It is wrong to stay passive and believe that fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, are guaranteed by the constitution and the deep state is there to protect them. When fundamental rights are threatened and freedom of expression is under attack, the citizens should step forward and take the right side. Otherwise, democracy and the next generation will perish as freedom of expression wanes. The recent history of Afghanistan affirms that.
Afghanistan experienced a democratic government from 2001 to 2021, with fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, enshrined in the 2004 constitution. At the same time, Afghanistan faced insurgency from 2004 onwards, and the Taliban was fighting against the government of Afghanistan and democratic values.
During this period, Afghans were divided into two camps: the active minority and the passive majority. The active minority consisted of active citizens, committed to democratic values and ready to pay any price to defend the Constitution. The passive majority scared of Taliban atrocities and believing in the power of the deep state to defend the core values glorified in the constitution, stood idle and watched the scene from a distance. The outcome was the toppling of the democratic regime and the installation of the autocratic Taliban government. The young democracy died, leaving the new generation in despair, and the next generation must live under the shadow of an authoritarian regime.
This article tries to answer the question of what the responsibility of each citizen is when the fundamentals of human rights, including freedom of expression, are under threat. Deriving from the recent history of Afghanistan, the author believes that when there is a threat to the principle of democracy, citizens should not stay disengaged and delegate their responsibility to others fearing for their safety and security, but rather move forward and repel danger by any peaceful means.
In the case of Afghanistan, there were two settings side by side. In one, there was a democratic establishment and democratic constitution, and in the other, there was insurgency, bombing, target killing, and assassination. In this situation, as a citizen, what will you do regarding exercising your fundamental rights, and on top of that, the freedom of expression? Let us look at this phenomenon from two perspectives: liberal and illiberal. From a liberal perspective, no one ought to be afraid; freedom from fear ought to apply to everyone with no exclusion based on religion, race, or gender. From an illiberal perspective, some people ought to be afraid—those who belong to the wrong religion, the wrong class, the wrong gender, the wrong ethnicity. The government, media, and press encouraged citizens to capitalize on their fundamental rights, but the Taliban warned about the backlash and the consequences. Afghans faced the dilemma of which setting to join and which lines to follow: exercise their freedom of expression and welcome the consequences or keep quiet and let the times go by.
Chapter two of the 2004 Afghanistan Constitution is about the fundamental rights and duties of Afghan citizens. Article 24 talks about liberty and considers it the natural right of human beings. Article 34 specifically talks about freedom of expression. It says that each Afghan citizen is free to express their thoughts through speech and writing without prior submission to state authority. At the same time, the Taliban targeted media, and news channels, calling them agents of the government and infidels. Gatherings and protests have been bombed, and people have been massacred. Journalists, social activists, and human rights activists have been targeted and killed. Finding the culprits was very difficult since neither the insurgents nor the government were taking responsibility, accusing each other of the crime. In this circumstance, an individual and a citizen of Afghanistan became confused and felt threatened to exercise their fundamental rights, including freedom of expression.
We all agree that this was a hard choice for Afghans, but the active minority camp chose the first option and went ahead safeguarding democracy and freedom of expression, while the passive majority did the contrary. I know the first choice was difficult, but I am sure it was worth it. If civil society, intellectuals, and academics in Afghanistan were committed to freedom of expression and the passive majority could join with the active minority, I am sure the country’s fall into the hands of the Taliban could be delayed if not prevented. The democratic establishment could be saved, freedom of expression prolonged, and the next generation lived happily and freely.
When I look at the current situation of freedom across the world and here in the United States, it reminds me of Afghanistan from 2001-2021. Like Afghanistan, people here sometimes face the dilemma of practicing freedom of expression and the fear of exercising it. They are intimidated by a person, a group, a sovereign, and a uniformed authority. Shall the people in the free world, like the United States, choose the way that most of the people of Afghanistan choose and lead the society to despotism and censorship? Or must they fight for freedom and face the consequences? I suggest that the people of the free world should not go the same way that the Afghans went. They should not delegate their responsibility as Afghans did and assume that the deep state will do their job. People in the free world should look at the current situation of attacks on freedom of speech as an opportunity to strengthen freedom because, as Judith Shklar’s brilliant 1989 essay “The Liberalism of Fear” stressed, fear plays a fundamental role in the creation and development of liberalism.
Freedom of Expression Faculty Fellow and Visiting Scholar at South Asia Program, Cornell University
