Henry David Thoreau first coined the term "Civil Disobediance" and influenced people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela by his writings.I see a wave of change in Malaysia. Forceful and irreversible, which makes me think of a quote by Victor Hugo.
"You can resist an invading army, you cannot resist an idea whose time has come".
And the idea I'm referring to is civic mindedness, the notion that one has control and should be responsible for what’s happening in one's community.
Public protest seems to be gaining popularity and I've supported some recently, mainly through the movement killthebill.org, driven by an acute curiosity of the concept of "creative protest" propagated by the group. Visit their facebookpage to find out more: http://www.facebook.com/groups/KillTheBill/#
I'd like to discuss about the nature of public protest and the arguments for and against it and why I've been actively taking part. But to do that, let's first understand where we stand as a citizen of a state and one's attitude towards a government.
What follows is an attempt to understand my own standings regarding issues of governance and my role as a "subject" under this government. For this purpose, and the rest of this article, I'll quote extensively from David Henry Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience". (the bolded, italicized text are excerpts from "Civil Disobedience". Unbolded text being my feeble attempt to understand it.)
Let every men make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step towards obtaining it.
The first step is to get educated, to know our civic responsibilities. This is hard, because it involves looking beyond our comfort zone, and taking responsibilities for things which are a far stretch from our immediate circle of control. I mean, it's hard enough to try to make a living, attend to the kids, take care of our parents, pay the bills, make our boss happy; now I need to take part in the governance of my country?!
But politics IS life. Every single thing we can and cannot do is defined by politics. Consider these:
How much tax you pay.
Which school you send your kids to, and what they study.
Prices of goods: petrol, food, cars etc
Security: do you feel safe on the streets? At home?
Your job benefits, your minimum pay, your job security.
Job opportunities, business opportunities.
Every single one of the above is determined by politics, and much, much more.
So its not a question of whether we should be political or not. For me, every citizen has political responsibilities, as long as you live under a government. But how do we more effectively assert our political influence to have better control of our lives?
So many people are adverse to the idea of “being political”. If you don’t like “politicizing” an issue, you can categorize the issues above however you want. Social issues? Economic issues? Human rights? Whatever you call it, politicians decides and most of the time, have the final say on these issues.
The truth is, to maintain power, we have seen governments resort to keeping the people ignorant. An ignorant crowd is easier to govern than an educated crowd. However, the advent of the information age challenges the feasibility of this model for the future.
Hence, we must educate ourselves; on what we expect from our government, and demand it, through action. As long as we're ignorant, we deserve a government that abuses our ignorance.
Can there not be a government in which majorities does not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?
On majority who decides: majority is not more right than conscience. Do we need to sacrifice the rights of the few to conform to the wishes of the many? Is this really a necessity in democracy or is this an excuse of convenience? So as long as the government minimizes resistance, they can do things that are unjust and harmful?
As human societies progresses and human knowledge expands, should we still make concession on governance and accept corruption, cronyism, etc as part and parcel of a political system? Should we not hold on to the ideal of just and expediency more vigorously, or better yet strictly impose on it's implementation as the absolute standard for governance?
If you consider the last 100 years as an experiment in global governance, what does the result shows? We see the bankruptcy of government around the world, both financially and morally, all that as a result of a silence acceptance of governments putting skewed capitalistic concepts as priority, corruption as part of politics, and cronyism as acceptable, as long as the country is seen to be making economic progress on the front. We put numbers far ahead of cultural progress. We take giant steps economically but falter in human values.
We need to remind ourselves that economic progress is only a means to achieving an end, which is cultural progress. Yes, economic progress is important, but have we lost sight of the goal by focusing on the means alone? Are our goals not to develop the human culture and values so the human experience is not just more rich but more joyful?
If you doubt any of these questions, think about what money means to you. What is money for? Money is useless if not exchanged for something you value. And what you exchange money for is ultimately what you really want. Most of us hope money will eventually "buy" us peace of mind, joy, a sense of meaning, better relationships, etc. Don’t lose sight of the goal by focusing on the means. The means is the act of attaining money, the goal is the rich human experience.
By losing touch with the most important element: the right values, our economic system crashes as well, as evident in the current economic crisis around the world. Strive for what’s right to the conscience first and foremost; then build an economic and political system based on that, not the other way around. We've had ample time to experiment with the current systems. All evidence points to the fact that we need a paradigm shift in our political and economic approach.
To digress a little, my views on capatilism:
It’s a classic case of the man of the family going out to earn a living to support the family but spending too much time doing that that the family is in disarray. People argue, without money, their family will fail. But is that a fact? I have seen more family fail because people live beyond their means than anything else. The occult of "more" is the most damaging financial mindset when it comes to a family.No, the problem is not with capitalism entirely, it is with the abuse of certain capitalism principles, for example, revering the profit motive as the highest most priority of an organization (business, government etc), almost to a point of it being a religion, where those who do not subscribe to it gets chastised by the culture set in place and eventually eliminated from the system.
You may laugh. Profit not as a priority in a business? My contention is profit is a side effect of the value an organization is delivering to the world, and should be treated as such.
We should not make revenue as the chief objective and driving force of an organization, but see it as a measure of how well we are delivering value. To not have business meetings that only focus on revenue and profit, to achieve numbers (those in the corporate world knows what I'm talking about), and then secondarily how to achieve that number by "meeting the needs" of the market, instead but on how to more effectively deliver value first, then design channels in which profit, in exchange of values created, can flow in. Though the difference may seem minute, but I have deep conviction that this effects decisions on every level in an organization, and steer the whole organization to different directions.
I do not believe I am naive, though these ideas may seem far fetched from the current realities of the corporate world.
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.
We have fear for the law, which is appropriate to keep us from harming others. But we should have fear for "abuse" to a much higher degree, so that we can stand up for what’s right , in the case of a law being unjust and harmful.
All voting is a form of gambling, like checkers and backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, penchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance.
Ask yourself these few questions and reread the paragraph above:
What are you voting for? Specifically. What do you hope the candidate will bring to you?
Is voting enough to assert our rights?
Do we resort to the wishes of the majority after casting our votes if we are serious bout our hopes for reform?
Are there really nothing else we can do besides voting?
After you vote, do you make sure your vote is translated into something tangible of what you are voting for?
Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform.
The government has always referred to a group of people called “the silent majority". How the hell did that come about?! So as long as you're silent, you are the majority? Because I see the majority isn’t silent anymore. It’s just that you've not been listening. But even if the majority is silent, what about the minority? Don’t they have rights? So the minority is to sacrifice their rights for the majority just because their numbers are more? You should know by now I don’t agree with that.
And for those of you who've been deeply unsatisfied with our government but have remained silent, know that you just might be what's keeping this government in power.
So if you understand what I’ve been writing so far, you’ll come to ask this question: So even voting is not enough?
It’s the least you can do, but apparently it’s not enough. It is only one of the tools to participate in a "limited" democracy.
So what else can we do?
I would need to explore that in another article.
Lastly, I would like to leave you with this quote:
If you do nothing, nothing will change.
- Jacque Fesco
