Reductio ad absurdum
The writer has served as Chief Secretary, K-P. He has an MA Hons from Oxford University and is the author of two books of English poetry 'The Dragonfly & Other Poems' and 'Bibi Mubarika and Babur’
A conclusion that doesn’t follow from or is a negation of its premise is an example of reductio ad absurdum, be it in logic or in discourse about democracy. In social constructs such assertions are not only unreasonable but can also pose dangers for attainment of common good in a free, democratic environment.
Two recent political statements are moot: to wit, ‘only animals are neutral’ and ‘amar bil maroof wa nahi anil munkir’. Appearing as harmless affirmations made in the heat of political rhetoric, when analysed, their conclusions do not seem to be what is rationally intended. The risks involved in such assertions are apparent since opinions about political issues may involve appeal to emotions impacting human behaviour in socially negative ways.
These contentions say many things about perceptions regarding what democratic politics is about, conceiving it not as a choice between alternate social, economic and political programmes at promotion of the common good, but as a struggle or contest between cosmic forces of ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’, between ‘ right’ and ‘wrong’.
Where politics is viewed or portrayed as a battle between instruments of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, intolerance, often verging upon violence, is often a natural corollary and every means, fair or foul, to achieve the goal of realising ‘truth’ or ‘the righteous path’ seems justified in the eyes of its believers. Little distinction remains between politics and a holy crusade and jihad. Political adversaries assume the shape of irredeemable non-believers who stand in the way of attainment of piety. Plural democracy becomes a permanent casualty.
An establishment or army, from this perspective, is not supposed to be acting legitimately, if it behaves or acts a-politically or in a politically neutral manner, since it is bound to make a choice between what is alleged to be politically ‘evil’ and ‘good’, between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. An establishment which claims to be neutral, therefore, by not siding with the so-called righteous party, is actually supporting evil and, therefore, must also be opposed by all the forces of good.
The desideratum of such reflection is that the establishment must actively support the only party that is pursuing goodness and keep it in power by all means, constitutional or unconventional, legal or illegal. Only the righteous party deserves to be supported. Army must choose between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ and by definition, since only one party is good, it has no choice but to align itself with the one virtuous party, no matter what its failings.
Implications of such an enclosed worldview, such an exclusionary attitude towards public life and conduct, pose serious consequences for politics and governance in a non-polarised, democratic setting.
From the bowels of certitude of one’s own beliefs, there is serious danger of emerging a passionate psychology of viewing political opponents as epitomes of corruption, challenging the attainment of higher goals.
It is only a small step from opponents being presented as enemies of the common good to being framed in engineered cases of graft. Often a hysterical narrative of the malfeasance of opponents is created, normally discredited and unproved in judicial fora, to camouflage one’s own financial transgressions.
A hyperbolic, frenzied crusade-like campaign is created giving the unreal, one-dimensional impression that by resolving the problem of corruption, mostly aimed at political opponents, all the social and economic predicaments of the polity will be resolved. By doing so, public focus is diverted away from the real issues of economy and society.
Feudalism, economic inequality, the hegemony of the capitalists and super rich, elite capture of power, privilege and influence, the existence of a crass tax exemption culture, extreme backwardness of education and health, unemployment and women disempowerment, the debate surrounding a security and rentier state are issues which deliberately and seldom find emphasis since excitation and not reason is the goal of social agenda.
The feudal, business, bureaucratic and military (in economic terms) elite are rarely mentioned since these very centres of power are companions and supporters of such an agenda.
The example of regional countries equally afflicted by corruption yet making commendable economic progress are not mentioned or avoided. More rather than less democratic accountability as an anti-corruption antidote is discounted.
Hoefstadt had warned that an evangelist anti-corruption narrative can become a dangerous weapon in the hands of populist authoritarians posing great threat to democracy and the rule of law.
Since such attitudes do not partake of social realities but present a manipulated image of facts, the remedies it proffers to social problems are fired by impromptu, passionate, rather than studied, reformative solutions. They tend to appeal to the visceral as opposed to the rational, the passionate and instinctive rather than cognitive and reflective.
In the absence of accomplished, consensual, basic socio-economic structural reforms, the size of the economic pie remains more or less static and with increase in population, incidence of poverty increases. Social frustrations set in soon. Popular passions do not fill hungry mouths.
The consequences of such an attitude towards public life have far more serious implications when such views are consciously cultivated or contrived, aimed at manipulation of public consciousness.
Individual or groups may not actually believe in their own infallibility or certainty but insidiously try nevertheless to influence others to blindly believe in such views or perceptions for ulterior or political ends.
A far more dangerous phenomenon takes place through incessant resort to fake news through social media. People are led not only to accept and internalise such managed opinions and narratives but far more socially harmful is the loss of the capacity to differentiate between facts and fiction in deciding upon issues of common good.
Availability of modern day means of influencing opinion or formation of subjective attitudes provides unparalleled opportunities of such exploitative misuse of psychological tools. What is the role of the state in protecting the innocent, uninitiated from such harmful subversions? What is the role of education in building walls against such manipulations? To what extent can a state regulate this area of activity without impinging upon public and social freedoms and individual rights? These are pertinent issues impinging upon individual rights, freedoms, social emancipation and democracy. No easy, top-down solution exists. The social society must evolve a collective consensus to evolve ground rules to guard and promote the summum bonum.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 12th, 2023.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.