Dissent, which encompasses the act of expressing opinions or beliefs contrary to prevailing norms or state ideologies, serves as the lifeblood of democracy. It is not merely an individual liberty but a collective imperative, enabling societies to evolve, confront injustice, and reimagine better futures. At its core, dissent challenges the status quo, calls power to account, and empowers the marginalised.
However, this essential function has made dissent a target of suppression by regimes that equate criticism with disloyalty or disruption. While international legal standards provide robust protections for the right to dissent, various political, legal, technological, and social mechanisms have emerged to curtail it. These mechanisms not only silence opposition but also erode the broader democratic fabric. Hence, there is the need for the stronger enforcement of international norms to preserve democratic values.
The right to dissent under int’l law
International human rights law recognises the right to dissent as an intrinsic element of the broader freedoms of expression, assembly, and association. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, lays the foundational framework in Article 19, which affirms the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This is further elaborated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly in Article 19(2), which provides that everyone has the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers. This expansive articulation protects a wide spectrum of dissenting activities, from peaceful protests to whistleblowing. The rights to peaceful assembly (Article 21) and freedom of association (Article 22) of the ICCPR further consolidate the legal standing of dissent in international law.
The United Nations HR Committee, through General Comment Number 34, has underscored the importance of these rights in facilitating public discourse, particularly in criticising public officials and government actions. Regional HR systems, including the European Convention on HR (Article 10), the American Convention on HR (Article 13), and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 9), reinforce these protections with contextual adaptations. Collectively, these instruments create a normative architecture that positions dissent not as a threat but as a right essential to democracy and human dignity.
Legal and political constraints on dissent
Despite the strong normative protections, many States impose legal and political constraints on dissent, often under the guise of national security, public order, or morality. Article 19(3) of the ICCPR allows certain restrictions, but these must be provided by law, necessity, and proportionate to a legitimate aim. However, in practice, governments often manipulate these exceptions to serve authoritarian ends. Laws criminalising sedition, defamation, or the spread of ‘fake news’ are frequently employed to intimidate or punish dissenters. For example, India’s colonial-era sedition law, enshrined in Section 124A of the Penal Code, has been used extensively against journalists, students, and activists who criticise government policies.
Similarly, Russia has enacted laws branding dissenters and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as ‘foreign agents’, severely limiting their activities and subjecting them to intense scrutiny. In China, dissent is often suppressed through expansive interpretations of laws intended to maintain public order or national unity. These legal tools, while appearing procedurally legitimate, often violate the principles of legality and proportionality emphasised in international law. They serve more as instruments of control than legitimate mechanisms for maintaining order. As a result, individuals engaged in legitimate dissent face arrest, detention, or worse, under laws that ought to protect rather than punish them.
Surveillance and digital censorship
In the contemporary era, the tools for suppressing dissent have evolved, with states leveraging digital technologies for mass surveillance and censorship. The right to privacy, protected under Article 17 of the ICCPR, is often undermined by the intrusive monitoring of digital communications. Governments around the world have invested in sophisticated surveillance tools capable of tracking dissenters’ online activities, accessing encrypted communications, and harvesting metadata. This digital intrusion creates an environment of fear, wherein individuals self-censor or withdraw from activism altogether.
For instance, the Pegasus spyware scandal revealed how various governments used surveillance tools against journalists, HR defenders, and opposition figures. In China, the Great Firewall blocks access to international news and social media platforms, effectively silencing external and internal dissent. Iran and Turkey have also been known to shut down the internet entirely during periods of unrest, curbing the ability to organise and disseminate information. The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Opinion and Expression has repeatedly warned against such practices, noting that digital repression is becoming a formidable threat to democratic engagement and HR. The shift from overt suppression to covert surveillance marks a troubling evolution in the state's arsenal against dissent.
