A POLITICAL activist known for his engaging debating style, silenced forever after being shot to death on a university campus. Could there be a more poignant illustration of the state of global political discourse — and democracy — today?

The murder last week in the US of Charlie Kirk, a champion of the right-wing MAGA movement and key mobiliser of young Republicans in support of President Donald Trump, threatens to usher in a new, darker era in US politics. Kirk’s killing could spur an evolution in Trumpian politics: a shift from a politics of retribution that has focused on persecuting individuals and institutions critical of Trump and his close allies, to a broader politics of vengeance, which will require more wholesale state capture and a fuller autocratic toolkit to dismantle the opposition.

In response to Kirk’s assassination, Trump chose not to soothe partisan flames. Instead, he blamed Kirk’s death on “radical-left political violence” and promised to take down the perpetrators of such violence and the organisations that support them. Writing in the New Yorker, Susan B. Glasser noted that Trump “seemed to be blaming the large chunk of the nation that reviles his racially divisive policies and those promoted by Kirk as surely as if they had pulled the trigger”. Not surprisingly, Trump supporters have spent recent days calling for the eradication of the ‘radical left’. Glasser, for example, quotes far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer as arguing that the “Left is a national security threat”.

This is a familiar script for Pakistanis, who have lived through many cycles of political vengeance. The current wave against Imran Khan and the PTI is notable even in our country’s fraught history for its intensity and longevity.

Following Kirk’s killing, Trump chose not to soothe partisan flames.

Widespread political vengeance goes a few steps beyond political retribution in that it requires the mobilisation both of the state machinery and swathes of the population. Rather than isolated acts of corruption or coercion, a campaign of political vengeance relies on state capture, the erosion of the independence of the judiciary, media censorship, criminalisation of dissent and the weaponisation of anti-corruption and national security legislation.

We should be alarmed by the proliferation of vengeful politics around the world. Think of Kenya’s use of anti-terrorism courts to crack down on anti-government protests; the BJP in India rooting out liberal, inclusive voices not only in politics but across business, media and the arts; China’s purges of officials under anti-corruption initiatives; Hungary’s multipronged, anti-liberal campaigns; Turkiye’s attempts to root out the opposition CHP and its supporters... The list seems endless.

What is less readily available is a blueprint for how countries can disrupt these cycles of political vengeance. In situations where political vengeance has manifest itself as explicit violence, for instance, in the form of tit-for-tat assassinations — sadly, the direction in which American politics risks heading — the cycle ends when the violence is so extreme and widespread that a negotiated settlement becomes necessary, like the Good Friday Agreement that brought an end to the cyclical violence of the Troubles.

But in cases where the violence is more systemic — disappearances, sham trials, censorship, intimidation, political coercion — there are breaking points, which usually manifest as mass uprisings. These can have the effect of consolidating power, as the desire to crush the opposition can lead to an intensification of political targeting and crac­kdowns. But occ­a­sionally — think Ban­gladesh last year — the upri­sing can lead to change. And with that change comes an opportunity to opt out of further vengeance.

Unfortunately, that opportunity is not always taken. A year on, Bangladesh’s inte­rim government faces accusations, including from Human Rights Watch, that it has resorted to arbitrary detentions of political opponents linked to the Alamo League under a draconian special powers act, previously used by Sheikh Hasina Wajed to suppress political dissent.

What Kirk’s shooting and this moment in American politics, when the country stands on the cusp of a culture of political vengeance, offers, however, is an opportunity to consider how to dial back from this kind of politics.

Instead of dehumanising and vilifying each other, here’s what Americans could be discussing instead: the woeful state of US gun laws; the youth mental health crisis; the need for further regulation of social media and gaming platforms, where violent content circulates unfettered. In other words, a return to public policy matters and public service, which must be the bedrock of any genuinely democratic dispensation. Let’s hope that sense prevails, in the US and elsewhere.

The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.

X: @humayusuf

Published in Dawn, September 15th, 2025