Enigma of neutrality

Being neutral is now a loaded statement. Is it good? Is it bad? Is it the “done” thing? Is it the new norm? The answer could range from absolutely yes to absolutely no.

Why this ambiguity? Well, it depends. What does it depend upon? Social media has exploded with its own satire and taunts. The dictionary meaning of it is “not engaged on either side” or “not aligned with a political or ideological grouping”. This definition also raises eyebrows. The interpretation of this will depend on whose eyebrows are we referring to. When the interpretation changes with the change in facial expression that means that it is subjective.

The concept of neutrality basically means to be non-judgmental and unbiased. The ability to see things without bias. Biases are conscious and unconscious. Conscious biases are that which we are aware of, and we intentionally hold and act according to them. For example, the white supremacist groups in America believe and act on the bias that white–skinned people are superior to other coloured people. That is why the whole movement of #BlackLivesMatter started. This bias affects behaviour. The white policeman basically strangulated the black George Floyd with his knee for 9 minutes. Similarly in India, Modi’s Hindutva philosophy of religious superiority has led to inhuman treatment of non-Hindus, especially Muslims and Christians. That is why, to be neutral racially or religiously is considered a great quality. These are malafide biases. Then there are some unconscious biases like the minute you think of astronauts you think of men or when you think of long working hours you assume it will be tough for women. Neutrality in such instances may help reduce biases.

On the other hand, neutrality in taking stands borders on being biased as well. It is a conscious bias. To take a stand on a tough unpopular issue requires not being neutral. Those who do not want to take a stand on issues normally make the issue look ridiculous, frivolous or silly. Let us look at some neutralities and understand what they can imply.

Neutrality in public – Public opinion matters, both on social and political issues. Neutrality in these issues is synonymous with indifference. For long it was said that the Pakistani public had become comfortably numb with social evils and corruption. We saw in many cases like Noor Muquaddam case and the APS Peshawar tragedy, strong public reaction, thanks to social media, making the public take a united stand and thus forcing authorities to take action. That is why in the present day under a politically charged environment in the country, the critics say that this polarization is going to cause anarchy. The tampering down of emotions may be right, but not being upset about what is wrong with the country is worse. Young, educated people never really voted in the past as they were tired of the same old parties. It was in 2013 that these people voted for change. When the party they voted won only 30 seats, they were disappointed. In 2018, the change did come. The change fell short of public expectations; just when apathy crept in the government changed via vote of no-confidence. This has brought about a huge public reaction. Passionate discourse has dominated the country. The hope is that this passion results in challenging the status quo and across the board accountability.

Neutrality in institutions – Institutions are the pillars of a country’s governance. In Pakistan, institutions have been misused by governments and power brokers. Institutions are dependent on their legal framework and the people who lead them. Unfortunately, both aspects have been tampered with. Laws are made by lawmakers who are keeping personal interests rather than public interests as a base. Heads of institutions are appointed on personal loyalty rather than on merit and performance. Every government changes and heads of institutions have to be changed. The new government commended the performance of FBR and State Bank, but changed the heads despite confessing that the SBP head was a man of exceptional qualities. Thus, the institutions are rarely neutral.

Judiciary is another example where political appointments have made judgements dependent not on the merit of the case, but the composition of the bench. The uproar on the Courts opening up at 12pm for the powerbrokers is justified when we see how the ordinary people have to spend their lives seeking justice for the most trivial of matters. Being neutral in institutions means being equal, being non-discriminatory, and being fair.

Neutrality in media – Media is business; it is powerful and a huge political tool. All these three elements make media anything, but neutral. In Pakistan, media has been fed on government largesse. Governments give lavish advertisements even to private media and in return want control over content. Anchors and analysts are openly biased favouring or twisting news depending on who are they supporting or being sponsored by. Media is definitely not neutral. The strange thing is that these anchors or analysts who were talking about democracy and engineering of elections by institutions when PTI was in power, are very happy at the present engineering and condemning any fingers pointing at the openly colluding institutions. So much for neutrality. All you have to do is to see the timelines of these writers/experts on twitter and their retweets and you can find out which group is promoting whom. Ethics are only for shop talk. Bred on free foreign tours with politicians, lucrative posts of state organization and other perks, they are blatantly promoting a narrative that may be fake or extremely dangerous to national interests.

Neutrality in civil society – The civil society plays a very important balancing act in keeping a check and balance on the uncivil acts by government or institutions. They may be lawyer’s associations, academia, human rights organizations or various citizen forums. Prominent members of the civil society are big influencers and can use this influence to create accountability. In Pakistan, many such persons and organizations have become highly politicized. Bar councils and associations have political agendas. A clear example of this was when the Supreme Court Bar Council, whose mandate is to enable justice for ordinary persons, is instead fighting cases for removing life disqualification of ex-prime minister. And it is being supported by other organizations as being a “human rights” issue. Similarly, some foreign NGOs are planted with agendas. Intellectuals and bureaucrats are hired at huge salaries as consultants. They sit in talk shows and social media forums to spread their narrative. They pretend to be A-political and neutral, but are heavily agenda driven.

Neutrality based on principles is the right path. When principles are bent or broken you need to take sides. When the side you have to take brings physical and financial losses most people give in. But it is in these moments of excruciating pain that the character of an individual and a nation reveals itself. That is why the next few weeks are important to uncover who stands on the right or wrong side of history.

As Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”.

The writer is a columnist, consultant, coach, and an analyst