“Freedom of opinion can only exist when the government thinks itself secure”—Bertrand Russell
Under Article 16 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (“the Constitution”), a fundamental right of the citizens is the freedom to assemble. It says: “Every citizen shall have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order.”
Members of a free nation have the authority to express their indignation over anything that hurts their sentiments, whether impelled by the government, a local, or an international event. To protest is to vent feelings, and there are innumerable examples of public demonstrations that, despite their huge numbers, have been highly peaceful.
The early ones started in 1913 during the Suffrage Parade in the United States of America, which represented over 5,000 women demanding the right to equal political participation. In 1930 in India, the Salt March by Mahatma Gandhi covered over 280 miles towards the sea to pick a handful of salt, only because the British government had imposed a sales tax—“it remained a major contentious issue throughout the period of British rule of the Subcontinent”.
In the late 1960s, Cesar Chavez led a five-year strike in Delano, California, that brought together over two thousand farmers, demanding minimum wages, especially for underpaid and overworked Filipino farm workers. Its impact was that more than 17 million Americans boycotted California grapes, thus enabling unions to secure better wages and facilities for farm workers. In Cesar’s words: “I am convinced that the truest act of courage, the strongest act of humanity, is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally non-violent struggle for justice.”
Even the peaceful solitary action of one person can revolutionise conditions. Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat to a white passenger on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, led to the Supreme Court’s decision a year later, in 1956, declaring segregation on public buses unconstitutional.
Estonia, a country with just 1.5 million people, regained its independence from Soviet rule in 1991 after 100,000 Estonians in 1988 gathered for five nights singing in protest, popularly known as the Singing Revolution. For this ferociously independent nation, music and singing were means to preserve their culture while countering invasions from Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and the Soviets.
Only the insecure in power become terrified at such outbursts, because this insecurity is on account of lack of self-confidence, self-doubt, and extreme difficulty in accepting criticism
These examples prove that if there is commitment to one’s cause, patience, sensibility, and best of all, a peaceful approach, then there cannot be any misgivings that the objective will be achieved. Violence, on the other hand, whether caused by protestors, government functionaries, or at the behest of agent provocateurs, may lead to diffusing the entire purpose of dissent, besides causing unspeakable damage to property, serious injuries, disability, and even death.
The concept of protest stems from uneasiness, anxiety, dissatisfaction, and a host of negative emotions that propel people into raising their voices and showing their concern. Yes, this can be politically motivated, but if the polity of a nation is based on sound principles, governments need not fear displacement at the behest of a crowd of protestors. Only the insecure in power become terrified at such outbursts, because this insecurity is on account of lack of self-confidence, self-doubt, and extreme difficulty in accepting criticism.
When people or their governments are free from danger, threat, or harm, they are essentially considered to be secure. The relationship between the two must be of a nature that invokes confidence in one another’s decisions. So, when the public raises flags of doubt, a sane government does not throw tear gas at the crowd but reconsiders its own choices.
Similarly, once the people have made themselves clear, they leave the rest in the hands of the authorities and step back. At least this kind of exercise exists where there is civility. No normal person, but only the insecure, burns down his own home when engulfed with misery.
The problem with some countries is not external threats but the fear of adversaries within their midst. Perhaps this is the biggest source of insecurity, where one is unable to distinguish between friend and foe. This is also the main reason why governments crack down harshly on protestors, even when they are peaceful and apolitical. The slightest indication of unrest can become a looming disaster for insecure governments; therefore, they feel compelled to suppress even rational voices.
The most plausible way out is a political system that is based on fundamental human rights, which calls for a shift from merely protecting state frontiers to protecting the interests of the individuals residing within them. When the focus is on the betterment of people, uplifting their standards of living, and providing them with security in terms of food, health, shelter, and employment, how can there be a possibility of an uprising from within?
“In essence, security is about creating and maintaining conditions where individuals, groups, or systems can function safely, develop, and achieve their potential, free from significant harm or risk.” (AI-generated)
Astoundingly, even artificial intelligence understands how significant security is for the peace and prosperity of both nations and states.