Dissent is the heartbeat of democracy

Each generation must, out of relative obscurity, discover its mission, fulfil it, or betray it: Frantz Fanon

In 399 BC Athens was a fragile, traumatised place. It had just restored democracy as its governing system, after having overcome the 30-year Peloponnesian War and a military coup imposed by Sparta on Athens. Despite returning to democracy, the system that it developed, Athens found it a place that was hyper vigilante, with citizens distrustful of fellow citizens and of the State. Athenians found themselves overly protective of their newly reinstated democracy and a vigilante like mob mentality formed in the city state at the time.

It was in this politically and socially charged and insecure Athens that the son of a sculptor and midwife, named Socrates, became a household name. Socrates was already a well-known philosopher at the time and became even more recognisable with his questioning of the restored governance system. He challenged young Athenians, many of whom were his students, as to why they failed to question their rulers and critiqued them for their blind faith in the system. In doing so he attempted to expose them as foolish and ill-informed of their ruling elite.

For this Socrates was tried in Athens by a jury of his peers on two counts: not believing in the ruling gods and corrupting the youth of Athens. During the trial Socrates compared Athens to a large, powerful horse that had become overconfident and apathetic, while he thought of himself as a small stinging insect that keeps biting the horse to keep it awake. He gained the reputation of being an irritant to the rulers of Athens because he constantly questioned, probed and provoked the youth of Athens why they did not speak up.

After a 10-hour trial in a public court Socrates was found guilty by a jury of his peers, where 501 jurors convicted him and sentenced him to death. His execution caused him to became an immortal figure and he remains one of the most debated and divisive figures of his times, defined now with various different analyses. He is known by some as anti-democratic rejecting the popular vote. Though despite being critical of democracy, he never questioned the legitimacy of the court and implied through its acceptance that the people's court was the correct place to be tried.

Now law students study his trial examining how such a case would be argued in this day and age, and academics take diverse views – ranging from the 399 BC trial personified as an embattled democracy defending itself to Socrates being a scapegoat of an opportunistic prosecutor, authoritarian rulers and a complacent, if not ignorant, citizenry. The one thing in common among all these divergent views is that Socrates was the infamous, consistent and loudest voice of dissent. Socrates became the philosopher that questioned power openly and demanded that others do the same. One does not have to agree with what he believed but one does need to recognise that as a public intellectual he left global citizenry with the invaluable right of the freedom of speech and expression. Socrates' dissent strengthened Athens by challenging power and its complacency.

What the rulers of Athens did not envision in 399 BC can, however, be seen clearly today – that democracy is not a static concept nor is it merely a system in which a periodically set election embodies its representative and transparent foundation. Contrary to this belief, democracy is actually a constantly evolving set of ideas that requires diverse views, wider participation and more opinions. And requires this all of the time.

So what can we learn from Athens? Unfortunately for us, with each passing year, Pakistan seems to be slipping away from any comprehension that power can be challenged to bring about greater good.

In Balochistan, from the larger issues of political discontent (in a province that is mineral-rich yet its natural resources are exploited for use and benefit elsewhere) to basic educational needs where a silent, respectful protest by a public library required weeks of students sitting outside the closed building before the Chief Minister paid any attention to the matter, we see neglect and a crackdown on critique.

Many say Pakistan is ungovernable and to that the solution put forward from some quarters is less democracy and more bureaucracy. More centralised power and less federation. More provinces yet less representation.

Yet criticism is not a justification for less democracy, but more of it – more participation, more scrutiny, more diverse voices, more collective decision-making. So, if new provinces are to be formed, let's begin the debate in the national and provincial assemblies as the Constitution requires of us. Besides, political decisions – especially on issues of historical entities like provinces to which people have a deep attachment of identity and belonging – require thorough due process. Anything short of this would open the floodgates of discontent and disharmony in an already simmering and violent federation.

At every turn dissent has become dangerous. With every law used in the anti-terrorism courts against political voices that demand to know where missing loved ones are to lawyers that represent them, dissent is treated with the utmost contempt from the corridors of power. We dare not speak when the likes of Sheema Kermani are manhandled by the police, or when students seeking better education and health facilities are carried away by authorities. In our restored yet fragile democracy, like Athens many centuries ago, citizens are fearful, anxious and distrustful of the system yet expressing dissent is now the new stain on one's patriotic credentials.

With the recent recognition on the world stage after being labelled as mature and serious peacemakers between Iran and the United States, one would think our leaders have become more secure, more resilient to take criticism, more ready to engage with voices of genuine concern. Instead, the global spotlight seems to have coincided with growing pressure on dissenting voices.

Contrary to what the ruling elite believe, the function of dissent is not to discredit democracy but to improve it, renew it and make it so that it serves all people, and not just the established status quo.

Happy birthday Pakistan! The greatest patriotic gift I hope you receive is open and bold dissent because it will strengthen you, and us.