It is heartening to see that at least someone understands how democracy ought to work. Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Athar Minallah has stood up in defence of our collective right to our own opinions and for that he must be lauded.
Of late, those at the helm of affairs in our country have been finding it really hard to resist the allure of controlling certain speech on the Internet. Between paranoia and wider global attitudes moving away from human rights, our leadership has come to see social media as a disruptive force to its development project. The social media rules recently notified are simply the latest manifestation of this shift in worldview, and in that respect, they are hardly surprising.
What is surprising, however, is to see some pushback from one of our judicial fraternity’s senior figures. Responding to a petition challenging the new rules, the IHC chief justice made it clear: discouraging criticism will discourage accountability and doing so in this century would be courting disaster. For democracy, as much as many of our own ‘democrats’ fail to see, thrives on differences in opinion.
Whether or not our hearts are clear and our intentions pure, it is only human to want our own way by any means necessary. But doing so in matters of governance has more often than not backfired. Countless political thinkers and philosophers have spilled much ink cautioning against this temptation. Ancient Chinese sage Lao Tzu perhaps put it best: the best rulers are scarcely known by their subjects and the worst have no faith in them. It is only natural for that lack of faith to be reciprocated.
While maintaining order and harmony is one of the most vital responsibilities any government or leadership has, it must not be confused with absolute control. Limiting space for dissent may foster a sense of calm for those who govern, but that is little more than a self-imposed blind spot. It would be much more productive to focus on the conditions that prompt criticism rather than restricting channels for feedback.
