despotic future for the populace, presenting an unrealistic ambition for any political entity to aspire to dominate an entire nation. Democracy does not function that way. Not even prophets, saints, and revered figures throughout history could realise such lofty goals. Despite the fervent preaching of prophets, the majority did not invariably follow the message of God. How then can any contemporary leader assert to represent the entirety of the Pakistani populace? It is foolish, to say the least, for a political leader or their adherents to presume that twenty-two crore citizens would unequivocally endorse one single party. Such irrational and irresponsible mindset only exacerbated societal polarisation.
The tether of tolerance is stretched so taut that minor disagreements escalate into volatile altercations, verbal abuse, and the end of friendships. Overemphasising the shortcomings and faults of adversaries and exaggerating real or imagined accomplishments of one’s own leader only deepened conflicts. Poisonous propaganda inundates us daily, stifling any potential for meaningful discourse. Many individuals not only unquestioningly accept dubious social media posts but also promptly share them without verification. The indiscriminate forwarding of every post within groups intensifies the issue. In certain instances, individuals stooped to repugnant personal attacks on candidates, disgracefully unearthing real or rumoured unsavoury aspects of politicians’ murky pasts. They expected to score points and win the argument, but only caused a disgraced unpleasantness. In reality, the personal information circulating is to a great extent based on hearsay and rumours, as few individuals have first-hand knowledge of those matters. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the gossipmonger was present as an eyewitness to the events in question. Chances are he or she was not.
Every citizen possesses the right to vote, a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. However, citizens also have the constitutional duty to adhere to democratic norms and principles. Every vote is valuable, and there cannot be discrimination based on affiliations. The term democracy finds its roots in the ancient Greek word demokratia, meaning ‘rule by the people.’ It does not prescribe the worship of a single party or ideology. Pericles, the revered statesman of Ancient Athens, pioneered the world’s first known democracy, granting every free Athenian the right to vote. Central to the sustenance of democracy is the acceptance of election outcomes. Regrettably, within our society, a detrimental trend has emerged wherein some refuse to acknowledge election results, irrespective of their legitimacy. None of that behaviour has been conducive for the society’s welfare. The propagation of vitriolic attacks by intolerant supporters only serves to exacerbate the chaos, posing a significant obstacle to societal well-being.
Another disconcerting trend is the proliferation of sensationalist TV talk shows, characterised by exaggerated rhetoric. While global think tanks and scholars exercise caution in passing judgments, the prevailing atmosphere in Pakistan’s public discourse sees individuals from mediocre backgrounds engaging in unbridled commentary, spouting pedestrian verdicts that stem from mei samajhta hoon… as if their domains are Harvard, Columbia, Cambridge, and Oxford, leaving the populace bewildered and confused.
The roots of this animosity cannot be attributed to a singular cause; rather, a myriad of factors contributes to this societal malaise. Proficiency in English does not inherently denote education; true enlightenment emanates from a cultivated intellect. Genuine ‘shaoor’ would manifest if individuals engaged in intellectually stimulating discussions devoid of personal attacks. Furthermore, fostering a culture of patience and tolerance towards differing viewpoints is paramount for the advancement of a genuinely civilised society, one where discourse supersedes hostility and understanding prevails over confrontation.
Zia Gurchani is a columnist, political analyst, and author of ‘In the Ruins of Solitude’. He can be reached at X – @Ziagurchani
