By Shazia Anwer Cheema
The idea of a state is based on the rule of law, a set of regulations for operating in a state. These regulations are considered supreme and above individual preferences, on the contrary, a state that has failed to ensure the implementation of these regulations is called a rogue state.
Realists uphold the rule of law to avoid injustice and unrest in society. However, anarchists disagree with state regulation and introduce a larger-than-life concept of society commonly referred to as utopia.
Utopia is a metaphorical state where only good exists, no risk of evil in any form, such as poverty, crime or natural disasters can occur. In simple terms in a utopian state, all are happy at all times, all are successful, all are pretty, all are healthy, all are rich, all are fulfilling their dreams, sunny and sunny in all seasons, no famine, no drought, no flood, no sadness like death and disease.
The idea of a utopian land is a myth because in real life, good and evil coincide, health and disease go hand in hand, and crime and punishment continue.
No sane mind can promise anyone a utopian society, because it is against the law of nature to be on a merry-go-round from birth to death. Life is made up of a course of events that juxtapose the subjective reality of being a living being. I vividly remember a story I read in my childhood, an event in the story happened Lucifer injured and was about to die when the priest saved him. Satan asks why he was saved, not using the best chance to get rid of him forever. The priest replied, we both have to live, and we both have to face each other again and again, otherwise living will no longer make sense.
The phenomenon of life and the responsibility attached to it are the essence of life. The very idea of reward and punishment in the afterlife is based on the niche of responsibility. What good is a society where no one is responsible for their actions and where life and death lose their meaning?
The real societies formed by the realists do not dwell on the abnormal hence the illogical pursuit of a perfect earth. The point I’m trying to make here is a comparison between realists and anarchists. The term anarchy is derived from the ancient Greek root anarchos (without authority), denoting the absence of rule of law or established government. The anarchist denounces the state and the rule of law on which the state is governed and proposes the idea of an alternative state. In history we can find many anarchists who waged war on the state for their well-defined idea of a better state. The anarchist wields weapons that may now become the classic example because they have been tried and tested throughout history. Anarchist weaponry includes hate speech within society in general and against state institutions in particular, extreme polarization, challenging state decisions, and denigrating state constitution.
The most interesting thing of all is the definition of what anarchists think a state should be, the whole idea is based on false promises and high hopes. Pakistan faces a similar situation; Imran Khan systematically indoctrinates lawlessness among his followers. He formed a social media brigade for name-calling and insults. The abusive speech spread hatred and widened the poles enough that he could take his second step challenging the ordinances of the state by mocking its Constitution. If that night the Supreme Court had not intervened, he would have taken a major step in the dismantling of the Constitution. He was seconds away from proving that this state’s Constitution is dysfunctional and cannot save itself, let alone the country. After failing in his attempt to defame the Constitution, he moves into malicious propaganda against state institutions by calling out their names, targeting them in public by inciting the public to act and react.
Imran Khan’s filthy diction turns social media into a gutter, but he happily swims in grime as he claims he is struggling in pursuit of a utopia. He drags the people and the state into confrontation, his ulterior motive is to trigger normality so that confrontation becomes inevitable, then he will play his next violent move. Any small chance he relies on directly involves the pillars of the state in a confrontation so he can bring out his paid thugs to loot and destroy public property and resources. Imran Khan’s dream will be realized if he engages the state by any means in direct confrontation. His ultimate desire for anarchy will come through the infusion of violence.
He may have been a perfect anarchist, he may have the greatest abuse machine, or he may have a cult with ignorant followers, he forgets the ground reality he faces in time and current space. Imran Khan provokes the same establishment for a direct confrontation who is experienced and has faced the situation time and time again. Imran Khan’s cult cannot be more inviolable than his anarchist predecessor who lives alone and in poor condition in London, whose comedic speech was more popular than his own slapstick farce. Imran Khan advises his followers to commit acts of violence with clubs and sticks, but we remember one crazy man who lives in London who had guns and rifles, they made half of Karachi a no-go zone and made the citizens’ lives hell, and its followers were more criminal and more knowledgeable about it. There is history today and history has a lesson for Imran Khan, that you and your band of comic buffoons cannot provoke the establishment to confront you directly, you have no chance of inflicting violence on people to prove to the world that there is anarchy in Pakistan and civil unrest is dangerous for a nuclear state. Imran Khan’s dream of turning Pakistan into a mafia state will remain his dream forever.
The state will not confront him; the state will treat him as it has treated all previous anarchists. All of Imran Khan’s cheap tactics of abusing, insulting and humiliating the characters have no effect on the state, if it had, then any narcissist obsessed with the promise of a fairyland to a delusional batch can create anarchy and defy state order. No, it’s not a boy’s game and states are unaffected by vomiting filth, the state knows how to curb lawlessness and how to avoid violence.
The concept of government (state) with a background of over 2000 years is there to support the weak and protect them from the powerful and the government is like a mother who does not deny her children
Many people say government is necessary because some men cannot be trusted to look after themselves, but anarchists say government is harmful because no one can be trusted. man to take care of someone else…Nicholas Walter
Note: Writer Shazia Anwer Cheema is a Prague-based author, columnist and foreign affairs expert who writes for national and international media. She is a doctoral student and researcher in semiotics and philosophy of communication at Charles University in Prague. She can be reached at her: Twitter @ShaziaAnwerCh Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
The views and opinions expressed in this article/opinion/commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DND Think Tank and Dispatch News Bureau (DND). Assumptions made in the analysis do not reflect the position of the DND Think Tank and the Dispatch News Desk.