One of the notable achievements of an electoral democracy, like ours, is that the ballot box replaces violence as the mechanism of power change. As the different would be leaders contend for their time in control, the pen replaces the sword, words replace bullets, oration the cannonball.
In support of this ideal, many realize that allusions to violence have no place in the process either: Criticize your opponent (or those from a different power group), speak out with specific remedies you prefer, frame it as a contest if you will, but leave the violent metaphors (no 'targeting' your opponent, no 'assassinating' their view, etc.) out of the conversation or debate.
You would think that removing violent speech from the process would be so uncontroversable as to gain universal acceptance - that even those who've perhaps used such speech in the past would realize the undesirability, and join with those who call for all to abstain.
But, no. It seems that there are some who so identify with their idols that a call for them to refrain from violence as metaphor or allusion is a personal attack - and in defending the right (?) to violent speech, they show themselves to be morally unanchored.
For their very defense is to deny the interconnectedness of society - to deny that our actions ripple outwards and affect and influence those around us - that leading a moral life is not just for our benefit, but benefits (by example and support) our family, our friends, our colleagues, our fellow citizens.
Their defense, too, espouses the ultimate 'me first' attitude - recast as 'me only' - an abdication of any and all responsibility to anyone else, to society, to country.
But, for an electoral democracy to succeed requires that the citizenry accept shared responsibility for society's problems, that they build an inclusive community of shared ideals and values, and, foremost, that violence as a solution is eschewed in favor of open debate, with ideas carrying the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment