What about Whataboutism?

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Tribalism, at its roots plays a large part in any kind of conflict and has been there ever since human beings began to coordinate and communicate. However, in the modern age, it has become more and more difficult to justify actions wrought by tribalism. 

There are few things more effective than whataboutism at defending a morally bankrupt position. 

This is rampant in Pakistan’s political sphere, where the flaws of the opponent are used to prevent criticism of our own side. This is a form of propaganda that has been around for a long time. These sort of tactics are extremely detrimental to any sort of constructive dialogue, as it can be used to defend any kind of atrocity no matter how bad. Whataboutism is a technique used to further and propagate such actions in a manner that decreases chances of conflict resolution and encourages confusion instead of clarity. 

The Russian regime is quick to point the finger at Nato and the US and the atrocities committed by them whenever their own actions have been called into question. The Israelis point towards antisemitism, the holocaust, and Hamas missiles when called out for human’s rights violations and territorial expansion. The Hindu extremists point to Pakistanis razing temples to justify oppressing Muslim minorities in their own country. This has gone on since time immemorial. This is largely because of a lack of neutral authority that can come in and say that they are powerful yet have a clean slate, there is no power that exists currently that can be the judge without having fingers pointed at their own atrocities in the past, however long past. Glass houses abound, none can throw a stone or stand in judgement. 

Thus it is up to individuals to form judgements, and look towards analysis of news to make their own decisions. It is the only way for us as humanity to move forwards into a better future. 

What exactly is Whataboutism? What does it entail? What is its history? And how can we sharpen our frame of analysis to be able to look through it, and overcome it in order to work towards better discourse?

What is Whataboutism?

If everyone guilty of something, is no one guilty of anything?

Of course, objectively speaking, that is entirely not true. Two wrongs do not make a right, and there is no moral ambiguity on this simplistic scale. However, these kinds of things tend to become more complicated when it comes to the human experience and the layers and layers of momentum that comes with history and discourse. 

According to Meriam Webster, 

“It is not merely the changing of a subject (“What about the economy?”) to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be”.

Basically it is a rhetorical device used for deflection of blame not by accusing someone else of the same thing literally, but the same thing (or worse) in spirit. It is similar to an ad hominum attack in a way, but is more about the deflection and not a direct aggressive maneuver. 

This is a form of tu quoque (or you, too) rhetoric and is considered a logical fallacy. The statement of whether or not the accuser is of bad faith does not really mean that the accusation itself was false or not. Despite intentions, a fact is a fact. If a thief accuses a man of assault, the assault and the theft are both individually morally heinous acts. Though the pot can call the kettle black and be the lesser for it, both the pot and the kettle are unchanged in their metaphoric “blackness”.  

In any case, despite its obvious moral wrongness, the device is very effective. By redirecting the blame towards the accuser, it is natural that the judge in the matter would be swayed a little bit if not a lot. It is effective because humans have evolved to develop trust. If the trust in the accuser is called into question when their reputation is maligned, there is naught for a logical thinker to do but to rethink their judgements. 

The History of Whataboutism

Though the closest association anyone has to Whataboutism is the Soviet Union during the cold war, the term finds its origins in the Ireland and UK conflict that was happening around the same time. 

“I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the “enemy”, and therefore the justice of the Provisionals’ cause: “What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?”. Every call to stop is answered in the same way: “What about the Treaty of Limerick; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; Lenadoon?”. Neither is the Church immune: “The Catholic Church has never supported the national cause. What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion; condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty; Parnell?”

— Sean O’Conaill, “Letter to Editor”, The Irish Times, 30 Jan 1974

This was followed up when describing soviet propaganda in the cold war. When the west brought up things like Russian atrocities in Afghanistan, or martial law in Poland, the Russians would undoubtedly point towards the Apartheid, Racism in the US. Famously, “..and you are Lynching Negroes” became a catchphrase when referring to whataboutism during this era. 

Whataboutism and Pakistan

In our own country we see that this rhetorical device is used to full effect to sow confusion. PTI will discuss the Sharif’s corruption when their hypocritical relationship with the Establishment is called out. PML-N is quick to talk about “Aliens” when their underhandedness is discussed. PPP will fall back on a dead man, and his daughter’s legacy. 

In this situation, it is important to look towards ways of defense against such tactics. The only way to counter this is better self reflection and understanding and criticizing all sides, including your own. When a PTI supporter accepts and criticizes Imran Khan for his failings, is when they are able to call out the failings of his opponents. And vice versa. This puts more pressure on all the leaders to act better, rather than label all their detractors as “others”.

This is the only viable way for us to clean house.