Despite having a constitution that resembles ours, with respect to freedom of expression (of speech, of press, of assembly), the Chinese government has been applying a much narrower definition of rights, as shown by the example of a university professor being sentenced to life imprisonment this September for having criticised the Communist Party’s ethnic policies.
China’s restriction of free speech and information is not an unknown phenomenon, and one possible example would be the relationship between Google and the Chinese government that has been nothing less than unpleasant and marred with conflict – for instance, in 2010, Google had attempted to curb Chinese censorship by redirecting users to the unrestricted Hong Kong site.
Examples of the Chinese government confining “democracy” and restricting free speech are not limited to that of Google, but widespread. The statement made by Xi was made within a couple of months of the Hong Kong pro-democracy protests regarding the limitation posed by Beijing in terms of direct election within the political system of the region – the region that had been handed over by the British to China just before the turn of the new millennium.
The Internet, particularly the social media, has developed into a powerful space that promotes the exchange of ideas and can hold the state accountable regarding politicisation and representation of people and their views; which was exemplified by the fears elicited by rumours of a network blackout in October during the movement.
Protesters had been urged to install FireChat, an innovative application that maintains connectivity via Bluetooth technology, if communication networks provided by the state fall, to allow the sustenance of the citizens’ stand regarding voice and representation against any probable government measures.
Bangladesh is a country where citizens take pride in having a constitution – the basis of our policies, laws, and the overall legal system – on the notion that it is representative of our thoughts as the people. However, within our legal framework, there have been telling signs of restriction of speech and expression through enactments of laws and policies.
The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006 that had been amended, and the draft passed by the cabinet last year (2013), allows the police to arrest any violator without a warrant, and the crimes under the bill are non-bailable.
Civil society and non-profit organisations like Transparency International Bangladesh, Manusher Jonno Foundation, Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust, and Ain o Shalish Kendra, among notable others, had reacted to the law, especially to the fact that the ICT Act 2013, on the account of reducing “cybercrime,” allows a maximum of 14 years of prison for publishing any material electronically that can lead to the deterioration of law and order, or prejudice the image of the state or a person, or hurt people’s religious sentiments.
Several activists, bloggers, and media personnel have been arrested under the ICT Act. The law was passed just before the last national elections, and a member of the abovementioned civil societies had opined that there had been no protest at that time by the opposition party, as it left scope for political abuse.
A more recent example of controlling the dissemination of information is the National Broadcast Policy 2014, for which journalists have shown their disapproval by setting the policy on fire publicly. In this case, too, experts, organisations, and other groups, including political parties, have shown their dissatisfaction and provided their views on the contradiction of the policy with democratic norms, values, and already established laws.
The policy restricts the broadcasting of information that may compromise state security, in addition to comments demeaning the armed forces and officials in charge of upholding the rule of law, and airing mutiny, chaos, and violent incidents that may affect public interests.
No matter how much one considers legal framework to be positivistic and open to “only” precise application, legal theories and practice over the years have shown that legal frameworks are open to interpretation, and at times misuse. Ambiguities within legal documents are widespread in the immediate and broader world around us.
We have witnessed and continue to witness voices concerning formal setups that can impinge on our freedoms. Voices, expressions, and even freedom of assembly are the very basic ingredients of a democratic setup and of life itself.
From theorists of the Western world like John Locke, to philosophers and poets closer to us, like Tagore and Amartya Sen, many have emphasised on the notion of life based on liberty, being free. The very essence of life is to be able to speak our minds; not so that the state is harmed, but to be able to venture down a path that allows us to be ourselves.
The nation-state is an idea which is not above or below us, but a space to which we ought to have transcended our subjective selves: We are to live within it and for it. Pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, among many other demonstrations, have elucidated the creation of chaos, and have led to the deterioration of law and order going against state policy. We live in a country where many of us may not consider information and voices to be restricted, de facto.
However, we live in a country where politics and political parties, at times, have played a larger role in the governance process of the state than we would have desired. In a world where the idea of democracy and its basic institutions have become debatable, one can consider the distinction between state and political parties to become increasingly apparent.
We have raised our voices in the past, within our limits, but we must continue to persistently do so if we desire to live in a nation that serves the interests of the people.