Saturday, June 13, 2009

Revolutionary Thoughts

I have been thinking revolting thoughts. Well, revolutionary thoughts actually. I’ve been thinking about countries that have been trying their hand at democracy, but it’s just not catching on. Ever since the French and American revolutions, there have been a string of revolutions across the globe. Some of these have been peaceful. More often than not, they have not. How is it that some revolutions have successfully instituted democracy in their nations, while other countries still struggle with the concept of a free and peaceful election? And when democracy fails, when is it appropriate to pursue democratic goals through violent means?

As for the first question, I believe the answer is difficult. Let’s look first at America. Although those against instituting a national language are quick to point out that only about 1/3 of the citizens of the original 13 colonies spoke English, the colonies did belong to the English, the founding fathers were wealthy English citizens. And despite their opposition to King George, they set up a government that reeked of Englishness. Why?

Because they knew what worked and what didn’t. The English monarchy had been losing its real power for 500 years, since the Magna Carta was signed. The Englishmen who established America had, for their example a government setup that had been working for centuries. All they had to do was tweak it to fit their own American style.

For the last 300 years the Western world has been touting Democracy to the rest of the world much in the same way that the missionaries pushed Christianity. One has come to be known as unacceptable, while the other is still acceptable and continues to be pushed. However, much as changing the religion of a different culture has implications, changing the political structure of an established country has implications that could potentially be destructive.

While I personally believe that democracy is the form of government that gives people the greatest freedoms and honors the rights of individuals, the transition may be long and hard. Consider that our present form of democracy in America was slowly developed for 500 years before placed in action by citizens who were already used a similar political setup.

Other cultures transition to democracy from different political systems. If a country was recently in a monarchy setup, then suspicion and violence would be the norm. Kings solidify their claim to rule by exterminating anyone who threatens their supremacy. If a country recently was ruled in this way, then whoever they elect, even in a democracy, may be prone to similar means to guarantee that they will be “elected” continually in the future.

In a monarchy, when the people get fed-up with the regime, they revolt and set in place a new regime. Certainly, if an election doesn’t go the way half the nation wants, then violence is anticipated. Our frustration with a world that is not at peace may be the result of trying to institute political systems that really should evolve at the natural pace of the culture.

This brings me to a second question – when is it appropriate to use violence to further political means?

When a regime is tyrannical and fails to recognize basic rights entitled to all people, and there is no other way to change the regime, then violence may be acceptable for the greater good. As an American, who gained my freedom due to those who came before me who were able to defend it, I cannot think otherwise.

However, where democracy is working smoothly, then social change can be brought about through non-violent means – writing our legislators, voting, and the courts. My favorite example of how to bring about change in a democracy is the civil rights movements – specifically Rosa Parks. We celebrate today how this amazing woman changed history by breaking a law that was unethical to begin with.

Another example – when cities outlaw Christmas caroling because it is potentially offensive, citizens may protect their right to freedom of speech by simply caroling.

However, other laws cannot be changed by breaking them. For instance, taxes. Although it was common in the early days of the income tax, we cannot just not pay taxes these days. They are already taken out of our paychecks. However, we can change the tax code by voting for our leaders, by sending letters to those already in power, and perhaps by using the courts to protest tax laws.

Sometimes I get frustrated that these methods move too slowly. However, that’s the beauty of our system. As long as regular elections are held, the power remains with the people. Violence is not necessary. As much as I dislike certain laws, I must accept the fact that the laws were put in place by people that my fellow countrymen elected. Therefore, any issues I have with the government must be settled within the means the government put in place so that we the people can govern ourselves.

1 comment:

Sarah Giltner said...

Update - in light of the recent town hall protests against health reform, this is exaclty what I'm talking about! Here is democracy at work. There is no violence! Only people trying to get their opinion out and be heard. That we can march on Washington with signs and shouting and peacefully tell the world what we think is an honor!