Yes Oppose, But Propose

The test of freedom of expression is dissent. This means, the act of opposing the powers-that-be or criticizing the prevailing socio-political order.

If to express is to sing hosannas to rule, or extoll its decrees, guarantee by law of the right to do it is superfluous. Statutes are not needed anymore. The powers-that-be not only assure but solicits and rewards it. Do you still need the Bill of Rights to praise a ruling dictator?

President Rodrigo Duterte’s lackeys can shower him with exaltations. They can make him smell of expensive perfume every inch. Of course, they may also badmouth their own. They can self-flagellate themselves to their hearts content. No one will suppress that.  

Self-praise of a king or worship of him by his minions is not what the exercise of freedom in the real sense is meant. They can do so as they please, without any law to back it. Political power backed by military might is on their side.

But make no mistake. True freedom is not meant to be the expression of dissent alone. It must express change, tell what is to be done, and introduce the new shape of things opposite the status quo.

The ultimate point of  freedom of expression is not only to oppose but to propose.

Do you merely want to oppose? Well and good, a tyrant can tolerate it, or even encourage it, to showcase liberty under his reign. It may be allowed, because it won’t change things anyway. The tyrant does not have to worry of being overthrown.

But dissent is not just about the exercise of freedom to dissent. Dissent for dissent’s sake is pointless. Opposing just for the sake of opposing, in the end is counterproductive, for being disruptive without a cause.

Well-meaning dissent advances change. You debunk what’s going on, so what should happen, instead? When you criticize society, you must have in mind what is correct, and express it. When you score tyranny, you introduce the aspiration to replace it.

Hence, dissent leads to resolution: the overhaul of the old order and putting of a new one. Because in another breadth it proposes change, dissent carries the seed of the socio-institutional arrangements that portends the death of the system in place. It goes subversive.

Freedom of expression in the form of dissent upends the ruling system. Being subversive of the prevailing order that includes the legal sphere, dissent therefore can no longer depend on any law to express itself.

Note that avowedly free societies clamp down on dissenters deemed to undermine their way of life. The self-assigned champion of the so-called Free World, the United States of America, has unloosed the worst persecution on citizens fighting for civil rights, docketed to promote communism, opposing the Vietnam war, and condemning the Establishment.

In many instances among purported democracies, the suppression of dissent in the name of national security overrides the Bill of Rights. They reason out the abuse of human rights as necessary to quell subversion. They condone and abet violent excesses to silence people calling for radical change.

When such is the case, dissent is no longer the exercise of freedom as guaranteed and protected by law, it becomes the expression of freedom with or without the protection of the law. To dissent is to be free to mount dissent in the face of repression and threat. It does not rest anymore on the law. No code either could prohibit it.

It is powered by conviction. Even a live cannon can’t smoother it. Confronted by formidable obstacles, it seeks its way like a river that flows underground to stay on course. Hence, it denotes real freedom above any legal construct.

Genuine freedom exercised in dissent turns the dynamo of social change, for it does not only dare to oppose but most of all dare to propose a different rule.