The Selective Conscience: How Diaspora Communities Are Redefining Accountability
Nearly 240 million people in Pakistan experienced a nationwide internet shutdown in February 2024, coinciding with contested elections. While such actions would rightly draw condemnation from human rights advocates focused on other nations, a disturbing trend emerged: silence, or even justification, from within the Pakistani diaspora – individuals who routinely champion democratic values in their adopted Western homes. This isn’t an isolated incident; it’s a symptom of a growing malaise – a selective conscience – and it signals a fundamental shift in how accountability operates in a globalized world.
The Comfort of Distance: When Principles Become Conditional
The phenomenon isn’t limited to Pakistan. Across the globe, diaspora communities are grappling with a complex tension: upholding the principles they cherish in their new countries while navigating the realities – and often, the abuses – in their countries of origin. This often manifests as a demand for “proof” of wrongdoing, a tactic that subtly shields authoritarian regimes. As Amnesty International’s “Shadows of Control” report details, the surveillance state in Pakistan is already a reality for millions, yet the burden of evidence continues to fall on those documenting the abuses, not on the state to demonstrate its adherence to human rights.
This isn’t simply a matter of differing perspectives. It’s a calculated performance of denial, allowing individuals to maintain their “liberal” credentials in the West without confronting the uncomfortable truths about the regimes they implicitly support through their silence. The case of Shaaz Mahboob, founder of British and Global Muslims for Secular Democracy, highlighted in recent commentary, exemplifies this troubling dynamic. His advocacy for secularism in the UK stands in stark contrast to his muted response to escalating repression in Pakistan.
Beyond Imran Khan: The Systemic Rot and the Convenient Distraction
A common tactic employed by those exhibiting this selective conscience is the hyper-focus on the flaws of individual political figures – often opposition leaders like Imran Khan – as a distraction from systemic issues. While legitimate criticisms of Khan exist, fixating solely on his shortcomings allows for the overlooking of far more entrenched and dangerous actors. This is a deliberate strategy to avoid challenging the fundamental structures of power that perpetuate injustice.
The February 2024 elections, widely condemned as rigged, provide a stark example. Targeting a jailed opposition leader while ignoring the systemic flaws that enabled the manipulation of the electoral process is not a pursuit of justice; it’s a reinforcement of the status quo. It’s a tacit endorsement of a system built on repression and control.
The Role of Mass Surveillance and Digital Control
The increasing sophistication of surveillance technologies is exacerbating this problem. The Pakistani government’s ability to shut down the internet, monitor communications, and arbitrarily detain citizens creates a climate of fear that silences dissent. This isn’t merely about controlling information; it’s about dismantling the very foundations of civil society. A UN Working Group (Opinion 22/2024) has explicitly documented these abuses, yet the demand for “specific examples” persists among some within the diaspora.
The Future of Diaspora Accountability: A Generational Divide?
This selective conscience isn’t static. We’re likely to see a widening generational divide within diaspora communities. Younger generations, often more connected to the realities on the ground through social media and independent journalism, are increasingly unwilling to tolerate this duplicity. They are demanding greater accountability from both their host countries and their countries of origin.
Furthermore, the rise of digital activism and transnational solidarity movements is creating new avenues for challenging authoritarian regimes. Diaspora communities are no longer solely reliant on traditional diplomatic channels; they can leverage technology to amplify the voices of those on the ground, document human rights abuses, and mobilize international pressure. However, this requires a fundamental shift in mindset – a recognition that principles must be universal, not regional.
The Line in the Sand: Universal Principles vs. Pragmatic Silence
The question facing diaspora communities isn’t simply about supporting democracy abroad; it’s about defining what democracy means in practice. If we condemn theocratic overreach and authoritarianism in the West, we cannot remain silent when similar abuses occur in our ancestral homelands. To do so is to betray our own values and to become complicit in the oppression of others. The Anti-Terrorism Act in Pakistan, increasingly used to suppress peaceful movements like the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM), demands scrutiny and condemnation, just as any similar legislation would in a Western context.
History will not remember those who equivocated or demanded “proof” while freedoms were eroded and lives were lost. It will remember those who had the courage to stand up for what is right, regardless of the consequences. The future of accountability rests on our willingness to cross that line – to embrace a truly universal conscience.
What role will diaspora communities play in shaping the future of global accountability? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
