On December 12, the Indian parliament passed the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA). The act offers citizenship to refugees escaping religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh; however, it excludes Muslims. Critics posit that this caveat is unconstitutional and goes against the secular notion of India; they fear that it adds another layer of structural Islamophobic discrimination alongside the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which now places stricter requirements on Muslim residents to prove their citizenship and avoid deportation.
Nationwide protests have been met with vehement police brutality, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries and intensifying commentary on the fascist nature of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.
It is argued that, regardless of the merits or demerits of government actions, citizens in a liberal democracy should have a free, fair, and universal right to protest. However, suppression of political dissent has become commonplace under the Modi regime.
In fact, Modi himself has used terms like ‘Maoists’ and ‘Urban Naxals’ to depict leftist activists as anti-national enemies of the state who are “spreading insurgency”. This siege mentality has manipulated the political discourse and the legal frameworks within the country.
Modi’s BJP has empowered societal and structural right-wing elements to brutally suppress political dissent. Indian journalists have highlighted how they are facing an increasing amount of hate speech–including death and rape threats–for publishing anti-government content. India now ranks 140th out of 180 countries in the Reporters Without Borders' 2019 World Press Freedom Index, down from 133rd in 2016.
In 2017 alone, three journalists were killed for publishing work that was critical of the government. For example, in September 2017, journalist Gauri Lankesh was shot outside her home by three unidentified assailants for criticizing the BJP-led Karnataka government.
In October 2017, the BJP’s youth wing in Karnataka, Yuva Morcha, filed a criminal complaint against writer Ramachandra Guha for discussing the atmosphere of intolerance created by the BJP.
The repercussions of this illiberal democracy are felt not only by journalists and writers but also by social activists.
In August 2018, police raided the homes of nine civil rights activists across the nation–and arrested five–due to their “Maoist links”.
In September 2018, a college student in Tamil Nadu was arrested for calling the BJP ‘fascist’.
And now, during the ongoing CAA-NRC protests, police retaliation has so far resulted in at least 27 deaths, tens of thousands of detentions, thousands of arrests, and countless injuries.
Hence, political dissent is suppressed by equating it with anti-nationalism, thus empowering BJP supporters and associates, and law enforcement, to indiscriminately punish critics of the government.
Similar trends have been observed in right-wing democracies across the globe.
In the United States (US), the police arrested 230 demonstrators during President Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2016, charging them with 'felony rioting', a "nonexistent crime in Washington DC". Trump has since said that burning the US flag should result in a loss of citizenship or a year in jail, despite the fact that burning the flag is protected as an act of political expression under the Constitution; additionally, the US government cannot punish its citizens by revoking citizenship. He has publicly stated his intention to "open up" libel laws to sue media personnel who criticize him. And he has called on owners of professional football teams to fire players who kneel during the national anthem to protest police brutality and racial inequality.
In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte ordered the Senate to remove Leila de Lima as the head of a Senate judiciary committee in 2016 for investigating Duterte's extrajudicial killings in his war on drugs. In fact, prior to de Lima’s removal, Duterte published an unverified list of 1,000 ‘narco-politicians’, government officials, mayors, governors, and judges, indicating a desire to punish all those who oppose his rule. For instance, in November, Duterte removed the co-chair of the Inter-Agency Committee on Anti-Illegal Drugs (ICAD), Leni Robredo, after she said she would reform the nation’s police system.
In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro celebrates the 1964 military coup that led to the ouster of democratically elected president João Goulart and a brutal 21-year-long military dictatorship. He has stacked his government with military generals, his son decried that rapid political transformation is impossible using “democratic means”, and Bolsonaro himself has previously declared, “Yes, I’m in favour of a dictatorship.”
Similarly, in Israel, President Netanyahu has accelerated the construction of Israeli settlements in Palestine. By extending the Jewish influence, he is able to strengthen his goal of an ethnocratic democracy and minimize political dissent. Palestinians are likely to deny Israeli citizenship even in the unlikely scenario that they are offered it, and stateless residents have no rights. Even Jewish Israeli activists who speak out against the government, such as Breaking the Silence and Ta-ayush, face arrest; being anti-occupation is seen as anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. For example, in 2016, two Israeli Jews in Ta'ayush were arrested, disallowed from seeing their lawyers, and held without any charges.
Such quasi-fascism has become seemingly synonymous with right-wing democracies. However, does this phenomenon of suppression of political dissent also exist in left-wing democracies?
In France, the Yellow Vest Movement, which opposes French President Emmanuel Macron’s policies for favouring the rich, has suffered gruesome injuries. French police are not allowed to use rubber bullets to target someone's head or genitals; yet, as of November 2019, 315 people have suffered head injuries, and 25 have lost an eye. In fact, one woman even died from injuries caused by a grenade. The government, which has been criticized by the UN Human Rights chief for its excessive use of force, has defended its actions by labelling protesters as illegitimate "thugs" and "extremists". Protestors risk being put on a government watchlist under the "anti-riot" bill passed by the French National Assembly in October. Additionally, Macron has expanded the role of France's media 'watchdog', CAS, and has openly considered “appointing civil servants to oversee the media and control the news”. Therefore, Macron has introduced physical repercussions for political dissent, and attempted to control the dissemination of information.
In Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)–the national police force–arrested 14 people on indigenous Wet’suwet’en territory in January for blocking the construction of a natural gas pipeline. While these arrests were permitted by a court order, it has since emerged that the RCMP instructed its officers to conduct a militarized raid using “as much violence as [they] want[ed]”, including “lethal overwatch”, which refers to the use of snipers. Thus, despite the legality of the arrests, the fact that police were instructed and prepared to use disproportionate force indicates how far the Canadian government is willing to go to defend its interests and suppress dissenting voices.
In Spain, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez–in power since June 2018–opposes Catalonian independence despite eight consecutive years of protests, with one million protestors in 2018, and 600,000 in 2019, and despite the fact that 90% of Catalonians voted for independence during a 2017 referendum. In October, in a decision hailed by Sánchez, the Supreme Court sentenced nine Catalan politicians and social activists to between nine and 13 years in prison for sedition, citing their role in the 2017 Catalonian independence movement. In 2019, protests have intensified again, and Sánchez threatened to send Madrid’s police force to the region if protests did not de-escalate. Such threats are particularly poignant considering that in 2017, police brutality accounted for 893 injuries, with police using a “degree of force never seen before in a European member state”.
Keeping this in mind, can it really be said that the suppression of political dissent in democracies is synonymous with right-wing governments? While this certainly fits the neoliberal narrative of ‘strongman’ leaders using—or threatening to use—disproportionate force to silence critics, similar trends are also observed in left-wing democracies.
Ultimately, democratic leaders assert and maintain their power insofar as the law allows them. When this fails, they resort to indiscriminate retribution. This phenomenon is not endemic to any particular type of democracy. Leaders accept and encourage dissent when it furthers their goals; they ignore it when it doesn’t concern them; and they retaliate against it when it threatens them.
Is Suppression of Political Dissent in Democracies a Right-Wing Phenomenon?
Political suppression is a tool used by politicians across the aisle.
December 27, 2019
IMAGE SOURCE: PTI(Left to Right, front row) Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Prime Minister Narendra, Modi, and Home Minister Amit Shah