The latest reaction of the political parties against the no-confidence motion proves that violence has become a hallmark of Pakistani society. Take the case of Minister of Information Fawad Chaudhry’s tweet on March 14, 2022. Referring to the no-confidence voting in the parliament, he tweeted, the MNAs will pass through a large PTI gathering of 10 lac at the D-Chowk, and will return through the same gathering as well. In the same spirit, Special Assistant to PM Shahbaz Gill said the same day that the pictures of “traitors” will be displayed on the walls, and Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi warned that the PTI workers would surround the homes of defectors.
Further, the barging in of the Jamiat-ul-Ulama-e-Islam activists of Ansarul Islam into the Parliament Lodges is another example of unnecessary aggression. Heavy contingents of police commandos and other law enforcement agencies gathered around the Lodges under the command of DIG (Operations).
When a shove has to be made from a push, our political leaders do not shy away from resorting to non-democratic ways of achieving their ends. This is exemplary of Pakistan’s society in general.
Since the submission of the no-confidence motion on March 8, actions and statements by politicians have been drenched in rage and anger. The language used by them has become indecent. This aggression, before it turns into violence, must be deescalated.
It must be understand that a response to an argument must be rational. If one finds himself or herself at a loss of a reply, it does not merit a violent response or an attack on the person presenting the argument. No rational debate ends at one point in time. Responses take time to be devised and presented. They must not be pushed all at once if a democratic culture of arguments and counter-arguments is to be promoted.
However, violence as a means to assert oneself is not only endemic at the national level of politics and statecraft. In highly reputed schools, teachers have a tendency to resort to violent means to assert themselves. The author of this current argument has personally experienced violence at the hands of teachers, only because the teachers were not able to furnish a rational argument in response to his views-opinions-arguments.
The same holds true for parents, who resort to violence if children speak their minds.
Our politicians, parents and teachers have shown themselves to be purveyors of organized violence. Organized violence and militarism is emblematic of radicalised societies like Pakistan. If violence at such an organized level is practised by pseudo-democratic collectives, it does not bode well for the long-term stability of the polity.
Violence must be shunned by all and sundry. Violent tendencies and their roots in Pakistani society need to be dug out through a conscious effort for the propagation of rational argumentation as a way to solve problems and establish credence. Roots of violence can be traced to other factors grounded in human nature, but that is not the point of concern here. What matters is that we as a nation need to collectively shun violence and stand against its use by others. We also need to withdraw our support from those groups which resort to organized violence as a means to achieve democratic ends.
Democratic ends can only be achieved through democratic means. Non-democratic ways can never yield democratic ends. Democracy reaches its apogee by the conscious practise of rational argumentation. The practise of rational argumentation ends where violence comes in as a means for the propagation of a certain worldview. There is a false causality here, which sows more discord and chaos. It can never be used to create more order. It is only by reducing disorder that more order can be maintained. Violence as a means to achieve democratic ends suffers from an inherent contradiction which renders the whole premise of achieving a democratic end, false. It violates the rationality that is so central to the establishment of a democratic order.
If only we could get our heads around this basic fact, we would find ourselves much better off.
Further, the barging in of the Jamiat-ul-Ulama-e-Islam activists of Ansarul Islam into the Parliament Lodges is another example of unnecessary aggression. Heavy contingents of police commandos and other law enforcement agencies gathered around the Lodges under the command of DIG (Operations).
When a shove has to be made from a push, our political leaders do not shy away from resorting to non-democratic ways of achieving their ends. This is exemplary of Pakistan’s society in general.
Since the submission of the no-confidence motion on March 8, actions and statements by politicians have been drenched in rage and anger. The language used by them has become indecent. This aggression, before it turns into violence, must be deescalated.
Since the submission of the no-confidence motion on March 8, actions and statements by politicians have been drenched in rage and anger. The language used by them has become indecent. This aggression, before it turns into violence, must be deescalated.
It must be understand that a response to an argument must be rational. If one finds himself or herself at a loss of a reply, it does not merit a violent response or an attack on the person presenting the argument. No rational debate ends at one point in time. Responses take time to be devised and presented. They must not be pushed all at once if a democratic culture of arguments and counter-arguments is to be promoted.
However, violence as a means to assert oneself is not only endemic at the national level of politics and statecraft. In highly reputed schools, teachers have a tendency to resort to violent means to assert themselves. The author of this current argument has personally experienced violence at the hands of teachers, only because the teachers were not able to furnish a rational argument in response to his views-opinions-arguments.
The same holds true for parents, who resort to violence if children speak their minds.
Our politicians, parents and teachers have shown themselves to be purveyors of organized violence. Organized violence and militarism is emblematic of radicalised societies like Pakistan. If violence at such an organized level is practised by pseudo-democratic collectives, it does not bode well for the long-term stability of the polity.
Violence must be shunned by all and sundry. Violent tendencies and their roots in Pakistani society need to be dug out through a conscious effort for the propagation of rational argumentation as a way to solve problems and establish credence. Roots of violence can be traced to other factors grounded in human nature, but that is not the point of concern here. What matters is that we as a nation need to collectively shun violence and stand against its use by others. We also need to withdraw our support from those groups which resort to organized violence as a means to achieve democratic ends.
Democratic ends can only be achieved through democratic means. Non-democratic ways can never yield democratic ends. Democracy reaches its apogee by the conscious practise of rational argumentation. The practise of rational argumentation ends where violence comes in as a means for the propagation of a certain worldview. There is a false causality here, which sows more discord and chaos. It can never be used to create more order. It is only by reducing disorder that more order can be maintained. Violence as a means to achieve democratic ends suffers from an inherent contradiction which renders the whole premise of achieving a democratic end, false. It violates the rationality that is so central to the establishment of a democratic order.
If only we could get our heads around this basic fact, we would find ourselves much better off.