Tongue as a Lethal Weapon: Why Ritualistic Piety Fails to Save a Broken State
In the study of political science, institutional governance, and political criminology, scholars frequently observe a dangerous rift between superficial legitimacy and structural ethics.
In a society deeply rooted in cultural and religious values like Bangladesh, the divergence between personal piety (symbolized by ‘prayer’) and public discourse (symbolized by ‘language’ or the ‘tongue’) serves as a critical barometer of political health.
When political leadership invokes moral rhetoric to assert legitimacy while simultaneously deploying destructive rhetoric to demonize, polarize, and liquidate opponents, the fundamental social contract collapses.
No display of public piety can shield a state from the institutional decay and structural violence bred by the weaponization of language.
Theoretical Framework: The Weaponization of Speech
To understand how a toxic tongue nullifies institutional virtues and ritualistic piety, one must examine Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action. Habermas posits that a functioning democracy relies on "ideal speech situations," where political discourse is anchored in mutual understanding, truth-seeking, and democratic consensus.
Conversely, when political rhetoric descends into incitement and character assassination, it morphs into what Michel Foucault termed "discursive power." Here, language ceases to be a tool for communication and becomes a weapon- establishing "regimes of truth" that criminalize dissent. By indulging in zero-sum rhetoric, political elites foster a hostile political culture where neither democratic procedures nor personal piety can mitigate linguistic violence.
Political Criminology: State Crime and Structural Harm
While conventional criminology focuses on visible individual offenses, political criminology examines crimes perpetrated by political parties, state institutions, and elite networks to retain power. Through this lens, destructive speech is not merely a breach of etiquette; it is a calculated form of structural and symbolic violence.
Techniques of Neutralization (Sykes & Matza):
Political actors routinely use moral or ideological narratives as psychological shields to sanitize unethical actions. By projecting an aura of piety, they attempt to obscure structural harms. Their rhetoric delegitimizes opponents, framing rights violations, arbitrary arrests, and systemic exclusion as socially acceptable.
State-Organized Deviancy:
When ruling elites systematically label rivals as "traitors" or "existential threats," they signal to law enforcement and lower judiciary that standard legal protections no longer apply to targeted groups. This rhetoric paves the way for state-organized crime, transforming law into an instrument of oppression rather than protection.
The Bangladeshi Context: Ritual Piety vs. Rhetorical Violence
The political trajectory of Bangladesh offers a stark illustration of this theoretical crisis. Examining the volatile political landscape- particularly around the historic August 5, 2024 political shift—reveals two contradictory paths to legitimacy:
The Politics of Visible Piety:
Political actors invest heavily in symbolic morality, religious expressions, and formal commitments to the rule of law to establish a superficial connection with the public.
Dehumanization as Core Rhetoric:
In stark contrast, active political discourse relies on the dehumanization of opponents. Rather than viewing rivals as legitimate competitors, words are weaponized to frame them as enemies of the state.
This toxic language renders every transition of power violent and uncertain, as all factions fear total annihilation by their opponents' rhetoric upon losing authority.
Grassroots Impact: Local Government Elections
The toxic rhetoric of national elites cascades downward, manifesting as physical violence during local government elections—such as Union Parishad, Upazila, Municipality, and City Corporation polls. Local government forms the bedrock of grassroots democracy in Bangladesh, yet the corruption of national political language produces severe administrative and criminological consequences:
Criminalization of Local Campaigns:
When local candidates emulate national leaders in denying opponents the right to exist, they view intimidation and booth-capturing as implicitly sanctioned. Destructive speech directly triggers electoral violence and the misuse of law enforcement.
Erosion of Social Harmony:
Rural and suburban social structures in Bangladesh rely heavily on close-knit community bonds. Extreme polarization and defamatory campaign language permanently sever these ties, turning neighbors into adversaries and sparking long-term blood feuds.
Collapse of Local Governance:
Representatives who secure power through aggressive rhetoric and intimidation cannot deliver inclusive governance. A local chairman or mayor who alienates half the constituency cannot fairly distribute public resources or social security benefits, reducing local governance to a partisan stronghold.
The Imperative for Respectful Discourse and Tolerance
Objective political and criminological analysis demonstrates that where daily power dynamics depend on systematic destruction, ritualistic acts of piety cannot salvage the system.
To build a sustainable democratic future, both ruling and opposition parties must exercise profound restraint and adopt constructive political language. Political opposition must not be equated with personal enmity. Even during intense debates, leaders must maintain civilized vocabulary and respectful body language.
Tolerance for dissent- the hallmark of a vibrant multi-party democracy- must evolve from a mere campaign slogan into an internalized value reflected in daily political conduct.
Genuine governance reform cannot be achieved solely through legislative amendments or routine elections; it begins with the refinement of political discourse and mutual respect. Until the tongue is transformed from a weapon of exclusion into a bridge for dialogue, no symbolic piety will shield the state from the instability created by its own words.
_________________________________________________________________
About the Author: Prof. Dr. Asif Mizan is the Vice-Chancellor of Daaru Salaam University (Somalia), and a political scientist, criminologist, and governance specialist