Dissent and Democracy - Synonymous in Meaning

Published on September 8, 2004 By notsohighlyevolved In Current Events

I hate to think it, but the fate of our world rests in the hands of men and women who along with fate, hold in their hands guns and weapons. If not holding them directly, than ordering those hands, telling them when and who to strike down.

Fundamentalists on the other side of the world are hard to reach at best, impossible at worst. I have no written or conversational Arabic, and the Muslims that I do know are not complicit in the appalling trade in blood we see paraded before us day in and day out.

So what can I do? I ask myself - me, the eternal, always thwarted individual.

I could join in the fight, to whatever extent my government would allow. Join the military and hope that I was deployed to a desert land, a gun in hand and a song to sing, lollies to children and a bullet for the enemy.

I could join the other side and strap a bomb to myself, dying for a religion that I do not believe in and for a cause too ancient and confusing for my singular and all too inefficient mind to make much sense of.

I could send myself off as a humanitarian aid worker and make a small, immeasurable difference, valuable and priceless to the few it helps and risk having my throat cut, my head severed, all on camera, all accounted for.

But, I realise that I will do none of these things. Men and women in power, either of this side or the other, will direct the course of events in ways that are unforseen and uncaring of any effort I exert myself.

I do not wish to inflict, or succumb to, violence. Aid is almost impossible when there is no security, when you feed with one hand and bury with another. When a war wages on and will not allow you to get in its way. I am in no mood to become war fodder. I do not agree with our “enemies” cause, as I cannot empathise with it, or understand, and conviction in this soil is in no way possible. Therefore I will not join them or die for them or set up a regional office for them.

Their leaders will not hear me out, for what right do I have to speak to those who live it and suffer it, and have their own measure of success, and, I imagine, a prize for winning whatever war it is that they’re fighting. Those about to blow themselves up, and a hell of a lot of people along with them, are beyond the point where you can reason with them, unless the reason is coming from people they trust and respect, the people advising them who should die in their act of martyrdom.

What option do I have? Who will listen to me? Where do I have a right to an opinion and to voice it?

I live in a democratic nation, so it is here that I have an option, here where I will be listened to, here where I have the right to opinion and the right to voice it.

One individual, one vote. A public sphere where I am free to try and get others to opine in the same direction with me and hopefully vote the same way.

I have no say how other nations are run and who they kill, but I do have a say in how my nation is run and who we kill.

Sure enough, I am not American, and I possess no vote and less (much less) of a voice and right in that country than its citizens, but our nations (me being an Australian) are allied, and our troops have also partaken in your defence, our lives and our compatriots have also suffered the risk, our innocence and innocent (Bali bombing) have also been lost. So our population should have some small voice, some right to discourse.

So, collectively, we condemn and denounce “their” actions, but we have it within our powers to stop ours. We should be allowed to determine whether we are contributing to the death and suffering, if we are, in any way whatsoever, a part of the cause, a majority of the cause or not culpable at all, and then act as we can and must.

Criticising "them" is easy enough, but ineffective at best, when the actions of our governments deafens them to our criticism, pales our criticism in comparison. Criticising and then voting according to that criticism will effect action, will have a lasting repercussion.

How many times has it been said without losing its simple power – think globally, but act locally. Criticism included.

Comments

EmperorofIceCream

on Sep 08, 2004

Those about to blow themselves up, and a hell of a lot of people along with them, are beyond the point where you can reason with them, unless the reason is coming from people they trust and respect, the people advising them who should die in their act of martyrdom.

That's the point. If you can't reason with an opponent you can't persuade him not to be your opponent. If he's determined enough to fight all you can do is fight him, like it or not. Unless you're simply willing to lay down and die.

Because no amount of lamenting and hand-wringing will do a damn thing to alter these simple facts:

For whatever reasons, people hate each other vehemently. Historically, when people hate each other so vehemently that they are no longer amenable to reason, they kill each other - in the largest numbers possible and in the most vicious fashion available at any given moment. Nothing has ever changed that, nothing ever will change that, and to argue against my position is to fly in the face of all that human culture tells us about ourselves. When enough people, throughout history, have hated enough other people the only outcome that has ever occurred is that they have killed each other - just as they do today.

So, collectively, we condemn and denounce “their” actions, but we have it within our powers to stop ours. We should be allowed to determine whether we are contributing to the death and suffering, if we are, in any way whatsoever, a part of the cause, a majority of the cause or not culpable at all, and then act as we can and must.

Suppose some truly impartial and searching inquiry determined that America had a part to play in the outburst of demented religious fanaticism that's swept the world. What would you then advocate that America do? Throw away its weapons and apologise, in the expectation that there would be some outbreak of mass forgiveness and reconciliation on the part of the Arab world?