Social and econ. pressures
Beyond legal and digital suppression, social and economic pressures serve as powerful deterrents against dissent. Whistleblowers and activists often face professional ostracisation, social stigma, or economic retaliation. Governments and private entities may blacklist dissenters, deny them employment opportunities, or subject them to public vilification. These indirect methods of suppression are less visible but equally insidious, as they discourage participation in public discourse and undermine democratic engagement.
Former National Security Agency intelligence contractor Edward Joseph Snowden’s case exemplifies the high cost of dissent. Forced into exile for exposing mass surveillance practices by the United States Government, Snowden became a symbol of the personal sacrifices involved in dissent. In Saudi Arabia, critics of the regime are not only jailed but often subjected to travel bans, asset freezes, and retaliatory measures against their families. In many countries, dissenters are portrayed as unpatriotic or disruptive, thereby isolating them from mainstream society. Furthermore, social media platforms, driven by algorithmic preferences, often amplify dominant narratives while sidelining dissenting views. This marginalisation exacerbates the isolation of dissenters, creating a culture in which silence is safer than speaking out.
Chilling effect and the culture of silence
The cumulative effect of legal, technological, and social constraints is the creation of a chilling effect, wherein individuals refrain from exercising their rights due to the fear of reprisal. This chilling effect extends beyond those directly targeted; it influences the broader public, discouraging collective action and political participation. The European Court of HR, in several landmark decisions, has emphasised that any restriction on the freedom of expression must be narrowly construed to prevent such outcomes. In Observer and Guardian v. The United Kingdom (1991), the Court warned that even well-intentioned restrictions can lead to disproportionate consequences that undermine democratic values.
The chilling effect erodes trust in public institutions and the rule of law. When people believe that expressing dissent will lead to surveillance, harassment, or the loss of livelihood, they become disengaged. This disengagement weakens democratic accountability and allows authoritarian tendencies to flourish unchecked. International human rights bodies, including the UN HR Council and the Inter-American Court of HR, have highlighted the corrosive impact of such suppression on civil society. If unchecked, the culture of silence can become self-perpetuating, leading to a situation where the absence of dissent is mistaken for genuine consensus.
Protecting dissent: Int’l mechanisms and remedies
To counter the forces that silence dissent, the international community has established various mechanisms aimed at protecting the freedoms of expression and association. The UN HR Committee allows individuals to file complaints under the ICCPR’s Optional Protocol, offering a legal recourse for victims of rights violations. Special Rapporteurs appointed by the UN issue urgent appeals, conduct fact-finding missions, and produce thematic reports highlighting abuses. The Universal Periodic Review process provides a platform for peer review and the public scrutiny of national HR practices.
Regional HR courts, such as the European Court of HR and the Inter-American Court of HR, offer binding judgments that can compel States to rectify rights violations. Civil society organisations and international NGOs play a crucial role in documenting abuses, mobilising support, and providing legal aid to targeted individuals. However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms is often limited by political resistance, the lack of enforcement, and insufficient public awareness. Greater international cooperation and solidarity are needed to strengthen these protective frameworks and ensure that the right to dissent is upheld in both principle and practice.
Conclusion: The price of silence
Dissent is not just a right; it is the heartbeat of a democratic society. It serves as a check on power, a voice for the voiceless, and a catalyst for progress. However, myriad legal, technological, and social mechanisms continue to suppress this vital function. The international legal framework provides robust protections, but their implementation remains inconsistent and often ineffective in the face of state resistance and authoritarian drift. The cost of silence is not borne by dissenters alone; it is a collective loss that weakens society’s ability to self-correct and adapt.
To preserve the right to dissent, the international community must move beyond rhetoric. It must commit to enforcing legal standards, holding violators accountable, and empowering those who dare to speak out. As Czech President Vaclav Havel eloquently stated: "The dissident does not operate in the realm of genuine power at all. He is not seeking power. He is seeking the truth." In the pursuit of truth, dissent must not only be protected but celebrated as the essence of human freedom.
(The writer is an attorney and a lecturer in Law at the Colombo University)
…………………………………….
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication