Extremism and Moderation | Editorials by CSS & PMS Aspirants
The following article, “Extremism in the Defence of Liberty is no Vice and Moderation in the Pursuit of Justice is no Virtue”, is written by Maria Qazi, a student of Sir Syed Kazim Ali. Moreover, the article is written on the same pattern, taught by Sir to his students, scoring the highest marks in compulsory subjects for years. Sir Kazim has uploaded his students’ solved past paper questions so other thousands of aspirants can understand how to crack a topic or question, how to write relevantly, what coherence is, and how to include and connect ideas, opinions, and suggestions to score the maximum.
History is no stranger to the clash between extremism and moderation, especially when liberty and justice are at stake. So, the assertion: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue” has fueled intense debate for decades. While some argue that radical action is necessary to dismantle oppression, others warn of its unintended consequences. Conversely, while moderation often prevents disorder, it can also slow necessary reforms. The key question remains: to what extent does extremism advance liberty, and how does excessive moderation hinder justice? This article explores both sides of the argument by examining historical examples and their lasting impact on society.
Jumping straight towards the main explanation, helping fully understand this dynamic, examining how extremism can undermine liberty; how moderation can obstruct justice; and how both have influenced major historical events is crucial.
The Dangers of Extremism in the Name of Liberty
- Undermining Democracy and Human Rights
First and foremost, extremism in pursuing liberty often backfires, resulting in tyranny rather than freedom. Indeed, history has repeatedly shown that radical movements can spiral out of control even when motivated by noble ideals. And the French Revolution is its prime example. Undeniably, what began as a movement to overthrow tyranny soon descended into the Reign of Terror, where thousands were executed in the name of liberty. Similarly, the Arab Spring uprisings, initially driven by democratic aspirations, were overtaken by extremist factions, which led to prolonged conflicts; authoritarian crackdowns; and failed states. Therefore, these examples illustrate how unchecked extremism can undermine democracy rather than uphold it.
- The Cycle of Violence and Rebellion
Moreover, radical actions often provoke equally radical reactions by creating a cycle of violence that destabilizes societies. In particular, revolutionary movements fueled by excessive zeal can lead to counter-revolutions, prolonging conflicts instead of resolving them. For instance, Syria’s civil war is a stark warning in this case as it started as a peaceful demand for democratic rights and quickly escalated into an armed conflict, which resulted in widespread devastation, mass displacement, and countless deaths. As a result, instead of achieving liberty, extremism only deepened human suffering. Thus, the belief that radicalism is an effective tool for liberation ignores the long-term consequences of unchecked aggression.
- The Justification of Oppression in the Name of Security
Moreover, governments have historically used extremism – real or perceived – as a pretext to curtail civil liberties and suppress dissent. Notably, the US Patriot Act, enacted after 9/11, was framed as a necessary measure to protect liberty, yet it resulted in invasive surveillance, racial profiling, and restrictions on free speech. Subsequently, when states justify authoritarian policies under the guise of defending freedom, they risk eroding the very liberties they claim to uphold. Therefore, while liberty must be safeguarded, extreme measures often create an environment where individual rights are sacrificed for perceived security.
The Consequences of Excessive Moderation in the Pursuit of Justice
- Prolonging Injustice Through Inaction
Similarly, while moderation is often seen as a stabilizing force, it can also serve as a tool for delaying justice. Historically, those in power have used moderation to justify inaction, urging marginalized communities to ‘wait for a better time.’ For example, Martin Luther King Jr., in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail, criticized the ‘white moderate’ for sympathizing with the civil rights movement but advocating patience instead of action. In reality, delayed justice is often justice denied, and waiting too long to address systemic inequalities thus allows oppression to persist indefinitely.
