Ethical Dilemma of Postmodern State

The postmodern state devalues human life in the name of preserving it, a very tragic trend that amounts to giving a killing medicine to an ailing patient by a doctor in the name of curing his or her disease.

The question as to how to fight terrorism outweighs the reasons as for why to fight it. Governments worldwide face greater pressures and public wrath for the ways they employ to fight terrorism than the terrorists for their acts of barbarism perpetrated on their opponents. It is perhaps so because the governments are supposed to show more responsibility, care, caution, and professionalism while using force and resources in countering terrorism than the irresponsible, careless, mindless and indiscriminate behaviour of the outlaws. The law enforcement efforts to curb terrorism impatiently results in the violation of Human rights which many civilized souls believe is criminal by all means.

Unlike some cultural aspects that are relative, violations of innocent people’s physical integrity, such as dropping bombs on them should be universally deviant and universally criminal. When the nations of the world begin to focus their power and resources on protecting and preserving human life rather than taking it, we will see the first true efforts being made to counter terrorism.

The modern civilization, despite its tall claims, is yet developing into a state where the so-called civilized mankind could be able to say terrorism is terrorism no matter who commits it against whom and why. What is better for the goose must be better for the gander. If freedoms and civil liberties are so dear to the Americans why it would not be dear to the Africans, Asians, or any other races or nations. Why we think that dictatorships are good for the Middle East and Africa since we, being civilized, have been in war with governments of the time for denying us our rights in the name of greater good and now in the name of counterterrorism.

The champions of human rights have been the champions of throwing nuclear bombs and raining drones on the innocent populations. Who would and who should really call anyone using violence for whatever reason terrorists? Why the elements of justice are not equal to elements of order and peace? Why the monopoly on violence rests with the state even if it turns to be the industry of violence or even if it becomes the agent of chaos and anarchism? Why citizens accept the state and its authority as legitimate since it seems to have lost the soul of establishing peace and order and no more remains the source of protection to human beings amidst hollow claims of the welfare of the humanity through so-called “world order”. Where the selective values of modern civilization in the garb of democracy and the rule of law put the blatant violations of human rights going on under their very nose? How strategic and economic interests of big brothers and so-called veto powers can guide them to go human, humane and humanitarian.

The postmodern world appears to be in a serious ethical dilemma of how the wrong can bring the right and how far it stands right to establish right. Why don’t we think what is better for our own people, living within the premises of our own devised systems, is equally better for all those living outside? How long humanity could bear the brunt of “theirs, yours, others etc” since its soul reflects only “ours”. If we commit the violence, we feel it is in so-called self-defense; but if they commit violence forwarding the same streak of logic, common sense and rationale we are hell-bent on declaring it violation, violence, and offence. The way we are divided; the way we are selfish; the way we are we nurture our notions of being humans; the way we get into the winning games of power and pelf and the way we are roped into groups speak volumes of our withering “ourness” and our dying inhumanity. If one percent or less population among us is criminal or involved in spreading violence and mischief that does never sanction that state to spread violence against already victim 99% population living within or outside the territorial jurisdiction of that particular state. Similarly, this argument does never mean to exempt or protect or justify the inhuman actions committed by the criminal or terrorists.

The leading claimant of human integrity and self-esteem, democracy goes down the drain of the inequality inherent in its accomplice “capitalism”. Modern civilization’s biggest of all tensions is to work out the built-in tensions between democracy and capitalism and also tensions between socialist states and their human rights conditions. The ideological irregularities causing human conflicts is still true with what has been witnessed as the systematic growth of warfare that knows no ending and no winning but continuing and losing by all involved whether directly or indirectly.

My request to the greatest of all politicos in the post-modern world is to think beyond democracy which should not be considered the full stop in the process of the growth of human consciousness about their being the super creature. The most fundamental tension of democracy appears to be getting too older by now to address the issue of inclusiveness in a proper fashion. Even if we take the example of world-leading as well as largest democracies, we would very tragically find that on average the flawed electoral systems produce no majority governments but rather the governments of the handful of some influential and resourceful people whether it is the United States or India or any other democracy.

If you don’t buy my argument, take your calculator and start counting and calculating the total votes registered, total votes casted, total votes obtained by the wining party, that would be forming the government, in terms of total population living within that territorial jurisdictions or electoral constituencies, even in the most idealist conditions you would find that the winning political party might not have secured the support and votes of more than the 30% of their total population but since it secures greater votes in terms of vote cast, it forms the government. As a matter of fact, I can’t call such government, representing the handful of people, as a majority rule or truly representative government.

As a consequence of the non-inclusive systems of governance and its resultant economic impacts, the inequality, poverty, lack of education, religious persecution, radicalism, economic turmoil, social suppression, and oppression of refined liberties and freedoms, especially of minorities, sow the seeds of terrorism, and thus counter-terrorism. Both the terrorism and the counterterrorism have proven the death knell to the legitimacy of the state in modern times. The most commonly utilized counter-terrorism tactics, such as extrajudicial killings, torture, forced disappearances, and political imprisonment is, in fact, themselves acts of terror. To terrorize in the name of combating terrorism is ironically hypocritical, self-contradictory and hence self-defeating. When counter-terrorists use the tactics of terrorists in order to counter terror, they descend to their moral level and just add more terror to the world. And if that were not enough, when counter-terrorists terrorize people, they generate more terrorists.

Great critic of modern times, Noam Chomsky states: “counter-terrorism is terrorism by another name”. We must counter counter-terrorism, in order to uphold human rights and give weight, resources, and priority to it. Military, police and clandestine agencies unilaterally function from a consequentialist point of view, with a modus operandi that denotes that their goals, professedly productive, be accomplished by any means necessary, even if those means are themselves directly counterproductive. Gone are the days when ends justified the means and hardly anyone should justify their criminal acts in name of establishing peace.

Rather than countering terrorism, the governments of the day should work collectively and implement new domestic and foreign “right-based” policies that adhere to the dignity and integrity of their citizens and also the citizens of their fellow states who are their partners in peace, not their allies in war. There is much beyond military, police, and other punitive actions to restore the ailing elements within the humanity and society. The best ways to fight terrorism are the non-violent means.

The modern politics get into the ethical dilemma when it begins to terrorize the innocent and non-combatant people in the name of countering terrorism. Therefore, let us shut down the counterterrorist show that places more restrictions on citizen’s freedoms and takes more lives annually than the ghost of terrorism because there is no greater right than the right to life.

The writer is a policing educator, novelist,  author and DIG at Police Service of Pakistan…