Sangam
Thursday, November 27, 2003
Georiga's "Velvet Revolution"
I'm glad you put "Velvet Revolution" in quotes. The term, as you know, originated in the now late Czechoslavakia. It was led by Vaclav Havel, a beast. The Georgian experiment was not as sophisticated but had the same end result. Since Havel's approach and buildup was more organized and sophisticated, the Czech and Slovak republics have fared well. The same cannot be said of Georgia, although it's too early to call. Such overthrows are becoming Eastern European traditions. Remember the scenes in Belgrade. It is nice to see the people taking charge.. but I hope that they don't have to keep doing this.
On PATRIOT II.... I've known this clandestine pushing through of the act in bits in pieces for a while now. It is sad and outrageous. The activist community must be congratulated for bringing so much attention to this very serious issue. They finally shamed the media into covering it.
Monday, November 24, 2003
Divide and conquer
I wanted to add a small update to my thoughts on USA PATRIOT II and how it had been thwarted by public response to the first act. Well, I think I was wrong on this. I've been hearing more and more news about how bits and pieces of what PATRIOT II would have covered are being passed individually and as parts of much, much larger bills. This is quite concerning since it makes it much more difficult to protect civil liberties. At the same time, I'm relieved by the fact that we're finding about these bills through the media and the ACLU. Granted, it's much too late to do anything about these provisions, but tracking it is very important.
Democracy flexes its muscles
Our busy schedules have left if pretty quiet here, but two important happenings over the weekend cannot be forgotten without some commentary:
The biggest international news event was about the "Velvet Revolution" in Georgia. Since I'm not too familiar with the situation, I can't say if this change in governments will be for the better or not, but suffice it to say, a mass movement built up over this month forced an upheaval in the government there. A string of broken promises is what tends to lead people to discontent with their government and it seems that Eduard Shevardnadze was the focal point in Georgia. It was quite a dramatic turn of events since we had not heard anything about the furor in Georgia until Saturday morning when NPR covered the occupation of governmental buildings. Before I knew it, Shevardnadze had resigned.
The dark-horse candidate for biggest international news event would have to be the results of local elections in Hong Kong. HK is, of course, under pseudo-dictatorial rule by Beijing and since the 1997 handover of HK, the people there have been subjected to more regulations and less freedom than they're used to. This seemed to come to a head over this summer when Beijing had to back off on an anti-subversion bill due to mass protests. These elections are just the latest turn of events. I find the results quite startling since Beijing is quite well-known for cracking down on anti-government movements. Granted, these elections are not for control of HK itself, but apparently many campaigns had been run on the grounds of freedom and civil liberties. I'll be very interested to see what happens here and it may indicate Beijing's flexibility on the mainland as well.
Sunday, November 16, 2003
"Full Access" : It's advantages, please?
Today civil liberties are being are being suppresed because of the "threat" of "terrorism". Let it be state at the outset itself that there is no denying that there are "suicidally-homicidal" individuals and groups out there who do pose a threat to innocent individuals. But these groups would not amount to much had there not been reasons that engender a large albeit misinformed base of support. The curbing of civil liberties is being presented to us as a "symptomatic response" to the problem. The problem is that the "causative" responses are seriously lacking.
The law enforcement response to terrorism is essential. Absolutely. Terrorism is a crime and hence must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Note the word prosecuted. That's where the heart of the problem is in some sense. I would have much less of an issue if there was any judicial oversight of this process. There is little to none. Given this lack of oversight the agents in the field may end up pursing innocent civilians and harass them. Also, this may end up distracting the real law enforcement challenge of actually preventing terrorism by wasting time on non-threats. All in all, the PATRIOT ACT is counter-productive without judicial oversight. So is POTA in India and similar legislations that have been passed across the globe. The states must realize that these acts are not useful in furthering the end that they seek. Unless they seek unholy ends!
Before I conclude let me get back to the "causative" point I made in the first para. These acts that undermine civil liberties are tools to tackle problems. Our mission must be to solve problems not just prevent them. Prevention cannot be the full effort. Citizens must push their govts to strive for more "holisitic" solutions. And sincere visionary leaders must respond to this demand. If there was ever a time for visionary leaders... it is now.
Friday, November 14, 2003
More on civil liberties
I just found this interesting piece of news regarding rules for FBI investigations of suspected terrorism. While it's good that this news is available to us (although no media outlets focused on it) and the ACLU is already on the case, what concerns me (as I think it concerns you) is that such decisions are made without the public truly being involved. I think the overall ebb and flow of security vs. liberties is swinging very slowly back to the side of civil liberties, but these types of things make you wonder what would happen with the legal ability to challenge such laws or the public conscience striving to find a balance.
Thoughts on Governance
Sorry for the delay, but I'm just now getting around to posting the further thoughts I wanted to relate with regard to the bit on Singapore, governance, and civil liberties....
