EDITORIAL: From the days of Field Marshal Ayub Khan to the present times the country’s political discourse is getting polluted with dirty rhetoric and profanity. Arguably, the usage of abusive words and expressions against political opponents constitutes a comedy with no holds barred.
And of late there is exacerbation in that exercise as we come across a whole foul linguistic glossary and unholy descriptions - and to one’s utter chagrin and disappointment these find ample place in the mass media.
It is a cause of concern, if not outright disgust, as it doesn’t sit well with generality and tends to undermine people’s commitment to democratic process. One such war of words broke out in the Senate on Tuesday, as both sides accused each other of playing the ‘religion card’ for political gains.
Reacting to Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar’s move, which was clearly aimed at amending the Railways Act 1980, the Leader of Opposition Dr Shahzad Waseem wanted a broad-based discussion on other laws that he said are being used to oppress the opposition.
He particularly referred to Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s recent speech in which the latter allegedly used the ‘religion card’ phrase against Imran Khan, as was the case of “hate speech” made earlier by Minister Javed Latif.
Outside the house the world heard Imran Khan repeating his mantra that members of the present government are nothing but “thieves, dacoits, plunderers, liars and foreign agents imposed on the people of Pakistan by a foreign power”. Of late, quite a few more such derogatory words – the word ‘fitna’ being more in use of government spokespersons against Imran Khan – have been inducted into the growing glossary of hate words.
All of it is unacceptable in any civilised society. Why should men and women who were rulers till yesterday and those in power now should try popularising their performance by enriching it with gutter lexicon against their political foes.
They should know that such an exercise tends to cast them as cheap mercenaries who at the end of the game reap what they sow. In one word, they undermine their own personages by calling opponents ‘fitna’ or ‘chors’.
Given the examples of parliamentary practice and broadcast media regulator’s jurisdiction, the naked display of foul language and aggressive behaviour can be greatly discouraged.
In the elected houses the members are expected to observe moderation of language in debate, and words like ‘liar’ and ‘traitor’ are declared “unparliamentary”. They are always required to address each other with certain civilities.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.