Perhaps you'd also like America to throw down its weapons, surrender to the demands of lunatic Imams for the shariazation of the West, the imposition of a morality formulated in medieval Arabia, the overthrow of every tradition from which the American character draws its strength, and its mass conversion to Islam?

Because that's as likely an eventuality as the Arabs deciding that, actually, they had it wrong all this time and America isn't the Great Satan and all those Martyrs didn't really go to Allah's gardens and fuck all those perpetual Virgins.

As for your having some right to a 'voice' in the sovereign decisions of another nation - whether an ally - or not, nothing could be further from the truth. Sovereign States have no conscience, and the sacrifice of their allies does not grant any kind of right to a voice in their determination of their interests. All it grants is the right to the title 'sucker'.

Democracy is not synonymous with dissent. Democracy means majority rule, rule by the many, while dissent means differing on opinion or feeling, or, more actively, to withold assent.

The fact that you confused two terms completely different in meaning comes as no surprise however, since you've also confused fanatically determined killers for pissed off neighbours who can be placated by an apology and a beer on the lawn.

In what hole in the ground have you lived your life, that you know so little about human nature? Oh. I forgot. It's called 'Australia'.

notsohighlyevolved

on Sep 09, 2004

Emperor, you have some issues. I could almost feel the spit speckles falling on my face.

Type A personality huh?

It is obvious that your knowledge of human nature only goes as far as knowledge of your own, one that is sickly and hateful, closer to the principles of terror than the tenets of freedom, tolerance and progress that your nation is built on.

Historically, when people hate each other so vehemently that they are no longer amenable to reason, they kill each other - in the largest numbers possible and in the most vicious fashion available at any given moment. Nothing has ever changed that, nothing ever will change that, and to argue against my position is to fly in the face of all that human culture tells us about ourselves

It is true that people can and do hate each other, but there is usually political reasons that allow this hatred to manifest itself in violence. Take Nazi Germany for instance. Hitler was able to take the country in a strangle hold because of the Treaty of Versailles, the economic conditions that had some of its roots in that treaty, and a sense of nationalism that had been growing since the time of Bismarck.

If you attack the principles rather than the people, you go some way to insuring that the hatred remains a personal emotion, rather than a political movement.

And as a note, don't link your argument to human culture, because there is no such thing as a human culture, culture is human but there is no human culture. Chinese, American, Russian, Australian - yes; Some mythical Meta-Culture, no. Also you presume that your position is humanities position. Do you have an over inflated ego, delusions of grandeur? I would check myself as far as statements like this are concerned.

What would you then advocate that America do? Throw away its weapons and apologise, in the expectation that there would be some outbreak of mass forgiveness and reconciliation on the part of the Arab world?

Help local authorities track down and bring to justice those who have attacked your country. Provide economic and humanitarian aid. Facilitate discussion between Arab nations without showing partiality to one or the other. But firstly, find out if they want your help at all. Fix your defensive systems back at home and improve intelligence gathering and analysis. Do not use your military force as an occupying force, but as an extension to diplomacy, as a threat that will be used in legitimate circumstances (i.e self defence). The list could go on and on. All the different ways you can engage in geo-politics without resorting to violence and out and out war. If you are a people's helper, they cannot be your enemy.

surrender to the demands of lunatic Imams for the shariazation of the West, the imposition of a morality formulated in medieval Arabia, the overthrow of every tradition from which the American character draws its strength, and its mass conversion to Islam?

As far as i can tell this hasn’t been demanded at all. What has been demanded is that America get out of Saudi Arabia, stop helping the Israelis in their fight against and control of the Palestinians, stop their occupation of Iraq and to help rather than bomb. Muslims that have asked for the mass conversion of America are about as crazy as Americans who say we should nuke the whole of the Arab world. If you want to take crackpots on either side seriously, well, that's your problem, not mine.

Democracy is not synonymous with dissent. Democracy means majority rule, rule by the many, while dissent means differing on opinion or feeling, or, more actively, to withhold assent.The fact that you confused two terms completely different in meaning comes as no surprise however, since you've also confused fanatically determined killers for pissed off neighbours who can be placated by an apology and a beer on the lawn.

If democracy really means majority rule, in either your country or mine, when was the last time the Government came up to you and asked whether it should do this or that. What majority is ruling? Your executive rules, with the counter balance of a congress and other checks. What majority are you speaking of. Who rules is decided by majority vote, but in your country, seeing as voting is not compulsory, you don't even get that. You get no say in how they run the government once they're in.

What makes us democracies is the fact that we can vote, and when our government does something we don't like, even though we can't do anything to stop it, we can dissent in the hopes that they will not get voted in the second time around. Once in office, the majority does not have the right to rule, only the right to dissent.

But then again this segment of your reasoning is just as flawed as the rest of it. Allies aren't suckers until you make them feel like one, and remember the US, as big as it is, isn't capable of taking on everyone by itself. Don't think you can do without the rest of the world, unless you want an existence where you can't travel because no one much likes you and you once again have a bomb shelter culture because you live in perpetual fear.

In what hole in the ground have you lived your life, that you know so little about human nature? Oh. I forgot. It's called 'Australia'.

I haven’t heard a playground insult for so long it’s almost refreshing

Whatever life did to you I hope it turns around. Maybe you should join the marines, you know, “be all you can be” (dead, perhaps). You could work on that human nature you put so much faith in. Go on killer, go sick em’… wanker

crimson

on Sep 09, 2004

Great article, Marco. Excellent response. Sure enough, I am not American, and I possess no vote and less (much less) of a voice and right in that country than its citizens, but our nations (me being an Australian) are allied, and our troops have also partaken in your defence, our lives and our compatriots have also suffered the risk, our innocence and innocent (Bali bombing) have also been lost. So our population should have some small voice, some right to discourse. There are many reasons why, I, as a Canadian and, particularly, as an Anishnabe-kwe, feel that it would be proper to be able to have some voice/some representation within US politics. Perhaps the Emporer might want to figure out why this would be important to me, and stupid to suggest that the title of 'sucker' is more appropriate. As for your having some right to a 'voice' in the sovereign decisions of another nation - whether an ally - or not, nothing could be further from the truth. Sovereign States have no conscience, and the sacrifice of their allies does not grant any kind of right to a voice in their determination of their interests. All it grants is the right to the title 'sucker'.

notsohighlyevolved

on Sep 09, 2004

That you NickyG.

You have no idea how warming it is to hear a friendly voice, they seem to be getting rarer and rarer these days.

There are many reasons why, I, as a Canadian and, particularly, as an Anishnabe-kwe, feel that it would be proper to be able to have some voice/some representation within US politics. Perhaps the Emporer might want to figure out why this would be important to me, and stupid to suggest that the title of 'sucker' is more appropriate.

I think this was the original intention of, first, the League of Nations and then, when that failed, the United Nations. Born of a realisation that hatred, misunderstanding and the actions of even one nation can drag the whole world into factionalism and, finally, war. The fact that the United States is the largest economies and military powers in the world is reason enough for the world to participate in some small way, even if it is only the allowance of discourse, of frank discussion. It only stands to reason seeing that the US has such a large say in global institutions that have influence over the fate of nations (e.g. WTO, IMF, the World Bank etc).

If you wouldn't mind, could you tell me a little about the Anishnabe-kwe and your history (i take it that it could be one of marginalisation). I could look it up (you'll have to excuse my ignorance), but i would rather hear it from a human source, a far better way of learning, yes?

Marco

Hamster 311

on Oct 30, 2004

I know that most of the world is pretty pissed off at the United States right now, and I must say rightfully so. Me too. But I don't think, until I read this article, that I could fully empathize. Even as I momentarilly led to ponder for the umteenth time how, "Fundamentalists on the other side of the world are hard to reach at best, impossible at worst," in search of empathy, I don't think it would've ever occured to me that someone in Australia or Canada (or other not-directly-involved country) might desire (and deserve?) an ability to exert some sort of influence over America's world dealings. Or that that desire might take the form of the exact same frustration and sense of helplessnes as I feel towards my own government.

Were I not American I'd be labeled Anti-American, at least in America, for thinking this way. But that's just it: plenty of people over here are angry at Bush and oppose the war, but it doesn't make us Anti-America. It only makes us anti-Bush or anti-war. Same feeling though.

Ah, Empathy, it's a great thing.

Thought-provoking article. Even your comments (ie to emperor) are amusing and a pleasure to read.

WiseFawn

on Oct 30, 2004

So sorry I missed this very insightful article and comment. And I was watching for you too. Wonderful blog!!

notsohighlyevolved

on Nov 09, 2004

(or other not-directly-involved country) might desire (and deserve?)

That's the problem, Hamster, we are and since the Second World War have been directly involved all the major conflicts the US has been involved in - Korea, Vietnam, Gulf I, Afghanistan and the current invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Our politicians and people have never forgotten American aid in our direst hour when the British Empire had failed us and we were considering sacrificing 3/4 of our continent to the Japanese and defending the rest down to our last man.

We should also remember, however, that both our countries acted heroically in that war because we acted in justifiable self defence. Without that heroism becomes nothing more than brutality and aggression.

Wisefawn and Hamster, thank you both for the kind comments. I've been away a long time. Now for some cathcing up i think.

Marco

marcus

on Mar 10, 2005

i want to become a battleon guardian because i do not have any credit card

so please help

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!