- The Failure to Address Urgent Crises
Furthermore, history is filled with instances where excessive moderation led to devastating consequences. For example, the slow pace of civil rights reforms in the United States before the 1960s allowed racial segregation and discrimination to remain entrenched for far too long. Likewise, the international community’s reluctance to intervene in the Rwandan genocide in 1994 resulted in nearly one million deaths within three months. As a result, in both cases, excessive caution and diplomatic hesitation prolonged suffering. Thus, when moderation becomes an excuse for inaction, it ceases to be a virtue and a mechanism for maintaining injustice.
- The Paralysis of Compromise
Lastly, excessive moderation leads to nations’ stagnation, allowing injustice to persist indefinitely. Indeed, when leaders or policymakers prioritize appeasement over action, they risk maintaining the status quo rather than addressing systemic inequalities. For example, during the early 20th century, British colonial rule in India often used moderate political negotiations to delay real progress toward independence, which frustrated leaders like Gandhi, who sought immediate reforms. Similarly, during the decades-long fight against apartheid in South Africa, international powers initially advocated for moderate diplomatic pressure rather than direct intervention, prolonging racial segregation and oppression. This pattern repeats across history, where excessive patience in the face of injustice merely allows those in power to maintain control. Thus, when moderation turns into hesitation, it becomes an obstacle rather than a solution, failing the people it aims to protect.
The Case for Extremism: When Radical Action Becomes Necessary
- Breaking the Chains of Oppression
However, advocates of extremism argue that radical action is sometimes the only way to dismantle deeply entrenched systems of oppression. Indeed, history has shown that gradual reforms are often insufficient, and without bold action, fundamental change may never occur. For example, the American Revolution is a compelling case that involved slow negotiations for autonomy. The colonies rejected British rule outright, leading to independence. In such cases, extremism proved to be the catalyst for liberty. However, while extremism can initiate revolutions, the challenge lies in ensuring that it does not devolve into tyranny, as witnessed in post-revolutionary France and Russia.
- Overcoming the Limitations of Gradual Reform
Additionally, critics of moderation contend that gradual reforms enable injustice to persist and postpone substantial progress. Throughout history, many movements have struggled for years with little success until more decisive actions were taken. For instance, peaceful protests played a role in raising global awareness about apartheid in South Africa, yet its eventual dismantling resulted from economic sanctions and internal resistance. However, although radical movements can quicken the change process, they often risk alienating allies and provoking backlash. Hence, while moderation may appear slow, long-term strategic efforts foster sustainable progress more effectively than abrupt upheaval.
Navigating the Fine Line Between Extremism and Moderation
Taking a deep critical analysis, the debate over extremism and moderation is not about choosing one over the other: it is about recognizing the dangers of unchecked radicalism and excessive passivity. Indeed, history shows that revolutions driven by extremism often result in new forms of oppression while excessive moderation enables injustice to persist. Thus, the key is striking a balance: bold action is necessary to challenge oppression but must be tempered by strategic thinking to avoid unintended consequences. And ethical leadership, institutional reforms, and civic engagement must work in tandem to achieve justice and liberty without destabilizing society.
Finding the Middle Ground
In summary, while extremism may seem justified in certain situations, history warns of its dangers. Likewise, excessive moderation can delay justice by making it crucial to find a middle ground. Notably, the world has witnessed how revolutions that begin with noble ideals can lead to oppression and how delayed action can prolong suffering. Therefore, instead of viewing extremism and moderation as absolute principles, societies must draw a fine line between them, which guarantees that liberty and justice are pursued without compromising stability and integrity.
CSS Solved Past Papers’ Essays
Looking for the last ten years of CSS and PMS Solved Essays and want to know how Sir Kazim’s students write and score the highest marks in the essays’ papers? Then, click on the CSS Solved Essays to start reading them.
CSS Solved Essays
CSS Solved General Science & Ability Past Papers
Want to read the last ten years’ General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers to learn how to attempt them and to score high? Let’s click on the link below to read them all freely. All past papers have been solved by Miss Iqra Ali & Dr Nishat Baloch, Pakistan’s top CSS GSA coach having the highest score of their students. General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers
