Of khaki and mufti

Our protests should always be reserved for khakis - who will never learn - rather than democrats, who may improve.

There are two diametrically-opposed ways legislators can act once they are voted into power. They can look at the Constitution as a chain holding them back — its principles ensuring that certain freedoms can never be curtailed no matter how much lawmakers may see the need to legislate them out of existence. Then, there are those who dislike a certain activity and feel their disapproval is enough to institute a ban. Right now, lawmakers which — thanks to an active judiciary — include parliamentarians, bureaucrats and judges, almost all fall squarely in the latter category.

The ban on YouTube, now into its third month, the constant cell phone blockades and the outlawing of late-night mobile phone packages all reflect the desire of our lawmakers to legislate individual morality. Right now, our democrats are not very democratic because they believe that simply being voted into power is enough cause for them to take any action they want, no matter how much it may infringe on our freedom. If shutting off cell phone services makes us 10 per cent safer but 50 per cent less free, then our representatives have decided that is all the justification they need.

There is one main reason why this obvious abridgment of freedom is tolerated by those who would consider themselves democrats. Any criticism of an elected government is seen by these self-appointed guardian of freedoms as an invitation to military rule. This point of view, no matter how absurd it may seem, is based on reality rather than blindness. Military coups have always been justified on the basis of how inept civilian governments are and so are always meant to exist only for a minuscule period of time, until those out of uniform can get their act together. This distant dream, obviously, is never realised and so the army sticks around indefinitely. All this leads us, during the rare moments of democratic rule, to overlook the ways in which civilian governments can be as thoughtless to the rights and freedoms of individuals.

That very same deference to non-military rule leads some to downplay corruption as a vice that is brought up only to enable the army. The plundering of the national exchequer may be a structural problem that can only be fixed over time but pointing out the foibles of individual problems should be the duty of every citizen. Doing so does not mean we crave the iron hand of the military, even as we should be cognisant of the fact that the military uses these allegations to justify its coups.

It can be difficult to maintain the fine line between criticising the dictatorial tendencies of democrats with actually embracing dictatorship. This fine line is one venal the civilian governments take advantage of by painting all its critics as wannabe Napoleons. One possible workaround to this perennial problem is by pointing out, whenever the individualised corruption of democrats is mentioned, the structural corruption that the military takes full advantage of, including stolen land provided at subsidised rates, inordinate benefit schemes and the largest industrial conglomerate in the country.

Certainly, there can be no denying the fact that civilian governments rob us blind and, in individual cases, take away vital freedoms. This is nothing, however, compared to military dictatorships that inaugurate themselves by suspending all rights and sustain their power by considering it their right to take any financial privilege. Both can be criticised but we should always remember which form of government is more worthy of condemnation. Our harshest words and protests should always be reserved for the men in khaki — who will never learn — rather than the democrats, who may someday improve.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 14^th, 2012.