Against ‘security theatre’

‘Security theatre’ exists only to make us feel that the government is doing something to protect us.

Every time the government justifies its actions on the grounds of national security, watch out: you are facing a looming threat and the likely perpetrator is the government itself. When the spectre of terrorism — a very real and terrifying phenomenon — is raised, we have little choice but to acquiesce to the demands of the police state. ‘Security theatre’, which is to actual security what Twenty20 is to Test cricket — a mere shadow of the real thing — exists only to make us feel that the government is doing something to protect us.

The government’s recent go-to tactic of shutting off cell phone service on important religious occasions, when the threat of militant attacks is higher, is the perfect illustration of security as an illusion. Sure, this makes it harder for terrorists to communicate with one another but this is a problem which can easily be overcome by those who are determined enough. The people it truly affects is every other Pakistani who may not have any alternative means of communication. These are the people caught in accidents who need to call for help, those who just want to go about their everyday business without being unduly hindered by the state. The same applies to the motorcycle bans. Militants can easily get their hands on another form of transportation; others who ride motorcycles aren’t going to be able to obtain a different form of vehicular transport on one day’s notice.

The problem with ‘security theatre’, apart from the ridiculous burden it places on citizens, is that it can never truly backfire on the government. If there is no terrorist attack when these restrictions are in place then, look, the government’s actions worked. If we do suffer an attack, then that is taken as solid proof that even more needs to do be done. Thus, the security state keeps expanding, greedily gorging on our freedom to peacefully get about our day. Think of how quickly we’ve accepted being hounded at airports and harassed at checkpoints.

That there is no meaningful check on the power of the state to constantly take away what should be our rights is entirely due to us not having any rights in the first place. The Constitution may guarantee us plenty of rights but then it immediately negates those rights by carving out caveats, like for the maintenance of public order. Any human right that can be so easily snuffed out by vague terms is no human right at all.

With the Constitution giving the government cover for its actions, the only hope is in having an active, as opposed to activist, judiciary that defines nebulous terms like ‘public order’ and ‘national security’ in the strictest manner possible. Even then, the rights of all citizens are not equally applied. The Sindh High Court, for example, found the motorcycle ban unjustified but has had nothing to say on the cell phone ban. The Balochistan High Court had no problem with the motorcycle ban and so residents of Quetta were left without their bikes while those in Karachi could ride merrily. If we are to have any clarity on exactly how far the government can go in denying us basic rights, it may require a judgment from the Supreme Court.

Till then, our only play is to make as much noise as possible about every government intrusion into our lives. A state that gets acquiesce of the citizens it is meant to serve will only end up tightening the noose. A population that is fearful and complies with the actions of its government is not one that will be getting its freedom any time soon.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 23^rd, 2012.