Free expression can’t be conditional: A Response to a Commenter

In my previous post titled ‘There is no limit, it is coming for us!’ I wrote about the unquestionable power extremist has been given by Islam; I was writing in the context of the latest parliamentary decision to ban music from parties and wedding ceremonies. My argument was primarily concerned with the freedom of expression; I contended unless we raise our voice the transgression of few self-called leaders into our lives is going to continue. I believe Islamic extremism will bully us no matter who we are and irrespective of our willingness to confront the phenomena or not. A reader wrote the below comment:
“kabul was isolated from the rest of the country in the 70s and 80s culturally. The answer to your anger towards a potential ban to music is not to diss what most afghans cherish, regardless of your stance. your just creating an aristocratic secularism that most disagree with. most people would disagree with a ban on music, and most people would disagree with your stance. amanullah's rule came to an end because he lacked respect for people. changes need to be made by steps, not by people who feel their countrymen are susperstitous bumkins.”
It is clear from the argument structure and the English writing of the comment that the commenter is a western Afghan if not a westerner; but interestingly the comment is very similar to what I hear on daily basis from Afghans from politician to people on the street, the need to progress step by step and not to ‘insult’ ‘people’. I would like to respond by explaining the central point of my argument, the free expression.
I believe it is necessary for Afghans to keep evaluating their progress, to connect with its pain and to its past. And thus to cultivate a sense of humility and empathy; much needed in a society raged by anger created by Islamic violence. The fallibility of human nature means that the simple Afghan principles of generosity, compassion and modesty are sometimes discarded in favour of outward appearance, wealth and the quest for power. I feel that distortion in practice must be confronted. Moreover, only by challenging fixed ideas of correct and incorrect behaviour can institutionalised hypocrisy be broken down. Often, those who err from the norm are condemned and marginalised, regardless of right or wrong, so that the community will survive. However, such survival is only for the fittest, and the weak are sometimes seen as unfortunates whose kismet is bad. Much store is set by ritual rooted in religion – though people’s preoccupation with the external and not the internal often render these rituals meaningless.
We need to be provocative and relevant. If one expresses opinions freely it provides courage and self confidence, irrelevant of the society the individual live. We can present truths and dare to take risks whilst living with their fears. We lack free expression in Afghanistan that is why the most talented youth and the future of the country have become idealists and romanticists. I am annoyed often by Afghan’s over-optimism which I think is a byproduct of their unwillingness to challenge hypocrisy. Free expression enable us to tell life is ferocious and terrifying, that we are imperfect and only when we embrace our imperfections honestly can we hope.
We shouldn’t be so afraid of offending people, that is what democracy is but there is a fine distinction between offending and harming, to speak at all these days, to attempt to tell any kind of truth means offending someone. The words which carry no offence of any kind may carry as little meaning.
Contrary to what the commenter suggests healthy society is not formed when member reach anonymity or when all individual are equipped with the best idea. Society is a melting pot where conflicting groups put ideas forward, revise idea, are knocked off and then they seek new ideas. We need courageous people who are not afraid to speak their minds and can upset the rest of the society by challenging their principles as well as practices. This does not automatically lead to aristocracy as suggested by the commenter. I am not part of the government to drive the change and determine the steps and the speed of the change neither I intend to be; I believe modern government in Afghanistan is a failure and given the sociocultural structure of Afghanistan it is going to be a failure. The failure of well resourced western intervention to build a state in Afghanistan explains the difficulty of building a government in Afghanistan. I genuinely believe that the exchange of offensive ideas and the confrontation of offensive ideas is what make a vibrant society. The only type of regime which can subdue Afghanistan is a Taliban style Emirate but that is not acceptable for international community. Taliban managed to bring the country under control and tackle corruption. I do not diss the values Afghan cherish but I diss the liberals in Afghanistan, the self dubbed leaders and the Islamist fanatics. I oppose hypocrisy and corruption in principle and I believe the self proclaimed leaders, the Islamists and the liberals who make up the technocrats of the government are corrupt and hypocritical. Step by step change means nothing, the Islamists and the leaders claim a step by step progress so they can justify their corruption. The Islamists can continue their rule if they keep change at bay and silent protesters by painting them as a group which opposes steady change. The liberals are collaborators with the Islamists and so are the westerners, they are hypocritical and they oppose people who cry for justice and truth.
We need to explore our emotions behind religion. Society need to find ways to explore ideas seen as dangerous such as misgivings about Islam and the leaders. Even the very open minded people in Afghanistan oppose free expression which offends the so called leaders. Malali Joya, a strong critic of warlords, has been strongly criticised by open minded liberals. Afghanistan needs to establish a stream or channel which is inherently provocative, it is often called free media in the rest of the world and I am angry to see how it is curbed in Afghanistan. Free media actively prompt the humanist point of view to a society still gripped by religious absolutism.
Authorities also discourage change by urging to adopt a ‘STEP BY STEP’ approach. There is something potentially dangerous about a large number of people, a communal group, charged by the immediate need to change. Free expression and free hearing might move the group to go behind the traditional reasoning imposed by Islamic fanaticism, to affect them emotionally, to inspire them by love and hope, by ideas which subvert the arrangements which hold the state together. Or simply they rearrange the speed of the pace they want change.