By M K George

Rome, June 30, 2023: ‘A shrinking space for dissent’ was the title of a report in the New York Times on the protest of the Olympic women wrestlers in India. As the protesters were forced out of New Delhi’s main protest site, Jantar Mantar, it ‘highlighted the shrinking space for protest,‘ stated the report. (2 June 2023).

In fact, it is not only in Delhi, all over India dissent or protest is seen clearly as non-acceptable. The ruling government, no matter which party it belongs to, seem to use the police force for not only controlling, but also totally snubbing out any form of dissent in the public domain.

One of the crudest examples is how the chief minister of Kerala, the most literate and politically conscious state in India, gets agitated on seeing black-flags or dress. ‘CM’s public event: Media persons told to remove black masks; transgender activist in black dress arrested,’ reported Onmanorama (June 11, 2022).

Look at India today, dissent is not tolerated. Closing down of internet and control of media have become the strongest means of breaking dissent. In one of the latest instances, on June 29 the Human Rights Alert wrote to the Human Rights Commission, ‘We are writing to express our concern regarding the police brutality on peaceful protestors in Rajasthan by lathi-charge and water cannons and arresting peaceful protestors.’

That means about 18 percent and more of the world population have lost the freedom to express a different opinion or for that matter live diversity.

Add China to the list. Just behind India with 18 percent of the population, China is no lover of dissent. Tiananmen Square stands as the most brutal symbol of Chinese attitude to dissent.

Writing on China Sean Illing wrote in Vox News (November 14, 2017): “The art of suppressing dissent has been perfected over the years by authoritarian governments. For most of human history, the solution was simple: force. Punish people severely enough when they step out of line and you deter potential protesters… Beijing, with the help of a massive army of government-backed internet commentators, floods the web in China with pro-regime propaganda.”

In the list of the most censored countries in the world North Korea, Myanmar, Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Eritrea, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Syria and Belarus appear. Russia, especially with Ukraine war has become extremely censored and brutally and instantly put out any dissent.

Even in the so-called cradles of Democracy like the US e subtle resistance to dissent seems to exist. For instance, some would contest the treatment to Julian Assange and see it as part of lack of tolerance to dissent.

In a word, except for a few havens, the whole world seems to abhor dissent.

Dissent is important for democracy

The truth is that dissent is crucial for the effective functioning of democracy. Hence, the Constitutions of various nations assure the freedom of expression. For instance, in the Indian Constitution, the Preamble promises liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Clauses (a) to (c) of Article 19(1) promise: – freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms, and the freedom to form associations or unions.

‘These three freedoms are vehicles through which dissent can be expressed. The right of freedom of opinion and right of freedom of conscience by themselves include the important right to disagree. The right to disagree, the right to dissent and the right to take another point of view would inhere inherently in each and every citizen of the country’ (Deepak Gupta 2020).

Justice D Y Chandrachud said it succinctly, “The blanket labelling of dissent as anti-national or anti-democratic strikes at the heart of our commitment to protect constitutional values and the promotion of deliberative democracy.”

Model of Pope Francis

One unique model of tolerating and appreciating dissent happens to be Pope Francis. Paul Moses wrote (2017), ‘by tolerating voices of dissent, Pope Francis brings change to the Catholic Church. Francis’ critics are well aware that previous popes have taken steps to stifle dissenting theologians, to the applause of traditional Catholics.”

Benjamin Franklin once said that it is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. Would the citizens have the courage to dissent and the rulers the wisdom to understand that dissent is salutary?