It was deeply ironical to hear Rawalpindi's famous politician Sheikh Rashid Ahmed complain about intelligence sleuths chasing his vehicle into Islamabad from Rawalpindi. He was talking to the media persons after condoling with the family of slain journalist Arshad Sharif. “Look at what is happening......There are several intelligence vehicles who chased me into Islamabad......this is tyranny......this is unfair”, he told the media.
Sheikh Rashid is that kind of political leader—he used to act as a cheerleader of intelligence services when they used to curb political dissent during the four years rule of Imran Khan. He used to make fun of political opponents who were at the forefront of expressing political dissent with the official state narrative. He used to laugh and cut jokes about those who are languishing in Pakistani prisons just because they don’t agree with the state or the government of time politically. Not for a moment it crossed the mind of people like Sheikh Rashid that one day he would be at the receiving end. What Sheikh Rashid did, while in power, was no exceptional behavior—he had a long list of predecessors during the last 75 years of this country’s existence. I am sure he has a successor in this government and in the subsequent government that will come into power in the years ahead.
There is absolutely no concept of parliamentary democracy without dissent—or at least political dissent. The basic philosophy of political dissent requires that we have a right to disagree with the dominant political establishment, as well as the prevailing political, social, religious and cultural norms and beliefs. History of human civilization tells us that only those societies have achieved material progress which have amongst them powerful dissenters.
Amid the current political conflicts and corresponding polemics, we have lost sight of what parliamentary democracy aims to achieve. It is no use demonizing Sheikh Rashid Ahmed as he epitomizes a typical Pakistani political leader devoid of any sympathy for political dissent or the dissenters—or devoid of any understanding of what political dissent is aimed at achieving. In a society where political voices expressing dissent are labelled as fifth columnists, it is very difficult for the idea that political dissent ensures freedom, to attain the status of norm.
But here we have a perenniel problem, which a typical Pakistani politician realizes once he is in opposition. If you are in the opposition, you have a basic need to dissent with the government in power. Which you find difficult if you are continuously chased, harassed, eavesdropped and are under active surveillance. Let’s be fair to Sheikh Rashid after years as a cheerleader of intelligence agencies when they were harassing his opponents; he is now at the receiving end of what intelligence agencies do to those whom they consider to be the political opponents of powers that be.
But a typical Pakistan politician never learns from mistakes—they become cheerleaders of state machinery when they are in power and pretend to be Nelson Mandala when they are in opposition. The lesson of history is that the modern state in our region, since its very inception, has always indulged in political oppression. The state we inherited at the time of independence hardly changed its character and traits during the last 75s years. In such a situation freedom to exercise the right of political dissent is not luxury; it is a basic requirement upon which our whole political edifice should rest. Without a legal, constitutional and norm-based mechanism to ensure the right of political dissent our system could turn violent in a big way.
I would like to set the record straight—A journalist who openly and persistently mocks political dissent doesn’t deserve to be called a champion of political and media freedoms.
Sheikh Rashid was standing outside the residence of slain journalist, Arshad Sharif who was brutally killed by Kenyan police in what appeared to be a fake encounter. Sheikh Rashid was full of praise for Arshad Sharif and was shouting at the top of his lungs that the slain journalist was a champion of freedom of expression.
I had closely watched Arshad Sharif talk shows for quite some time and I am of well-considered opinion that his program could be described as a forum where political dissent was mocked and laughed at. Imran Khan’s four years in power was the period when the military establishment was in full gear against those whom they consider fifth columnists and who could easily be described as political dissenters.
I firmly believe in the axiom that there is no controversy after death. But here I would like to set the record straight—A journalist who openly and persistently mocks political dissent doesn’t deserve to be called a champion of political and media freedoms.
Pakistani journalism has a strong and visible streak of blurring the line between the murky world of intelligence and espionage on the one hand and journalism and media on the other. We always had journalists who never set clear boundaries. The results therefore comprise of sensationalism, no-hold-bar accusations to defame everyone whom the spymasters consider enemy of the state and an avalanche of single sourced stories. Across the globe, media outlets and editors tell their reporters that single source stories are generally unreliable and unpublishable. Arshad Sharif touched the peak of his career when the military establishment and intelligence agencies of this country were chasing the “enemies of the state” --harassing them in the process and putting them behind bars. In this situation Sharif came out with a large number of single sourced stories.
But I would still say that it was his right—a right which the principle of freedom to dissent ensures. It is not necessary that one agrees with political dissent or its political message. The basic philosophy is best exemplified by Voliaire’s—a Western philosopher, saying, “I don’t agree with what you say but I will fight to the last for your right to say it."
A political system which doesn’t allow political dissent is bound to turn violent.