Daily Times

Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar denies any wrongdoing and refuses to apologise for using unparliamentarily language. In an attempt to handle the situation, Pervaiz Rashid apologised to the opposition members on behalf of Chaudhry Nisar. Ironically, the PTI was most vocal in demanding an apology when, in April 2013, the PTI chairman, Imran Khan, refused to tender an apology in the contempt of court case. Khan had said that he would not back down from his stance till his last breath and would not apologise even if he were declared ‘ineligible’ and sent to jail. Overseas, Indians are demanding an unconditional apology from the US government over the arrest of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade in New York. A kind of historical amnesia often serves nationalistic interests. In 2005, Turkey put on trial the nation’s best-known novelist, Orhan Pamuk, for insulting ‘Turkishness’. His offence was to point out to a Swiss newspaper his country’s refusal to confront its systematic murder of a million Armenians in 1915, the century’s first genocide.

Our mania for apology stems from a radical sort of mindset and the belief: who are we to apologise? We assume, I would write, something like absolute validity for our personal values, which gives us a sense of moral superiority to belittle others, which is utterly unjustified. In 2005, the US Senate formally apologised for something that it had not done — “make lynching a federal crime”. One would imagine if the US or any other government began apologising not only for sins of commission but for those of omission it would set an infinite regress of culpability. True enough, no doubt, but one of how many?

Statement of regret must be delivered with sincerity for an apology to be effective. Pervaiz Rashid’s apology did not mention the inappropriateness of the personal attack, given the interior minister was also quite able to apologise himself. The information minister’s statement might have sounded like an apology to his own ears but to most people it did not. The question is, why? Because the expression of empathy found to be most effective to whom the apology is being offered was lacking. It might sound as though the science of apologies is well developed but, in fact, the opposite is true.

I would never denigrate any civilised response of anyone for the harm he may have done or misbehaviour he may have engaged in. However, apologies offered by the information minister to their contemporaries for actions taken by his senior minister strike me as vacuous and just a formality. The expression and empathy eliciting apology was missing, in varying degree, pathetic, of course, but then our parliamentary history is filled with a few such others and it is equally embarrassing.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word. One of the first things we are taught to say as children is, I’m sorry, yet some adults refuse to apologise even when they are clearly in the wrong. The question is, why? Some people find it so hard to apologise that getting them to admit to even the smallest wrongdoing involves a major battle and often a losing one. Although we might perceive the reluctance of non-apologists as simple defensiveness or pride, a far deeper psychological dynamic would describe them as fragile egoists. Refusing to apologise often reflects an individual’s efforts to protect his fragile sense of self.

Apologies can vary greatly in their significance. When non-apologists bump into someone in a crowd, they might mumble a quick ‘I am sorry’ without giving it another thought. But the same person arguing in parliament about his co-parliamentarians might state the word “tamasha” (drama) only to find out that he was unreasonable and wrong, and then adamantly refuse to apologise using excuses. Similarly, when our actions or inactions cause someone actual harm, real emotional distress, or significant inconvenience, most of us would quickly offer a sincere apology, both because one is rational and because it is the best way to express forgiveness and alleviate the guilt we feel. But here too, non-apologists typically use excuses and denial to shirk their responsibility.

or non-apologists, to accept the wrong carries psychological conflict that runs far deeper than the words themselves imply, as it exposes fundamental fears that they either consciously or unconsciously are desperately seeking to avoid. Admissions of wrongdoing are incredibly threatening for non-apologists because they have trouble separating their actions from their character. If they did something bad, they must be bad people; if they were neglectful, they must be fundamentally selfish and uncaring; if they were wrong, they must be ignorant or stupid, etc. Therefore, apologies represent a major threat to their basic sense of identity and self-esteem. Apologising might open the door to guilt for most of us, but for non-apologists, it can open the door to shame instead. While guilt makes us feel bad about our actions, shame makes them feel more powerless than who they are, which makes shame a far more toxic emotion than guilt. Non-apologists fear that by apologising they would assume full responsibility and relieve the other party of any culpability.

While most would consider apologies as opportunities to resolve interpersonal conflict, non-apologists fear their apology will hurt their image and promulgate the conflict. Once they admit to one wrongdoing, surely the others will jump at the opportunity to build on all the previous offences for which they refused to apologise as well.

By refusing to apologise, non-apologists are trying to manage their emotions. They are often comfortable with anger, irritability and emotional distance, and experience emotional closeness and vulnerability to be extremely threatening. They fear that lowering their guard even slightly will make their psychological defences shatter and open the floodgates to a storm of sadness and despair that will ooze out of them, making them powerless to stop it — and they might be correct too! However, they are incorrect in assuming that displaying these deep and pent-up emotions will be traumatic and damaging. Opening up in such a way is often incredibly therapeutic and empowering for them, and it can lead them to experience far deeper emotional closeness and trust towards the other person than they had before, thereby significantly deepening their relationship satisfaction.

When it comes to apologising, the best way to make our apologies effective is to first listen to the sentiments expressed by the offended party and then emphasise the empathy and violation of social norms. By using these ingredients, we are much more likely to apologise effectively the first time around, receive forgiveness from the hurt party, mend any ruptures that might have been created in our relationships and begin to rebuild trust. The importance of apology as the acknowledgement of intellectual injury is familiar to some but not many. The act of apology represents one of the core reparative opportunities in damaged relations but it is not easy.

The writer is a member of the Diplomate American Board of Medical Psychotherapists, a fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Dip.Soc Studies, member Int’l Association of Forensic Criminologists, associate professor Psychiatry and consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at the Huntercombe Group United Kingdom. He can be reached at fawad_shifa@yahoo.com