I was delivering a lecture to an acquaintance a short while ago – I call it a ‘lecture’ because when I speak of anything non-trivial to most here, I generally get silence – on the incident in singapore where some bloke doused a minister or MP with flammable liquid and set him on fire. I recall quite a few people in the neighbourhood coffeeshop sniggering amongst themselves when the news about it came on. I also heard some, ‘deserve it’, phrases. Whilst I believe that none of those who sniggered or said it would act similarly, their reaction, nevertheless, begs the question, ‘why such a reaction?’ Personally, I don’t really care much about local goings on as I see both the proposition and oppositional voices, in varying degrees, as part of the same problem. But this still sparked my curiosity. Well, off the top of my head….
I told the acquaintance that this incident really plays into the government’s hands doesn’t it.
If one was to think about it a bit, one might find that this, fortunately non-fatal, incendiary approach most conducive to the aims of any government with authoritarian tendencies.
When you keep a people perspectivally-retarded through fear and miseducation, as and when a few amongst them get irate, they will quite likely do so irrationally whilst focusing on their own personal interests. And in doing so irrationally, such as setting a mandarin afire, punching him in the nose, or kicking her/is dog, three things are achieved to further institutionalise the political impotence of the people and reinforce an 'Asian Democracy'.
Firstly, more laws favourable to government officials may be instituted, such as imposing harsher sentences on those who threaten or injure them as opposed to the common serf on the street. Psychologically, this has the impact of further reinforcing any tendencies amongst the people to view the government as above the people, ruling by the ‘mandate of heaven’, etc, whilst further and dynamically reinforcing similar self-perceptions by the government.
Secondly, the government can use such incidents to bolster their argument against the expansion of democratic rights as the people will be deemed to have yet to come of age and be able express their rights sensibly.
Thirdly, the people themselves will begin to see this as a reason why they ought not to support movements for greater democracy. This will especially be the case if their cultural history has little or no democratic flavour to it, and if so, provided they identify strongly with the culture of their biological ancestors. Additionally, if the people are given the opportunity to survive economically, albeit through gross opportunism, they will tend to shun democratic impulses for near-sighted concerns.
An important point to appreciate here is that what is most publicised is not the thoughts of local activists and writers, but the primitive actions of people who don’t know how else to express their ire given the general underdeveloped state of democratic intelligence, institutions and checks in this country. In this, 'democracy' and 'freedom' are associated with such actions in the popular professionalised imagination. And such associations find most fertile ground in the imagination of those whom are trained to embrace cultures that have little or no historical democratic flavour to it. In this, we get the phenomenon called ‘Asian-style Democracy’ – which, for the sake of definitional accuracy, ought to be termed ‘Chinese-style Democracy’, as the only other ancient Asian civilisation, India, bears little cultural resemblance to its sino counterpart.
So what happens in the 'Democratic Asian' mind?
On the political side, the mandarins religiously adopt the notion that the people are too stupid to be able to express themselves rationally and must have their freedoms curtailed, and the identity that can appreciate it, culled – which is a perspective borne of the syncretised Confucianism and Han Fei’s Legalism adopted in 221b.c. in China. In this perspective, and the actions that issue forth, a self-fulfilling prophecy is effected via the institution of an environment that actually ensures that the people remain just that and nothing besides for the interests of the elite.
On the popular side of things, the people will underdevelop perspectivally and view democracy and freedom as nothing more than the freedom to satisfy their self-interested economic, gastronomic and trivial concerns. Freedom of expression and critical thought will be seen as threatening the popular desire to focus on nothing more than satisfying their said concerns, along with forcing them to think outside of related matters, which, their increasing political stupor will lead them to reject. In such a milieu, people who question and challenge are commonly perceived as 'troublemakers'; people who forward intelligence and logical arguments, 'tongue twisters' and 'long-winded'. Such people are weeded out gradually by discrimination against such people on all fronts be it the social, workplace, etc. Believe me, this is what i've encountered personally, and have heard been encountered by similar others for quite a few decades.
Additionally, freedom and democracy will be seen as aggression and violence inducing. After all, democracy and freedom, in its most primitive form is exhibited in aggressive self-assertion. Where it is in its infant stage, but where people are economically more advanced, such a link is popularly believed to be true. And it is true that when you subtract relevant education from this primitive form of democracy, it can exhibit itself in such a politically delinquent manner. Just as, say, socialism, has been linked to totalitarianism by the global media and thus contributed to global scepticism or/and rejection of it, the relatively greater publicity given linking violence and freedom of expression and democracy can lead the people to lower or associate the idea of democracy with its most primitive form and expression. Given that their democratic imagination is grossly underdeveloped, coupled with the perception of themselves as merely economic units, they cannot imagine what one can do with democracy. That is why the government can frequently ban democratic expressions with impunity with little reason other than stating that 'it can cause law and order problems'. And as the idea of democracy is lowered, a goodness-of-fit between the thus-reduced human identity that is created, and thus reduced idea of democracy is achieved. In this, democracy is not perceived as reduced, but as matching the identity that is fulfilled within it.
We must remember that the refinement of democracy requires relevant education, exposure and practice. Without such practice, we cannot expect the practice of democracy to be refined. And without its refinement, and relevant education, the irate can quite likely cause 'law and order' problems and give the popular imagination, aided by a government-controlled media, to associate democracy with violence and reject any movement to expand democratic rights. This is especially the case where the people have learnt to link economic success with intelligence. Hence, they will reject all insinuations that they need more rights than they have been accustomed to as 'trouble-making'. So the governmental method in maintaining such an intellectual status quo is quite simple. Simply ensure that people have the opportunity to work, maintain a high cost of living, ensure that they are bereft of the relevant education, exposure and practice for and of democracy, and then associate aggression with democracy as and when the opportunity presents itself. The only way to stop a horse from drinking is not keeping it away from the stream, but to get rid of its thirst.
That is the so-called ‘Asian-style democracy’.
In a way, we cannot see the phase as paradoxical or oxymoronic. Freedom is, after all, how you are developed to appreciate it - though it must be stated that 'Asian'-style 'democracy' does not give full expression for, or accomodate the maximal development of all human potentials. If you perceive yourself as a self-sustaining economic unit and nothing more, democracy simply becomes a means via which you can express that identity. And this is how ‘western democracy’ takes its irrelevant meaning in the ‘Asian’ mind. That is why Kishore Mahbubani in HardTalk could denounce western calls for global democracy as 'imposition'. That is why, most of the chinese I’ve spoken to over the years and whom I’ve directed to look at western-style democracy and how we too might be able to enjoy a similar political experience here, have discounted it with, ‘the west is the west, we are we’.
The Development and Reinforcement of an Asian-style Democracy.
The methods are many. But the following is one amongst.
First, (1)create or maintain a situation that will in turn give rise to a minority of (2)problems, i.e. irrational expressions of ire. Then, utilise this minority of problems (3)to justify and maintain the prior situation. After that, the (4)people themselves, underdeveloped by (1) and (3), and with the aid of their psychologically and culturally endowed ‘coping mechanism’, will step in and maintain it. How else do you think that singapore turned out the way it has today from, say, the 70s till now? I’m not saying that governments necessarily do this on purpose, but the consequences are nevertheless the case most of the time. The Americans did it too with 11/9, but given the greater democratic consciousness of the people, nothing less than 11/9 was sufficient to deliver a similar result. (even if the government might not have directly inflict 11/9, there is sufficient evidence to render plausible the allegations that the government knew about it beforehand.)
After number 4, over time, all oppositional tendencies can cease – as it generally already has in singapore. This would especially be the case amongst a people who don’t see themselves as cosmopolitans but are trained to identify with a culture that has little or no historical democratic flavour to it. Cultural practice is, after all, a replication of the perspectives it took to create it, and a foundation upon which the political institutions that created these perspectives may be erected. When oppositional tendencies become most pronounced in, say, an incendiary manner, that is not necessarily an indicator of the birth of a democracy, but can just as well signal its end.
You can be sure that even more people will link the event between ‘the minister and the match’ as a further justification for the continuation of an ‘Asian democracy’, and, in the worst case, view oppositional voices, however relatively intelligent, as being inciters of such behaviour. Since the only well-publicised manifestation of political awareness in recent times is the said incident, professionalised and thus irrelevantly educated people will tend to equate democracy or political awareness with instability and chaos. And if few are seen to be engaging politically with their heads (perhaps due to perspectival debility or censorship), the vocal will be perceived as inciters of violence. The equation is simple. Political Awareness = Lit matches. Those inciting political awareness = inciters of violence. This will especially be the case in a country with little or no political education in schools, or a perspectival infrastructure that promotes it.
Remember George Bush, the President a sizeable portion of Americans voted into the white house? Well, a similar parallel can be seen with his illogical, ‘you’re either with us for against us’. Same thing applies here. People will just begin to think that those whom are against the government are simply inciting others to light a match. The same thing happened with ‘sensitive racial issues’. The riots of the 60s were used to quell all speech and thought with regards to the issue. And all those actually attempting to undermine the basis for racial hatred by speaking about discrimination are now seen as inciters of racial hatred. All logic has been turned topsy-turvy. Local ‘activists’ and ‘oppositional’ voices ought to start appreciating other nation’s interests more. As I’ve always said, the solutions to your problems lie in the appreciation of another’s backyard.
The trade-off between the political and popular will be perceived as acceptable within an 'Asian'-style 'Democracy'. The former gets is fill of power and profit, and the popular get the security of cultural refuge. There is nothing new in this. The British have their 'Queen', the Americans have their 'celebrities', and most of the global population have their ambitions for wealth and fame, which, i suppose, would qualify much of the global political status quo, in part, as 'Asian Democracies'. But that is not to say that the most pronounced of 'Asian' 'Democracies' also fail to give the most room for the maximal development of human potentials. At the end of the day, an 'Asian Democracy' is nothing more than a socio-economic status quo that seeks to replicate the privilege of the elite of the past and have it viewed as natural by a subservient mass. It seeks to reduce the human persona to an economic unit and have it appreciate its existence and expressions as being completely fulfilled within the realms of the trivial.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27815.1
No comments:
Post a Comment