Mandating a minimalist approach to enforcement
Whilst reading an article on the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, I was intrigued to learn about the cases in which the principal reason for mortality is not due to coronavirus.
In such instances, death occurs as a result of damages inflicted by an overzealous internal reaction to the virus. As the immune system battles to contain the infection, some individuals may experience minor inflammation as a side- effect of this encounter. Unfortunately, this condition often triggers an aggressive response by our body's internal defence mechanism that dispatches more than required resources to counter the injury.
As the illness starts to get worst, the body retaliates even more harshly which causes a lethal downward spiral leading to hyper-inflammation and death. Since I am not a medical professional by any stretch of imagination, this is my simpleton explanation of a complicated internal process known as the cytokine storm.
Cytokine storm is not exclusive to Covid-19 and happens as a result of a variety of diseases. In situations when an individual is experiencing this condition, the main remedial measure is to pull back the immune system that might have gone awry. If this is not done, our hyper-aggressive protective mechanism becomes our own worst enemy often leading to deadly results. It was therefore not surprising that a common steroid was found to be an effective treatment for some of the Covid-19 patients. This remedy works by essentially weakening the immune system and hence saves lives by preventing it from inflicting self-harm. In general, the importance of the immune system cannot be understated, however, there are conditions when it must be bounded especially when it dangerously overstretches itself.
If we consider mapping an individual to a country's body politic, then the immune system would be analogous to the law enforcement agencies that protect the status quo. In such a representation, cytokine storm would correspond to unrestricted harsh measures by the security apparatus to curb even minor cases of insurgencies. In many ways, this has sadly been the history of our country that has brazenly crushed the opposition with excessive use of force.
Although this behaviour has been a constant throughout the 73 years of our existence, it nevertheless was at its zenith during the 1971 crisis. In that instance, those in power applied disproportionate use of force which instead of solving the problem further aggravated the situation. The events quickly got out of hand with a self-perpetuating cycle of actions and reactions that soon amplified and led to the dismemberment of the country.
The inevitable outcome of 1971 is an example of a reckless security operation that unfortunately ended up working against its own national interest. In that way it is not dissimilar, at an individual level, to a person that suffers at the hands of its own protective system during a cytokine storm. During the 1971 crisis, the preference to apply overwhelming force led to a continuous stream of collateral damages which in turn fuelled the uprising. Could we have avoided this tragedy? Perhaps there is a something to be learnt from individuals that restrict their immune systems to save themselves from its deadly overreaction.
Hence, the key lesson is that unchecked law enforcement must never be applied to address internal discords. Their application unavoidably leads to unintended consequences that exponentially deteriorate to an extent that could never have been anticipated.
The month of Muharram is an annual reminder of a regime that shunned the path of negotiations whilst resorting to cruel means to crush a peaceful movement. At its very core, the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (RA) and his companions provide an eternal source of inspiration for all the oppressed classes. However, the event at Karbala also provides a deep moment of reflection for the ruling elites worldwide. What is critical to understand is that any arrogant misuse of power inevitably leads to a dialectical slide to dystopia. The reverberations of the inhumanly harsh treatment meted out to the holy family are felt to this day, causing deep divisions despite passing away of many generations.
Even in the current environment, there are enforcement bodies that employ ruthless means to control minor instances of defiance. For example, the tragic death of George Floyd has universally inflamed the crowds protesting police brutality towards minorities. As the movement gained impetus, people across the globe made efforts to dislodge the statues of individuals once deemed sacred.
The displacement of effigies is beyond symbolic as it challenges the moral legitimacy of figures deemed heroes. The accompanying public debates have also been successful in sowing the seeds of doubt on the glorious narratives describing the contributions of past leaders. In that way, the most profound outcome has not been the physical removal of the statues, but the entire re-examining of the legacy left behind by our rulers. Whilst history undergoes an evolution for some, there are also others for whom it is disturbing to witness their past being reshuffled. Hence, a dialectical debate is underway amongst scholars that aim to define and propagate their own competing versions of what truly constitutes our past.
As the physical and the intellectual turmoil spreads worldwide, there are those that are keen to view these disruptions purely from a law and order perspective. Instead of analysing the situation holistically, there are voices which are calling for stricter measures to deal with the protesters. Although application of forceful measures could temporarily achieve some semblance of normalcy, the longer-term implications will be impossible to address.
Hence, instead of implementing a maximalist approach such as a crackdown, there is a stronger case to be made for seriously scaling down enforcement efforts.