Can one be a liberal and a fascist at the same time? Ask any political scientist or a student of politics and the answer you will probably hear will be a definitive no. Liberalism and fascism cannot be knotted together. They simply repel one another. Imagine inventing a phrase like ‘Marxist-capitalist’. Those who understand their meaning would simply brush it aside as pure nonsense. The same way a phrase like ‘democratic-dictator’ can never be taken seriously in any political discourse.
In Pakistan’s polarised but often farcical political chatter, a term like ‘liberal-fascist’ has gained currency, at least in the mainstream media in recent years. Many right-wing politicians, prominent political commentators, analysts and journalists are using it with impunity to denounce and ridicule their ideological rivals – those who stand for democracy, pluralism, secular values, moderation and modernity. These rivals also stand guilty of advocating liberty, freedom of speech, tolerance, peace and women’s rights. They also commit the cardinal sin of defending religious minorities and speaking for the rights of the politically and economically oppressed and marginalised people.
However, to put it mildly, bracketing these ‘liberals’ with ‘fascists’ under the catchphrase of ‘liberal-fascists’ remains widely off the mark and is an improper use of words which are entire concepts within themselves. At best this flawed phrase depicts the innocence of those who use it; at worst, their lack of understanding of basic political concepts and philosophies.
The ideological opponents of liberals should have come up with at least a correct catchphrase as a slur to show that their creative juices are flowing in the right direction. I don’t know who should take the credit of coining this erroneous phrase and using it for the first time in Pakistan, but I am sure that the father of modern fascism, Benito Mussolini, wouldn’t have appreciated it and sent his black-shirt goons to get the phrase corrected. The founder of classical liberal philosophy, John Locke, would have come up with a long explanation to clear the cobwebs in the minds of the anti-liberal element about various political philosophies and perhaps even helped them to come up with a correct mock-phrase against his own kind.
Going by its basic definition, fascism espouses totalitarian principles and represents the extreme right-wing nationalist movement that emerged in Italy under Mussolini. As a political philosophy it stands opposed to democracy and liberal values. Fascism also remains hostile to leftists of all shades and brands, who in today’s context hardly matter in Pakistan. Fascists are racists and see political violence and imperialism as justifiable methods to achieve the goal of establishing their national supremacy.
Fascism is a highly misused and abused word, often applied incorrectly in Pakistan’s context, though fascist tactics of organised violence and terror are increasingly practiced by fundamentalist and outlawed groups including the Al-Qaeda-inspired Taliban militants. To use it for liberals is as misleading and wrong as calling fascists liberals. Pakistani liberals never attempt to silence their rivals by resorting to suicide bombings and violence. They won’t attempt to deprive anyone of his or her freedom of speech. They do engage and challenge opponents on an intellectual plane – through writing and discussion or at the most by organising peaceful rallies and protests. One can accuse many of the liberals for being ‘their foreign donor’s voice’, or acting and taking political positions without taking into account the objective and ground realities, but using fascist tactics are not in their creed.
The attempted ridiculous fusion of liberalism and fascism is not the only case of the improper use of political terms and words in our mainstream political discourse. There are many other words that are being used out of context, distorting and corrupting the entire political, theological and philosophical discourse.
A prime example is the criminal abuse of the word ‘jihad’ or holy war, both by national and international media. This sacred principle of Islam, mentioned in the Holy Quran, has been equated by design or default with terrorism and senseless violence both here and abroad.
In the mainstream media, the outlawed terrorist groups are daily dubbed as ‘jihadi organisations’ and their members taunted for their alleged ‘jihadi mindset’. When authorities seize the training manuals or political propaganda material of these groups, it is often called ‘jihadi literature’ and their acts of violence described as jihadi activities. Equating jihad with terrorism remains not just factually incorrect, but in a way also seems to endorse the stance of such terrorist groups.
Any ordinary Pakistani Muslim can explain without the help of any top-, mid- or low-level cleric that Islam defines rules of conflict and war, which forbid the killing of innocent people and non-combatants even in enemy territory – let alone targeting Pakistanis in suicide bombing and other acts of terror. Islam even bars destruction of trees and crops, let alone taking lives of innocent men, women and children or destroying educational institutions as the Al-Qaeda-inspired Pakistani militants have been doing across the country. Islam calls for fairness, justice and moderation even in conflict rather than blind vengeance and barbaric acts.
The careless use of words like ‘jihad’, ‘jihadi’ or ‘mujahid’ (holy warrior) in the mainstream media is like double-edged sword, which on the one hand undermines and misrepresents Islam and its sacred tenants, and on the other by default legitimises terrorist groups and their activities. The terrorists use such terms to confuse ordinary Muslims and validate their misconceived struggle.
The mainstream political and religious parties, intellectuals, opinion makers, journalists and writers and media organisations must refrain from using the word jihad for acts of terror or dubbing terrorists as jihadis. The neutral terms of militants and militancy appear best suited for this purpose.
In a Muslim majority state like Pakistan, it is only the government that can announce jihad in terms of conflict and in which the regular army remains the backbone not the non-state actors or shady militant groups. On an individual level, a Muslim remains free to wage spiritual jihad to beat negative emotions, feelings and desires for self-improvement and character building.
On a lighter note, let’s talk a bit about the harbinger of a tsunami. Yes, our own cricket hero-turned-politician Imran Khan, who chose such a negative symbol to mark his political ambitions.
A tsunami only brings indiscriminate destruction. It is massive water waves caused by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other underwater explosions. In its remotest sense of meaning, a tsunami – a word of Japanese origin – is never considered a positive force. But enter Imran Khan with a bang, corrupting and changing the meaning of words for his innocent and not-so-innocent followers. If no one else in the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, at least veteran columnist Shafaqat Mehmood should explain to his leader the importance of using words correctly. But we hear that captain Khan listens to no one. If it is true, then all my sympathies are with Mehmood Sahib.
There was a time when even in Pakistan electioneering was done on positive slogans – as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did in the 1970s with his yet to be matched slogan of ‘roti, kapra aur makan’ (bread, cloth and shelter). But now, it is all about tsunamis or intangible slogans of new Pakistan, or bright Pakistan and, in some cases, just brash lies about past performance.
Indeed, this is an age of mediocrity where terms like liberal-fascists can be in vogue in the media and jihad and tsunami used for meanings totally their opposite. It is indeed Orwellian double speak where words are corrupting thoughts and thoughts corrupting words and distorting their meanings.
Email: amir.zia@thenews.com.pk

http://e.thenews.com.pk/4-22-2013/page7.asp#;