I think the key things to take away from this are how any government treats its citizens and the checks in place to balance what the government is doing (either built into the law or built in the public conscience). In the Singapore example, I've noted that there is really a parent-child relationship. The hope is that a parent has the best intentions in mind when giving the child rules to obey. But with a government, you can't just lay down rules for an entire nation without expecting kickback from the populus. The Singapore govt has handled this by essentially numbing the citizenry to the effects of the rules placed upon them. As noted, most citizens seem to shrug off the fact that they don't really have free speech in public circles.
While Singapore's citizens are resigned to this, citizens in many other countries would be up in arms. And that's where the balance comes in. Specific individuals in a government may want to enact laws limiting civil liberties, but the public usually has the recourse of a legislature or constitution to ensure that the laws being proposed by such leaders are amenable to society as a whole. In Singapore, very few people seem to care about such a balance (or at least fight for it). In India and the US, the fearmongering you've mentioned has people either too scared to speak up or drowned out by "rubberstamp" opinions that blindly support anything fighting terrorism.
What I'm getting to here is about democracy as a working system. You've said that democracy balances this out, but the fearmongering limits the true extent of democracy. If people cannot or are too scared to voice their opinion then the meaning of democracy has been lost.
I think the balance within the US has tipped back a bit to the middle ground. Plans for a PATRIOT 2 have been scrapped since the citizenry is up in arms over the first act (after diligent work by many). The rubberstamping that was present over anti-terror laws has faded a bit and the sobering idea of free society has come to light again. Of course, ideologues will always be around, but enough people are willing to stand up and can actually be heard now.
What are your thoughts on where India is headed with such anti-terror laws that cut at the heart of civil liberties?
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Governance & Civil Liberties
I found something which I wrote last year while staying in Singapore. It's more focused on goverance and the attitude which Singapore's government takes towards its citizens, but I think it can be applied in our discussion about civil liberties. I'll post my actual comments & further thoughts about this in a separate post in a bit...have a read in the meantime. Note, however, that I haven't cleaned this up so parts may not make the most sense :)
Originally written Monday August 26th, 2002.
I've been in Singapore now for almost three weeks. The previous times I've been here I had already developed an impression of the amount of freedom one has while living here. More accurately, I should say I had developed an impression of the restrictions on freedom in this city-state. This trip to Singapore has been my longest and I've been able to learn quite a bit more about what Singaporeans themselves think of their personal rights. And more interestingly, I've gotten a better understanding of how the government wants its people to behave. I say behave for a reason - I get the impression that the govt here thinks of its citizens as children who need to be taught right from wrong and reminded of their roles and responsibilities.
Before this trip, I had really thought of the Singaporean govt's approach to governance as very heavy-handed. That impression comes mainly from my knowledge about strict laws here. What should you avoid doing here? Distribute chewing gum. Spray graffitti. Throw cigarette butts on the ground. Have anything to do with illicit drug. It's become a joke here. Doing any of the above will get you a stiff fine or even death (get caught with even the smallest amount of pot and you're more than likly going to get death). I think most people know about these strict laws though.
On my previous trip here, I learned that the government wanted to enfore racial integration. In some odd ways. If you want to buy an apartment flat in a building that has "too many" other residents of the same race as you, you will most likely not be able to buy that flat. Why? The government wants to see more racial harmony. And the best way to get that harmony is to enforce a more integrated society. Good goal. But the way to get there doesn't sit well with me.
This most recent trip I've been able to hear a lot more about the relationship between the govt and the people. I arrived here on Singapore's National Day - the day Singapore separated from Malaysia. The ensuing two weeks have been filled with a "debate" about what it means to be a good Singaporean. The reason I put debate in quotes is simple - it seems more like a lecture a parent would give to a child. Sure there have been opposing viewpoints, but in the end, nobody really descents from the majority viewpoint. Those that have done so in the past are now risking jail time. Oh, but this is a democracy...
Case in point - Speaker's Corner here in Singapore is the only spot in the country where you can make a speech without a permit. Even then, you still have to record your name and contact information with the local authorities. Even then, you still cannot say a word about race or religion. So what if you do really speak your mind? Go to jail. Earlier this year, a man, Chee Soon Juan, went to Speaker's Corner and questioned the government ban on Islamic headscarves in pbulic schools. He kept talking despite several police warnings and is now charged with 'providing public entertainment without a license'.
Getting back to the debate about being a good Singaporean...the prime minister gave a National Day speech here calling all citizens to put themselves in one of two categories: Stayers or Quitters. He basically said that those who will leave at the sign of a storm are fairweather citizens and not good Singaporeans. His point was that people should brace themselves and fight through tough times. Now that's a great idea and its certainly commendable for people to tough it out. But harping on people who leave for other climes?
