Daily Times

The strength of any progressive civil society stems from its ability to actively engage, critique and question the existing order around them. Societies in history have evolved through this very experience of internal debate and dispute that promotes a ‘culture of questioning.’ The power of such an action is what promotes growth of intellectual thought — a crucial ingredient for tolerance, mutual respect and acceptance for differences.

The Copenhagen School of Security Studies — a branch of academic thought originating from international relations places particular emphasis on the social aspects of the concept of security. The distinguished theorist Ole Waever who devised the concept of securitisation explores the notion of security as a speech act — this idea that the minute a subject is discussed in terms of ‘security,’ the social actor has successfully moved the debate to the realm of national security (an area de-jure under the control of the State). This theory is useful in understanding how by ‘securitising’ dissent — the State bars citizens from the right to question official policy, as it is now classified within the domain of ‘national security’ or preserving the sanctity of the state. This concept particularly underscores how the questioning of centres of power are immediately perceived as a threat to the national security power matrix.

Social labelling has long been used as a tool of manipulation to crush dissent. States and state machineries have offensively labelled any group or voice that has challenged the status quo or simply asked any questions that oppose the State’s ideals of what is right, legitimate and normal.

The current political climate in Pakistan is a stellar example of how these very labels are used to deepen existing divisions within society to systematically silence any voices that dare to think — to question what is happening in the country and to hold people in power accountable. If we do not critique and question and hold our own institutions accountable, then the idea of a tolerant Pakistan will remain a mere pipedream. The collective act of offensively labelling any dissent from mainstream narratives is a deeply flawed policy. It seeks to strip the individual of his or her ability to think critically, modelling the masses along the lines of an ‘obedient’ and ‘submissive’ citizen, while promoting the idea that a good patriot is a patriot that passively accepts the status quo.

The current political climate in Pakistan is a stellar example of how these very labels are used to deepen existing divisions within society to systematically silence any voices that dare to think — to question what is happening in the country and to hold people in power accountable

Labelling seeks to disrupt and diverge discussion of valid socio-political issues that demand the attention of civil society, while disempowering humanitarian advocacy or critical thinking of its legitimacy because it is simply ‘anti’ this or that.

Labelling then becomes a suppressive tool not only to silence the challenger but to pave the path for a systematic repression of any individual or party that dares to embark on a similar journey. Perhaps, it is time for Pakistanis, to think about how many of us throw around labels; particularly the terms: anti-Pakistan and anti-State; among a whole host of other favourite ‘antis’ that are routinely propagated.

By engaging in labelling critical dissent as ‘anti-State’ — our people become guilty of self-censoring any voices that demand accountability. This tactic used by governments, corporations and powerful structures seeks to entrench the existing void of accountability to safeguard their personal interests. Stigmas and social labels henceforth become popular manipulative tools to ‘control’ and ‘regulate’ public behaviour. In Noam Chomsky’s words to ‘manufacture consent’ with the aim to play on the ordinary public’s emotions to persuade them to believe that those who criticize the power elite are traitors, often equating the demand for answers with disloyalty to the ‘idea of Pakistan.’ Indeed a dangerous precedent is being set that carelessly synonymizes intellectual and political dissent with treason.

However, the long-term effects of suppressing dissent are far more consequential for Pakistan’s social and intellectual fabric. Labels and terms fraught with ingrained prejudices attempt to stifle any form of intellectual argument, while depriving society of the critical implements necessary for personal and political development. The suppression of free thought in universities and in public spaces will inevitably further lull the average citizen into a state of being uncritical, unquestioning leading to a state of permanent ignorance. If we deny our citizens the right to dissent, we are effectively enslaving the minds of future generations that are yet to come.

In Howard Zinn’s words, ‘Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, and war, and cruelty.’ To discourage such subservient obedience, genuine discourse and dialogue must be promoted simply by letting our people speak freely without fear of reprisal.

The writer is a researcher at a policy based think tank in Pakistan.

Published in Daily Times, May 17^th 2018.