THE display of lack of tolerance over the last few years by political leaders and party spokespersons on electronic and social media platforms over divergent views has trickled down to the common man. Heated political debates are a common scene now at tea shops, public hangouts and even academic and other institutions. From confabs to exchange of hot words, everything is the order of the day, and instances of heated arguments leading to scuffles are not uncommon. In these altercations, power is used if language is subdued by language of power.

At educational institutions, teachers waste their free periods in espousing shoddy theories in favour of their choice of political party. Students just wish if their teachers had ever discussed their issues or educational topics so passionately.

It is certain that these pseudo-debaters watch TV talk shows because if they had read books, magazines or newspapers, they would have learned some level of tolerance for difference of opinion. The chasm between educationists and the written material has widened to an unprecedented scale.

The study of demagogy suggests that such superficial and futile debates are engendered by demagogues. As demagogues pander to the passions and prejudices of the audiences without resorting to rational arguments, the latter follow suit when they defend their own political party. When demagogues manipulate the audiences’ emotions by manipulative arguments, public debates get tinged with emotional adherence to respective demagogues.

This is an unhealthy trend that must be checked forthwith.

The anatomy of public debates and discourse reveal that, practically speaking, they are meant to simply pass time. They have become our leisure activity. Further, these pseudo-debaters know that such debates only harden their allegiance to their respective leaders, and they do not budge from their stance at all.

At workplace, these debates dissipate the energy of the employees, and they start shirking their duties. Some camouflage these debates in the garb of patriotic zeal, but it is nothing but a passion to while away duty hours; not patriotic zeal. In effect, working hard during work hours is what patriotism is in its real sense.

Public discourse is reflective of social and moral norms, and its present slide into wrangling is a bad omen for our national health. We must take part in a debate with a receptive mind. It is only then that the cerebral takeaways from a debate have a chance to enhance one’s maturity and help one maintain baseline human magnanimity.

Our first and foremost responsibility must be to render our duties honestly. Employees must focus on the earliest accomplishment of official tasks diligently and professionally. For laypersons, whatever their calling or business is, honesty and selflessness ought to dominate their dealings.

Everyone should be exhorted to cast their votes after carefully scrutinising the options, ignoring self-interest and prioritising common welfare. This would be the best way to materialise one’s patriotic zeal. Anything else is immaterial.

Muhammad Nadeem Nadir
Kasur

Published in Dawn, May 29th, 2022