Dialogue on social, political, religious and economic issues plays a critical role in the development and progress of a civilised society. The different point of views presented help to understand the problem. Listeners as well as the participants of the discussion learn as well as enjoy the debate if it takes place in a calm and peaceful atmosphere.

The difference between civilised and backward societies is reflected in the way the discussion is conducted. In a society where academic traditions are strong, people discuss matters patiently and allow others opportunities to express their point of view. Tolerance is the keyword for debate, no attempts are made to overpower, dominate or ignore the opinion of other participants. Everyone understands that each individual has the right to his or her independent opinion.

But in an uncultured society, the approach is quite different as every participant believes that only he is right whereas others are wrong. Therefore, he feels it is his responsibility to defeat his opponent and to get recognition for his arguments being correct and unchallenged.

In Plato’s Republic is an example of an interesting dinner party discussion between Socrates and his companions. The debate is on important issues like justice, virtue and love and the dialogue is full of wisdom. Everybody presents his view with an argument. It is obvious that the discussion took place in a composed and diplomatic atmosphere. There was no anger, rigidity or desire by any participant to impose their ideology on others. This is the rich legacy the Greek philosophers left for the future generations.

In the enlightened era of the 18th century, the intellectuals of Paris developed the unique institution of salons, which originated in Italy but flourished in France. These were run by educated women and became a central place for writers, philosophers and artists where they would gather and discuss important current issues; they learnt to express their point of view and to handle the views of the opposition. European intellectuals from other cities visited coffee shops and salons which, over a period of time, made a significant contribution to the intellectual movements in Europe.

In the subcontinent, universities and colleges trained students in the art of speaking and discussion. After independence, educational institutions in Pakistan inherited this tradition and debates were held regularly. These debates trained students to present a case or an argument. Sadly, when the debating culture came to an end, students lost all opportunities to learn the art of discussion and debate.

When television arrived, talk shows were introduced. In the beginning, the standard of discussion was tolerable. The moderator would introduce the subject and facilitate a discussion between the participants by allowing each one to express their view. But presently, it is not the case.

The moderator now begins the show with a long speech where he tries to impress the viewer with his own knowledge and expertise on the issue to be discussed. There are at least 15 to 20 regular participants who appear in talk shows on all TV channels to discuss a variety of issues. Most of them are politicians and it is not unusual for them to accuse and humiliate each other. They resort to shouting and insults in abusive language. Some channels consider this dramatic and a huge success.

In fact it is anything but. What it reflects is our intolerance, rudeness and how devoid of culture and civility we are. It also highlights the shallowness and hollowness of our politicians and intellectuals.

The same behaviour is also seen in discussions at the provincial and national assemblies, where ‘honourable’ members shout at each other and insult each other so that the whole session turns into a particularly loud fishmarket.

The standard of discussion shows the backwardness of our society and the root cause of this is our educational system. The young student is not trained to properly carry out a discussion and to argue and convince the audience through reasoning and not by volume. It also shows that our feudal culture does not tolerate opposition and asserts its superiority over opponents.

In such an atmosphere, discussion fails to achieve its objective. It does not allow any opportunities to comprehend problems and to find their solutions. Discussion is not a battlefield and the objective is not to defeat or humiliate the other but to learn from other people’s views. Discussion or dialogue create new ideas, correct distortions and lets the society develop intellectually and culturally. In our case, what passes for debate is having the exact opposite effect.