When Fear No Longer Works
When Fear No Longer Works
An Opinion
Every government confronted with
a large public protest faces a difficult choice. It can engage with the people,
listen to their concerns, and attempt to resolve the issues through dialogue,
or it can rely primarily on law enforcement to restore order. In my opinion,
when a peaceful movement is met with force, it reflects a belief that fear will
discourage people from continuing to protest.
History, however, has often shown
that fear does not always produce the intended result. When people become
willing to endure arrests, injuries, or other personal consequences because
they believe the issue is larger than themselves, the dynamics of a movement
can change. At that point, public officials face the challenge of addressing
not only the immediate protest but also the underlying grievances that brought
people into the streets.
The videos circulating from the
police action have generated intense public debate. They have prompted
questions about the proportionality of the use of force, the treatment of
student protesters, and whether established procedures were followed. Some videos
have also led observers to question why certain officers did not appear to
display visible identification. If those concerns are valid, they deserve to be
examined carefully through an independent and transparent process.
Allegations have also been made
online regarding the conduct of individual officers and the possibility that
unauthorized persons participated in the police action. At this stage, these
remain allegations. Given the seriousness of such claims, any credible evidence
should be investigated by an independent authority so that the public can know
what actually occurred.
What is equally striking is how
the political response has evolved. What began as a student movement has drawn
the attention of opposition leaders and become part of a wider national debate.
That shift has increased public scrutiny of both the protests and the
government's response.
In my view, moments like these
test the strength of democratic institutions. Public confidence depends not
only on maintaining law and order but also on ensuring transparency,
accountability, and respect for the rights of citizens. When serious questions
arise about police conduct or government decisions, those questions should be
answered openly rather than left to speculation.
Another question that deserves
attention is the role of coalition politics. In my opinion, a government that
depends on the continued support of its coalition partners also shares
responsibility with those partners for the decisions it makes while in office.
I believe coalition governments function on collective responsibility, not
merely on numbers in Parliament. If serious concerns arise about the
government's handling of public protests, police conduct, or other matters of
public importance, then the parties whose support keeps that government in
power also have a responsibility to evaluate whether those actions are
consistent with the mandate they received from their own voters. In my view,
accountability in a parliamentary democracy does not rest solely with the party
leading the government; it also extends to those who choose to sustain that
government. These are questions that, in my opinion, deserve an open debate in
Parliament and across the country.
Whether this movement grows,
subsides, or leads to meaningful policy changes remains uncertain. What seems
clear, however, is that many participants believe their concerns have not yet
been adequately addressed. In any democracy, sustained public trust depends on
the willingness of institutions to respond to criticism, investigate credible
allegations, and demonstrate that the same standards of accountability apply to
everyone.
Comments
Post a Comment