When applause becomes complicity and silence gives power a social licence, who keeps the system alive? Dr.Fiaz Maqbool Fazili
Dr. Fiaz Maqbool Fazili
A colourful announcement appears in the media—or perhaps on a roadside display: an event, a date, a venue. The stage is ready, the lights come on, and the microphone announces the arrival of ‘aapke chaheete-aapke apney ,’—our very own favourite Kashur hero, Amm Lala,sab ki shaan sab ki jaan ..He steps onto the stage, neatly and modestly dressed, the classic Karakul perfectly placed on his head, accompanied by the unmistakable Gulla kak. , typical style of sloganeering,” long live.. lala. He waves warmly, nods confidently and smiles at the gathering. His body language speaks of familiarity and authority. Then comes the perfect Zareef sahib’s sketch of “laddie shah of Tarngari and Tagan-gari”, drawing the audience in before a proper word is spoken.
And for simple people(dummies) like me—perhaps too easily impressed by grand moments—the effect is immediate. The applause begins.
I gently tap my friends shoulder sitting beside me sharing in low tone, perhaps what I leant in living somewhere along the Jhelum kinaareand clap along. In my mind: ““Karakoli haz chan badalwamatch—az haz chess grey magar, sjaan haz chaha kinaa katha!”- The Karakul(Turban) has changed its style today—slightly grey in colour, perhaps, but, my friend, look how beautifully it sits on his head!”
What can I say? Some people arrive with political analysis and carefully measured opinions. People like me sometimes see theKarakul-the coronation, a crown , hear the applause, feel the moment and conclude: “Aha… this must be something important.” But perhaps that is precisely the problem. Before applauding, should I not ask: Is the conduct, decision or event actually worthy of my approval?
When Valleyities applaud too readily, admiration, ceremony and silence can unintentionally make questionable conduct appear acceptable. This is not an indictment of every team leader, captain, bureaucrat, businessman, journalist,celebrity or public figure. It is first a critique of people like me—and of a habit I may have carried for too long: admiring influence because it might prove useful, remaining silent because honesty may have a cost, and confusing proximity to power with merit. The question,too late and too small , I should have asked myself much earlier is simple: “Is this right?” Too often, it is replaced by: “What do I get out of it?” That small shift—from principle to personal benefit—is where complicity begins.When applause becomes a moral currency society does not need to openly endorse wrongdoing to make it powerful. Sometimes it only needs to applaud it. A photograph, handshake, public felicitation, flattering introduction, social-media post, food tray or seat beside the powerful may appear harmless. Yet collectively, such gestures can create social validation for what should have been questioned rather. A public figure is celebrated. A questionable decision is announced. Shawls are draped over shoulders, mementos presented—garlands and applause follows.The ritual can become so predictable that one might imagine watching a Bollywood film starring one of the Khans.
What is often missing is the one thing that ought to precede applause: A pause. Whom exactly are we cheering—and for what? Even in seminars, workshops, memorial lectures and public functions, a name is invoked, the crowd responds, sometimes whistles ,and applause creates the appearance of approval while the reasons for that approval remain unexamined. At that point, applause can become more than appreciation. It can become complicity. Silence can give wrongdoing something even more consequential than approval: a social licence to continue. Eventually, wrongdoing stops looking like wrongdoing. It becomes:“This is simply how the system works.”The pattern can be seen in recurring controversies involving encroachments, construction around flood channels and water bodies, food vigilance seminars and allegations that influential individuals obtained advantages ordinary citizens could not easily secure. Even where facts remain disputed, continued social association with power can function as protection. The damage is not merely transactional; it weakens confidence that rules apply equally.
Standing for truth in a compromised environment is rarely comfortable, there is a cost of saying “No”.The person who refuses to flatter may lose invitations. The person who asks difficult questions may be labelled “negative” or “kalakhrab-The K word metaphor.” The person who points out wrongdoing may discover that former friends have become silent.
Truth can threaten access, personal benefit and hypocrisy.Yet social isolation does not necessarily mean that the person speaking is wrong. Sometimes it simply means that the environment has become uncomfortable with truth.This is visible whenever a whistle-blower or conscientious officer questions an irregular appointment, procurement decision or examination process. The person raising the concern may be transferred, excluded or portrayed as obstructive, while those who remain silent retain access and influence. Silence then becomes an incentive. It teaches observers that challenging wrongdoing is risky, while accommodating it is socially rewarding.
The dangerous question: “What Do I Get? One of the most damaging changes in public morality is the transformation of principle into calculation. Before supporting someone, we ask: Can he get my work done? Influence an official? Help my business? Expedite my file? Recommend a relative? Open a door? Protect me from consequences? Once relationships are judged primarily by personal benefit, principles become negotiable. We may condemn corruption in one situation and tolerate it in another because: “This person may be useful.”
Aas a medico that sounds of more hypocrisy than Hippocratic Oath. It creates a moral marketplace, where integrity becomes an expensive commodity.
Personal recommendations in admissions, recruitment, promotions, postings and public appointments illustrate the problem. Whenever someone advances through informal influence rather than transparent criteria, another—often less connected but better qualified—pays the price.
Being “well connected” is not a moral defence. If a process is unfair, its normalisation does not make it legitimate. We have complained about corruption, nepotism and favouritism for decades. We resent seeing deserving people ignored while the connected move ahead. But we rarely ask:Who keeps the system alive?This question always baffles me. Favouritism survives because people participate in it.When we celebrate access rather than merit, seek recommendations instead of rightful processes, or praise someone for “getting things done” regardless of how it was done, we strengthen the culture. Corruption is not sustained only by the corrupt. It is sustained by an ecosystem that makes corruption socially profitable.
Weak institutions, delayed oversight and respectable silence allow irregularities to continue. A later inquiry, cancellation or court intervention may correct part of the damage, but it cannot fully restore years of lost opportunities, confidence and faith in fairness.Our children—and especially Gen Z—are keen observers, assessors and auditors. They notice whom we honour, invite and recognise. They learn who gets ahead. If they repeatedly see integrity ignored while influence is celebrated, what lesson are we teaching them? We may lecture them about honesty and hard work, but our behaviour can communicate something louder: Know the right people. Walk the right corridors. Knock on the right doors. Stay close to authority. Secure your benefit. Children learn social morality not only from classrooms and sermons. They learn it from an adult’s reward.Perhaps we need to change whom we cheer for., and the moot question is, Do We Need a New Standard of Applause?Let us applaud the teacher who quietly educates generations; the doctor who serves without publicity; the civil servant who refuses an improper favour; the worker who earns honestly; the journalist who tells an uncomfortable truth; and the young person who rejects corruption even when it costs an opportunity. Let us make integrity fashionable again. Let honesty become socially respectable, principled disagreement acceptable, and merit more important than access.
The mirror ultimately turns towards us. Every time we cheer someone merely because he is powerful, ask: Would I applaud him if he had no power over me? Every time we seek validation on approvals… The torch that lights the way. That would be a ranking worth celebrating.
Why My Pen Does Not Stop…Not another number. Another concern. Sometimes the mirror must be held up—not to accuse anyone, but to help all of us see ourselves,me first -dummies for mummies more honestly.
The Author is a Surgeon at Mubarak hospital, Healthcare policy analyst, Certified Professional in Quality improvement in Hospitals can be reached at drfiazfazili@gmail.com
