In his 1945 book, Open Society and its Enemies, the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper described a paradox, which he called the “paradox of tolerance.” Popper wrote that a society that is highly tolerant becomes vulnerable to the inevitable domination of intolerant forces. Therefore, Popper suggested that, if intolerant forces continue to overstep rational lines of communication or action, the tolerant should have the right to become entirely intolerant towards these forces.

Popper was positing that intolerance that has become a danger to a tolerant society should be dealt with an equal measure of intolerance. Otherwise, such a society will be swamped by intolerant forces. Popper was extremely perturbed by the violence and crimes of the Nazi regime in Germany. To him, before the rise of the Nazis, German democracy was too tolerant towards them.

Had the Nazis been dealt with through firmer laws or even banished for misusing democratic freedoms in a bid to destroy the republic, their rise to power could have been avoided. So, was Popper, who was a staunch liberal, pointing out the limitations of liberal democracy? Was he suggesting that excessive freedom of speech and action needs to be curbed to safeguard these freedoms?

Popper advised that rational means should be adopted to engage with intolerant forces. It is only when such engagements are “met with fists” that the tolerant segments of the society should have the prerogative to formulate laws that are intolerant towards intolerance.

Some are accusing Pakistan’s judiciary of becoming overtly politicised and ‘intolerant’ towards parliament, while others are alleging the ruling coalition is undermining the judiciary’s independence. So, who exactly is in the........

© Dawn (Magazines)