To begin with a Political Lesson from Monty Python's Holy Grail:
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses."
How do we know that?
Well, ask Czar Nicholas II, ask Louis XVI, as George Washington.. history is replete with the conversion of autocracy to government by the people through revolution.
The result - in the last century, a conversion to government by democracy.
But we are seeing cracks in democracy as the epitome of governance.
Because, to many, the mandate of government isn't a mandate of "the masses" at all, but is a mandate of special interests.
Oil. Banking. Minority Rights. Environmentalists.
More recently, a loud and increasingly powerful third world collective known as the "United Nations".
The result - an angry and disengaged citizenry - epitomized in another odd popular culture reference.
How about Marshal Mathers.. "Eminem".
Perhaps the most significant music figure of the last decade, Eminem has built a following by expressing anger and rage at being dispossessed from power and authority over his own life.
A white man who doesn't matter.
But it's not his whiteness, nor his maleness which appeals.. it's his representation of more and more members of a society who feel that their hopes and dreams don't matter very much to the society around them.
But what we are missing, more and more is that "them" is "us". We're all feeling dispossessed and a little lost. Witness recent debate over the U.S. tax laws with big business, the Wall Street demons, being heard to say, "We don't think the President is listening to us." If they don't feel they are listend to.. what does that say for the bricklayer in Brandon, or the grocery clerk in Kamploops?
And this universal sense of being dispossessed has a dangerous offspring - terrorism and anarchy.
And here's the thing.
The typical response of the hard right to stiffer penalties and stronger enforcement misses the point entirely.
Terrorists, obviously, aren't impacted by the threat of harsh penalties - even death.
And with respect to enforcement, sadly, terrorists aren't three-headed monsters amenable, in the long run, to detection before their heinous acts. They often look like normal, everyday people.
Witness the recent suicide bomber in Sweden. Married, with three children - he had a bachelor degree in sports physiotherapy. Until shortly before his death he was described as easy-going and friendly. Just like you and me.
Well, maybe you.
With respect - our current response to terrorism is akin to treating an Ebola patient. By the time we recognize the symptoms of the illness, we're actually too late - the answer, truly, is seeking out the cause of the infection.
And it's actually pretty simple.
Efficacy.
Allowing people to feel like they matter.
A recent report on the socio-psychology of terrorism is recommended reading: THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM: WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY? - a report prepared by the U.S. Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress.
In that report, in describing what makes a terrorist - it advises "that their violent acts stem from feelings of rage and hopelessness engendered by the belief that society permits no other access to information-dissemination and policy-formation processes.”
Does that feel a little bit like you and me?
Think about that for just a moment.
Terrorism is the response of the dispossessed. Not to by any means condone it - I continue to be of the belief that our condemnation of those who choose to take the law into their own hands needs to be strong and unequivocal - it is nonetheless important to ask ourselves this fundamental question:
Do I feel that I matter?
The answer to that question is complex - but I'm thinking it DOESN'T lie in creating yet another special interest group. It lies in breaking them down. In erasing the lines that we seek to draw between aboriginals, and women, and homosexuals, between the rich and the poor - the polarization of society will only increase alienation, not diminish it.
Which isn't the same as ignoring need.
Imagine the various interest groups in society as hungry individuals. You have a five men and five women.
Of those men, two are caucasian, one of whom is gay. The other three men are black, asian and hispanic. Two of the men are Muslim, one white, one black.
Of the women, three of them are black, one is caucasian, and one is hispanic. The caucasian and hispanic women are Catholic, the two of the black women are Muslim and one is an atheist. Two of the women are lesbian.
The men are aged 18, 28, 29, 47 and 68. The women are 17, 23, 25, 49, and 71.
Now.
Those people are marooned on a desert island for six months - but the island has a natural store of food and water that will allow them to survive - but just barely. And to harvest the good and water will take some effort to climb a mountain to get to a fresh water spring, to capture ground birds, and to harvest coconuts.
Ok so far?
Problem is that while, objectively, we know what their needs are - they don't. They are all afraid of not having enough water or food, and all have two perceptions:
a) That they may need more water and food than the others; andNow - ask them. In determining the allocation of resources, how important will it be to assure that we create individual lobby groups? Are these people more or less likely to be able to cooperate for their common good if we break them into separate voting groups?
b) The the others may not treat them fairly because of their differences.
And what would those groups look like?
Would the lobbies be based upon race? And if the black members gather to advocate on their own behalf, being an historically oppressed minority - what would the likely response of the rest of the group?
Or maybe they will choose to lobby based upon age - with the "under 30 group" being the dominant force.
Will they group based upon sexual preference, or religion?
If you were elected the governor of the island - would you see it as helpful to create special meetings to isolate and discuss the interests of the women - excluding men from the meetings.. followed by the special meetings of the Muslims.. followed by the special meetings of the homosexuals.. and so on.
I'm thinking not.
Yet that's what we do.
We allow government to coddle and respond to oil companies, and bankers, and immigrant groups, and gay rights organizations and so forth.. and the rest of society - the massive majority of the rest of us, black, white, gay, straight, men, women, Muslim, Christian and atheists alike, who don't have the direct ear of Premiers and Prime Ministers - feel like we don't matter.
Time to say "no" to politics as usual.
Time to seek out politicians who don't play the game the same old, same old way - and to seek out people who are genuine - who advocate for their constituents, not for the people who make the most noise or who offer the most political benefit. The consequences of continuing the "game" are very, very negative.
Are there politicians like that out there?
Well, word to people who might consider politics as a vocation - "if you build it they will come."
0 comments:
Post a Comment