Every week, there is a TV program where a former politician sits down with a dozen or so high school and college students to discuss various issues. They mainly come down to what good Singaporeans should do. If it's a discussion about NeWater (drinking water purified from waste and industrial water meant to reduce Singapore's need for imported water), the talk boils down to the fact that good Singaporeans should welcome this water because it will mean a better life for everyone.
My point here isn't that the people of Singapore should revolt against the overly harsh laws (well, maybe they should). It is more about the relationship between the people and their government. As I mentioned before, this is a democracy...but really, it's a parent defining right from wrong. A good Singaporean should follow all the laws and see that however unjust something may seem, it's really meant to keep things "free and easy" for the rest of society. And a good Singaporean should agree with the governments idea of a "perfect" society and do everything possible to fit into that society. Since when does a government define right and wrong for its people? Since when does a government defines roles for its people? Shouldn't it be the other way around? With the people at the helm?
I'll discuss the flip-side of this equation at a later date: The responsibilities of the populus. Granted a government should not take such control of its people, but the people have many responsibilities which go beyond electing their leaders.
As a side note...What it really seems like here is that people are just too content with what they have and they'll accept things they way they are because life is made easier for them. Well, "ease of life" is the impression given to everyone. (I'm sure I'll write about how easy life is here in Singapore another day). People are too busy fiddling with their cell phones to care about the real costs of living in Singapore...be it one's right to free speech or one's ability to improve their lot in life. Suffice it to say that neither can be taken for granted here.
So how can this apply to people who don't live in Singapore? Well, think of Singapore as governance taken to an extreme. Politicians have taken such care to create a "perfect" society that it's almost unreal and unbelievable. Government is not about a parent and child. It's about representation to benefit society as a whole. Luckily Singaporean politicians seem to do things they think will be better for everyone in society. There are many politicians (including India's) that do things to satisfy themselves and beat down those they see as opposition - clearly not for the betterment of society. No doubt, Singapore is not the only place where this takes place. It is only an obvious examples because of the heavy-handed approach the government takes and its complete control of all media. Look at other places in the world. Think about how your own government works and treats its people.
I know that when I go back to the States, I'll think of the US government in a different way. I'll be thinking about who should be deciding what is best for society. I'll be thinking about how government can be mis-used in a short-sighted means to create a modern Walden. I'll be thinking about the extremes to which current and proposed laws can be taken. I'm sure I'll still take many freedoms for granted, but one more critical eye on "the plan" can't hurt. I encourage you all to give it a thought. Look at the relationship people around the world have with their government. Look at your relationship with your government. Most of all, speak up when that relationship isn't in balance. It's the only way we can ensure a free and just society.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Civil Liberties..... hmmm....
I can write something quite superficial like the Patriot Act in the US and POTA (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/document/actandordinances/POTA.htm) in India are just examples of how a certain political class wants to pay lip-service to democracy. They do all these shananagens in the name of "security". Of course, they trampled upon one of the most fundamental human rights - the right to express oneself without fear of retribution.
When idelogues seize power they want to maintain it. They seek tools to do that. The most foolproof and sophisticated way to do that is by enacting laws that superficialy exude logic but beneath the surface promote a certain ideology. POTA or the PATRIOT ACT basically try to promote fear. Because their authors are in power today primarily because they are good at creating fear in people's minds.
I think we need to broaden the question here a little. Rather than just talk of civil liberties we probably need to understand who is undermining them and why? The left hates it when the right expresses itself. The leftists find the right mean, irrational and illogical. The right feels the same way about the left. In general, in life we come across people who we vehemently disagree with and people whose "utterances" we cannot stand... BUT... democracy is a sobering concept. It teaches us to not just tolerate others but to respect them as well. In respecting my ideological opponent's right to expression I am actually preserving mine.
The discussion with civil liberties will have to encompass some larger issues. If limited to library records or video rentals it won't move a whole of people. Don't get me wrong these are very potent methods to get people involved.. BUT.. not sufficient. We have to take these so-called proponents of democracy to task and ASK them to respect it first!
Monday, November 10, 2003
Concrete method
I like what you've responded with. It narrows down the methodology and provides activists with some concrete examples of ways in which to get their point across. Of course, you've oversimplified my own question about "desire", but it's all good.
Let's change the subject a bit, to something which is still "undeniable", but seems to get hit from all sides of late: Civil Liberties.
Al Gore had a firey speech yesterday critical of President Bush and the USA PATRIOT Act. Let's leave aside the change in nature of Gore from robot to fire brand [...:-)...] and instead look at the fine line between increasing security and treading on inalienable rights. While the challenge in America is about finding the line and how close we should tread on it, I would suspect that in other parts of the world it's not even a question of civil liberties.
Before I go on too far, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
