The illusion of debate

If we use lively talk shows and the ceaseless discussions on political events over social media as a gauge, we would imagine that we are a free people living in an open society.

Over the past few months, the debates that we are hearing have widened and gained momentum with the uncertainties of national politics; the upcoming elections; the question of the Senate polls; the role of various institutions in these events; episodes such as the brutal rape and murder of Zainab in Kasur; and even Malala Yousafzai’s decision to participate in a promotional event for an Indian film, bringing forward a storm of opinions and arguments.

But is all this really a façade? Are we truly able to hold a discourse on matters which lie outside a predefined spectrum? Is the illusion of debate simply a means to keep us occupied, content and locked into the belief that we are a free people?

Noam Chomsky, among other thinkers, has put forward the argument that through the control of the media and other forums by giant corporate interests, the spectrum for debate has, in fact, been deliberately narrowed across the world. At the same time, a lively debate is especially created within a small space to keep us content, happy and locked into the belief that we are able to put forward all kinds of ideas and views without any form of external control. Like hamsters spinning on wheels in their cages, we are kept content.

Let’s consider the areas that exist as black holes in our society. These are vacuums that a large number of people don’t even realise exist. There are no discussions, debates and talk shows that address these areas. A few of these ‘black holes’ include various leftist ideologies; capital punishment; the situation in Balochistan; the questioning of beliefs on religion; marital rape; reproductive rights; and even notions that women have ownership over their own lives in terms of what they wear and where they go.

As time goes by, countless other issues have come together to form larger vacuums. In the 1960s and 1970s, socialism was a perfectly acceptable idea, with student groups on university campuses holding it up as an ideal. Since then – and notably after the crackdowns of the 1980s – it has slipped into the realm of ideas that are considered to be irreligious and, therefore, immoral or unacceptable.

Even the land reforms that our country so desperately needs to resolve its economic disparities are hardly ever discussed. It should, in fact, form the centre of debate in a society that has seen the income gap widen from one decade to the next. There are, of course, other taboos that all newsrooms are aware of and stay away from because they recognise that if they deviate from making this ‘choice’, more coercive pressures will immediately be exerted.

We desperately need to widen the sphere of discussion. One of the reasons why discussions and the high-pitched arguments that we hear over television – and, to a considerable extent, over social media – have become so meaningless is because they only exist within predefined parameters. No one steers outside these tightly drawn lines. The consequences are visible in many forms.

Our mainstream political parties are all far more similar now than they were ever before. Their manifestoes, for the most part, mirror each other. There is little scope for diversion and real difference. When arguments take place, they do not involve policies or matters that directly impact the people. Instead, they involve conspiracy theories; tensions between institutions and within parties themselves; turmoil within the country, which arises not from an ideological divide but from a quest for power; and social issues that fall within the predefined spectrum. Issues such as incest, which lie perhaps at the very edges of the lines that are drawn up, are occasionally mentioned but never delved into at any length or with any sense of passion. We prefer to ignore them.

The same can be said about capital punishment. Following the death of Zainab and now the reported arrested of her killer – a Sunni and not an Ahmadi as her parents had feared – there has been much talk of public executions, public lashings and castration. The figures that have emerged from groups engaged in serious research, such as the Justice Project Pakistan, prove that there is no correlation between capital punishment and a reduction in crime rate.

Out of the 465 executions carried out in the country since the moratorium on the death penalty was lifted in 2015, 83 percent took place in Punjab. Despite the spate of hangings, only a 9.7 percent decline in the murder rate has been observed in the province. In Sindh, where only 18 executions took place, the murder rate fell by 25 percent. There needs to be a more cohesive discussion about these facts.

We also appear to have been given an uncontrolled platform on which to discuss issues related to blasphemy. The tragic murder of a college principal in Charsadda by a grade 12 student whom he had rebuked for failing to attend college for three days and instead participating in the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan’s rally at Faizabad, is an example of this. The teenager, who shot the highly-respected teacher six times, has said that he has no remorse.

The focus of most reportage on the incident has been on the character of the victim Sareer Ahmed: the fact that he held a degree in Islamic Studies; was a devout Muslim; and a Hafiz-e-Quran.

The notion that a point-blank shooting would be considered a terrible crime, regardless of the victim’s personal behaviour or the question of whether he had indeed committed something akin to blasphemy, has not been widely discussed. After all, the judicial system exists to determine guilt.

More often than not in blasphemy cases, we try to predetermine whether blasphemy has been committed – as was the case with Mashal Khan – as if to somehow justify murder if there is some evidence of behaviour that veers outside the box. This is what happened with Salmaan Taseer. The discussion on permissible actions in society need to be taken much further at a time when the limits that are laid down by the law of the land and the constitution are being stretched thinner and thinner.

Although these ‘no-go zones’ exist as far as our discourse goes, people are given the impression that almost everything is open for argument. This illusion is created through talk shows in which guests – and sometimes hosts – are permitted to use derogatory and sometimes abusive language against their opponents and repeatedly engage in venomous debates about the same issues.

Issues of corruption –and now rape – are among the current favourite topics. The flavour could change over time. But the boundaries that lay down what can be discussed will remain largely unaltered. Ideology, for instance, is hardly brought up, even though it should be the primary focus of all political parties and of analysts.

When debate has no meaning, it is merely a collection of words hurled into an empty space. This is what we are witnessing today. The consequences of failing to bring other issues into the mainstream could prove to be extremely damaging to an increasingly directionless society in the future.

The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor.

Email: kamilahyat@hotmail.com