The global community was made privy today to the depravity of a mad man obsessed with power. Muammar al-Gaddafi, in an effort to suppress the spate of anti-regime sentiment, called out his army of thugs, and has been utilizing it's entire repertoire on unarmed civilians. These assets include small arms fire; large caliber, fully-automatic air-mounted machine guns; strafing fighter jets; and an unconfirmed call for aerial bombing. Three points worth mentioning are the continuation of protests in the face of such violence of action, the switching of allegiance to the protesters on behalf of upper level Libyan officials, and the coincidental disappearance of the Colonel since he ordered the execution of his peacefully protesting, unarmed countrymen. It is expected that many in the developed world will not appreciate the gravity of this situation, or perceive the ebbing complacency of the Muslim world with those that smear their image across the globe. The questions generated by this situation are boundless. I suppose the question - following Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain, Morocco, Algeria, and now Libya - is who's next...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to "Power to the PeaceFUL" as posted on Disparate Thought, the following is composed...
Paragraph 1: I agree people of the world have gained a new found respect for the power of peaceful demonstration, the capricious nature of morality playing a role in global response, and modern communication media being perhaps the most powerful player in global awareness. That said, the power of people en mass will always wield some level of "power". The caveat is whether or not this power is enough to oppose violence of action through the use of modern weapons on behalf of the leaders and governments mentioned in the post (see Libya). Contemporary morality may dictate what protests are against (State invasions, rape and murder, corrupt governments, collective bargaining, etc...), but I do not feel it defines the essence of the movement itself. That is to say the act of peaceful protests en mass are perhaps being used to make a stand against some action determined to be unjust by current standards of morality; however, the resolute action of peaceful demonstration itself would certainly hold significance, if not all out emboldened power, even in the absence of "modern morality". The action, in and of itself, transcends time and moral vicissitudes. Finally, in regards to the geographic interconnectedness of our time allowing for ease of movement for revolutionary behavior from one location to the next, I agree. It is a fools endeavor to argue against this point. I would question how much help this connectivity gives to political singularities?
Paragraph 2: My first question is who is divesting themselves/speaking in opposition? I can honestly state that while much of the world has made a conscious decision to maintain a holding pattern on Libya's current situation, it certainly is not tantamount to speaking in opposition of a peaceful demonstration, nor is it speaking in favor of an oppressive regime. This point makes me wonder whether it is accurate to hold nation states to the same moral hierarchy as individuals. It makes sense to utilize the same moral scale interchangeably between nations and individuals as most people have a propensity towards projecting their axioms and dogmas upon larger populations. However, given the disparities between the environments within each exists, it stands to reason the morality may also differ. Should we follow the logic of morality being temporally nebulous, why then, given the completely different threats and opportunities facing each, is it not possible their moralities follow different paths as well? Is there a level at which a nations self-preservation necessitates it's divergence from the practices of which it preaches? Few individuals require out strategizing others in daily life, while this is nothing short of normal for most countries.
Paragraph 3: The post stated democracy was predicated on the presumption that the majority view is morally superior, displays an affinity towards free markets, and tend to be self-correcting through open and honest elections. To the first point, let me say supporting the will of the people is not tantamount to assigning that will to a given level of morality. It is nothing more than believing laws, when given a group setting, are better suited to follow the will of the people and amended as to allow for the protection of the minority. Giving equal representation to all parties and attempting to allow for every individuals needs is not practical, nor do I believe the outcome desired. Secondly, democracy and capitalism are not synonymous (see Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Anarchist Catalonia). To say that democracy is predicated on capitalist beliefs is not accurate. It should be mentioned that venture capitalists will view destabilized governments as potential business opportunities. While not inherent, thus making the definition of democracy inculpable, business interests guiding political actions seem to have become endemic in our democratic society. As for the majority view being self-correcting, I do not see the relevance of this argument, as it implies the majority view is inherently flawed by stating open and honest elections allow it to correct itself. If the majority view is to be the founder of said elections, and open and honest elections allow that view to be heard and manifested, the result would likely be congruous to said view, with no "corrections" required or desired.
The final point to which I will write is the given examples of what democracy is not. To say that democracy is inherently oppressive of the minority views gives an obvious negative connotation to the concept. I contest in the absence of this feature, a government enters a slippery slope which allows for the complete consideration of all views, likely to the detriment of it's own citizenry. Kowtowing to the minority views is impractical and I think it unwise to allow law to be driven by a singular minority view (see oligarchy).
All of this aside, I agree the events as of late are an inspiring portrayal of the human spirit and the power of peaceful movements en mass. I do not see militaristic intervention as an inherently flawed policy with no utility. I do recognize its overuse as detrimental and counterproductive. While Egypt is an example of "sitting this one out", Libya hangs in shades of gray.
No comments:
Post a Comment