One of the oldest fundamental rights of a human being was the right to disagree, or the right to dissent. Many in Pakistan, owing to state propaganda and constant indoctrination, fail to understand what ‘dissent’ truly means. Many have taken it to be synonymous with the word ‘sedition’ - thus anybody that talks about dissent is immediately threatened with Article 6, ‘High treason’.
Black’s Law Dictionary describes dissent as:
Contrariety of opinion; refusal to agree with something already stated or adjudged or to an act previously performed.”
Dissent can also be described as the right to disagree, which is stated in this old Latin phrase ‘Etiam si omnes ego non’ which translates to ‘Even if all others, not I’. The concept of dissent or disagreement is an age-old fundamental right and it is a sub-branch of the fundamental right called ‘Freedom of Speech’ which is enshrined in the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan as Article 19. The Supreme court of Pakistan pointed out in ‘Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473’:
Fundamental rights guaranteed in any constitution are not capable of precise or permanent definition. These rights are to be construed in consonance with the changed conditions of society and must be viewed and interpreted with a vision to the future.”
This throws out the argument that many give in defense of curbs on dissent: that such ability to disagree is a privilege and not a right since the word ‘Dissent’ is not expressly mentioned in the constitution.
The fundamental right to dissent is not just to protest against state policies but it is the fundamental right that we all have when holding an opinion - that we can disagree to that opinion and this disagreement is respected which strengthens the concept of ‘Dissent’ itself. However it is Pakistan’s greatest misfortune that this most fundamental and most important right is facing curbs not just by the state or military but by the populace itself on both sides of the spectrum from the conservatives to the leftists. Even people who speak for a ‘right of dissent’ harm that very right by slamming down any dissenting voice that goes contrary to what they say. The nature of a fundamental right is that the more it is protected and used, the stronger it becomes and the more it is violated the more non-existent it becomes. And we have played an important role in weakening this fundamental right.
Justice Deepak Gupta of the Indian Supreme Court recently gave a lecture at an event organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association where he talked at length about the right to dissent. He highlighted that dissent is an important part of a democratic society and the fundamental right of each citizen to disagree with another or even with the state or with those in power is the absolute right of each citizen and only through utilization of that right can the nation and country progress.
The religion of Islam repeatedly tells us to utilize the power of dissent to stand against tyrants, even going as far as to state that the greatest jihad is to speak the truth against an unholy and cruel tyrant. Even our founding father Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah used his right of dissent to stand against the British and Congress to demand the Muslim minority's rights. He frequently used it till the very end. This is not treason but a utilization of a God-given right which is allotted to all human beings.
We can use that very right to dissent against dissent expressed by others - but only while saying that we disagree with one's disagreement but we must not violate the right to disagree at any cost. Such protection must not simply flow from the state or judiciary alone, but also from each and every individual from all ends of the political spectrum. Even the judiciary is not above this right and cannot escape dissent. In the end we will discover that by protecting this single right, we have protected our strongest shield and our sharpest sword. In the words of Lord Atkins in the case ‘Liversidge vs Anderson’.
I protest, even if I do it alone, against a strained construction put on words with an effect of giving an uncontrollable power of imprisonment to a minister.”
Black’s Law Dictionary describes dissent as:
Contrariety of opinion; refusal to agree with something already stated or adjudged or to an act previously performed.”
Dissent can also be described as the right to disagree, which is stated in this old Latin phrase ‘Etiam si omnes ego non’ which translates to ‘Even if all others, not I’. The concept of dissent or disagreement is an age-old fundamental right and it is a sub-branch of the fundamental right called ‘Freedom of Speech’ which is enshrined in the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan as Article 19. The Supreme court of Pakistan pointed out in ‘Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473’:
Fundamental rights guaranteed in any constitution are not capable of precise or permanent definition. These rights are to be construed in consonance with the changed conditions of society and must be viewed and interpreted with a vision to the future.”
This throws out the argument that many give in defense of curbs on dissent: that such ability to disagree is a privilege and not a right since the word ‘Dissent’ is not expressly mentioned in the constitution.
The fundamental right to dissent is not just to protest against state policies but it is the fundamental right that we all have when holding an opinion - that we can disagree to that opinion and this disagreement is respected which strengthens the concept of ‘Dissent’ itself. However it is Pakistan’s greatest misfortune that this most fundamental and most important right is facing curbs not just by the state or military but by the populace itself on both sides of the spectrum from the conservatives to the leftists. Even people who speak for a ‘right of dissent’ harm that very right by slamming down any dissenting voice that goes contrary to what they say. The nature of a fundamental right is that the more it is protected and used, the stronger it becomes and the more it is violated the more non-existent it becomes. And we have played an important role in weakening this fundamental right.
Justice Deepak Gupta of the Indian Supreme Court recently gave a lecture at an event organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association where he talked at length about the right to dissent. He highlighted that dissent is an important part of a democratic society and the fundamental right of each citizen to disagree with another or even with the state or with those in power is the absolute right of each citizen and only through utilization of that right can the nation and country progress.
The religion of Islam repeatedly tells us to utilize the power of dissent to stand against tyrants, even going as far as to state that the greatest jihad is to speak the truth against an unholy and cruel tyrant. Even our founding father Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah used his right of dissent to stand against the British and Congress to demand the Muslim minority's rights. He frequently used it till the very end. This is not treason but a utilization of a God-given right which is allotted to all human beings.
We can use that very right to dissent against dissent expressed by others - but only while saying that we disagree with one's disagreement but we must not violate the right to disagree at any cost. Such protection must not simply flow from the state or judiciary alone, but also from each and every individual from all ends of the political spectrum. Even the judiciary is not above this right and cannot escape dissent. In the end we will discover that by protecting this single right, we have protected our strongest shield and our sharpest sword. In the words of Lord Atkins in the case ‘Liversidge vs Anderson’.
I protest, even if I do it alone, against a strained construction put on words with an effect of giving an uncontrollable power of imprisonment to a minister.”