How cowardice is corrupting politics

I have always believed that one should only assert a belief if they are also proud to openly proclaim it. Otherwise, they should not have adopted this belief in the first place. For instance, what is the point of believing that beans cure measles if you keep this belief to yourself and are ashamed to publicly declare it?

I can understand your fear of neighborhood lunatics who challenge your beliefs—who, wielding power and malice, might hurt anyone who disagrees with them. A temporary silence is justifiable in unwelcome environments or during difficult times. However, if your reluctance to publicly express your idea stems from shame, then this is something no sane mind can accept.

The problem lies in deluding both oneself and others into believing that mulling over the same thoughts day and night constitutes an engagement with—or a serious attempt to change—the reality.

When one feels shame toward a belief they hold, they often inherit it, just as one might inherit parents’ debt. Let’s say that one’s father believed that beans cured measles, and there were no thugs in the neighborhood to threaten him nor rational people to debate with him. He would likely earn a label like “the odd one” or “the problematic one.” Finding this appealing, you might have adopted the belief yourself. But, because the present day is filled with aggressive nonbelievers in the powers of beans, one would feel ashamed of this belief and hide it as much as possible. It is not only embarrassment that shames the ideas of some intellectuals or politicians across the world. Yes, we have become accustomed to only admitting our views in hushed tones, and only within our small family circles. For instance, those who claim to adhere to Marxist thought but hide it, or those who start speaking with, “I am not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but…” But what I struggle to get used to is when we try to defend ideas by delving into the history of opposing viewpoints.

Imagine five university professors sitting in the same café every day, repeating the same conversations, and never disagreeing. They are completely united in their views about Vietnam, President Biden, and the French left. They have nothing to dispute. If there were no goals to achieve, this would be fine. However, this is not reality. As they seamlessly agree, Gaza’s residents and buildings suffer through a slow and excruciating annihilation.

I do not mean to defend the validity of an idea by denying the validity of its antithesis. Rather, I aim to legitimize it by exploring the history of the opposing idea and showing how it supports or proves one’s idea.

There is no better example to explain this than the claims made by advocates of secularism. For instance, some have justified their ideas by arguing that the state during the Rashidun or Umayyad eras was secular.

What does this mean? It suggests you have no proof of your idea from within yourself, or at least, you do not believe your idea can defend itself through its evidence and supporting data. As long as this is the case, you must attempt to appease your intellectual adversary by suggesting that they unknowingly hold the same ideas, or that others have provided them with a distorted history.

So, in addition to the shame that people feel in boldly declaring their ideas, there is another equally severe problem: deceiving opponents of thought by convincing them that their beliefs are incorrect. A deceit is achieved by doing the thinking for them, or showing them that their version of history is so similar to the “correct” version, but simply suffers from some confusion.

The third problem lies in deluding both oneself and others into believing that mulling over the same thoughts day and night constitutes an engagement with or a serious attempt to change reality.

They must be told that reality lies elsewhere and that their discussions are not engaging with reality or doing anything to change it. Rather, they are escaping reality to find self-consolation in their agreement. They must be told that ideas are more than “if only” and “if not for...” Ideas are not meant to be mere aesthetic substitutes for reality, like songs or paintings.

Imagine five university professors sitting in the same café every day, repeating the same conversations, and never disagreeing in their ideas or conclusions. They are completely united in their views about Vietnam, the corruption of the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Culture, President Biden, and the French left. They have nothing to criticize or dispute.

If there were no goals to achieve, this would be fine. However, this is not reality. As they seamlessly agree, Gaza's residents and buildings suffer through a slow and excruciating annihilation, to achieve our goals.

Try telling them, dear reader, that reality lies elsewhere, and that their discussions are not engaging with reality or doing anything to change it. Rather, they are escaping reality to find self-consolation in their agreement. Tell them that ideas are more than “if only” and “if not for...” Ideas are not meant to be mere aesthetic substitutes for reality, like songs or paintings.

The fourth flaw concerns those who do not reject dissenting ideas but are always concerned with their timing. For some unknown and unexplained reason, timing is their fixation.

They might say, “Your idea is a good one, but you voiced it too soon… since, you know, this is not the right time.” They offer this advice even if you haven’t asked for it.

Has a writer ever asked a reader: “What do you think of my ideas, and how did you feel when you read them on the morning of November 2?” Only for the reader to reply: “They’re very good ideas, but I would have preferred if you had written them at the end of December”?

A major flaw lies in the logic of those who are not opposed to dissenting ideas but are always concerned with their timing. For some unknown and unexplained reason, timing is their fixation. They might say, “Your idea is a good one, but you voiced it too soon; this is not the right time.” Has a writer ever asked a reader: “What do you think of my ideas, and how did you feel when you read them on the morning of November 2nd?” Only for the reader to reply: “They’re very good ideas, but I would have preferred if you had written them at the end of December”?

I could list dozens of examples where articles lose all meaning if delayed by a week, but I do not want to dwell on mocking timing for too long.

What I am more concerned with is the contradiction between an idea being of quality or validity but having poor timing.

How can an idea be correct when its timing is wrong? In other words, if a French philosopher offered advice to Napoleon today, how could we consider this advice excellent, when it is too late? Wouldn’t the philosopher and his advice be subject to ridicule from most readers? My point is that timing is an integral part of an idea that cannot be separated from it.

Those who praise an idea but criticize its timing are one of three things: a liar out of apprehension, a coward who is avoiding dealing with an issue, or someone trying to escape reality. The escaper chooses a haven of mutual agreement, appeasement, and compromise, not wanting to disturb the comforting illusions of others.

What ties together all these intellectual problems is their outcome: that societies today are not inherently productive of substantial ideas that can turn into initiatives or, at the very least, political visions. In this environment, shame, lying, cowardice, and contentment with the status quo all find their place. The existence of these flaws is justified and legitimized, masquerading as political stances.

* The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Raseef22