US Elections: Theater with Deadly Consequences

A great interview with Lawrence Wilkerson, which essentially, supports what I have been saying, in my blogs here, for a while, now, that real democracy does not exist in the world. Everyone likes to talk about it but the general public does not know what real democracy is or how or what should it be? Should it be like what happens in the Western countries; America, Canada, UK, Australia etc.?

Problem is that the general public falsely thinks that as long as the elections are free & fair (that's an assumption in itself), & as long as the general public is getting out to vote & elect the person that they think is the right person to lead them and their country on the international stage, then it must be democracy. That's NOT Democracy.

Democracy is when makes every decision, or at least, major decisions, with the approval of the general public. After all, the general public is the real guardian of the country. It is akin to shareholders being the real owners of public corporation, & the directors of the company calling emergency meetings or the shareholders to vote on the major issues that company is facing. For instance, a country like, America, would've chosen to ask the citizens about invading their privacy before actually doing it, but as we all know, that's not how that issue played out in real life.

As Larry Wilkerson & Paul Jay discussed in the interview, that the democracy has become a charade in North America & other countries as well. The people in politics are all one & the same. Their political issues do not differ too much from each other. Only the faces change every few years but the major issues of the country never change or get resolved. This in turn has turned off the general public from taking part in electing their leaders, & only less than half of the general population actually votes.

Media, of course, has dumbed down the general public even further. It has played its hand in destroying the democracy very beautifully & to its full advantage. However, I will blame the public, here. Media is a business & will always provide what is in demand, & stupidity is in high demand. Public does not want to see or hear anything which would make them think critically. Of course, that just makes the corrupt politicians of the world do whatever they want to do. Hence, the drama of democracy keeps playing out where the victims don't know that they are the victims, the powerful keeps becoming powerful, & everyone thinks they they are living in a democratic country.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uh2vmEM4uc

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: ... I think American electoral politics and much electoral politics in many countries is much like that. It's mostly theater. There's a war of rhetoric, a war of election campaign ads, and the media treats the theater as if it's real. And it's not just the campaigning. It's while Congress and others are governing. The reality of power, the real interest beneath the politics, is rarely revealed in the media, and the media loves the partisan theater. Why? Because they make money out of it. 80% of campaign donations apparently are going to buy television ads, so it's not in television's interest to pierce the veil of this theater.

... it's very much the same thing in politics. It's got nothing to do [with] whether you know anything or not about the issues. Can you make the crowd pop? Can you make people vote for you?

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FMR. CHIEF OF STAFF TO COLIN POWELL: I think your metaphor, Paul, is absolutely spot on. It is theater. The real manipulation of power, the real abuse of power, the real use of power takes place behind this charade that is the--you might call it the charade of democracy. That's essentially what we've made it. Elections, of course, are the least important aspect of democracy. The institutions, the culture, the society, the people, they're the important aspects of democracy. But elections are something that we hype all the time, whether it's in this country or other countries. We send observers and so forth. But I agree with that overall metaphor, that it's mostly theater. And in this country, we do Shakespearean theater, if you will, because it's true theater in this country.

JAY: So, while what's being said in the campaigns are mostly just messaging and trying to come up with little catchy phrases and pick some wedge issue that will get people excited, I mean, very little to do with public policy and what real solutions are, that being said, it's not that it's theater without consequences. It does have some consequence who happens to win. So let's get a bit into that. I mean, assuming the Republicans do take the Senate--and as we do the interview, it looks like they're going to--does it matter?

WILKERSON: It's a part of our system. ...

JAY: If you go back to when President Obama was elected and the real disgrace of the Bush-Cheney administration in every level, from foreign policy to economics, I mean, foreign policy leaving a complete disaster of the Iraq War, and on economics, certainly playing a big part in the crash of '07 and '08--of course, Bill Clinton helped contribute to that, but it was a total runaway train in terms of what elites in banking and so on could get away with with Bush-Cheney. Does it somewhat shock you, if you put your mind back then, that we're in a place where the Republicans could actually control both houses?

WILKERSON: It does, because, as Gore Vidal said very eloquently at one point in his life, we're the United States of amnesia. We don't have any memory. We don't have any retrospective look. Very few of us do, anyway. Most people do what they do, whether it's vote or go to work or whatever, based on a very immediate, local set of circumstances. And going back to--.

JAY: But a lot of that has to do with the media. The media has to have a lot to do with that.

WILKERSON: Well, a lot of it does have to do with the media. It does have to do with the media. And when you have a media that is captured, basically, by the corporate interests in this country, then that media is not going to tell you much except that which keeps you in your somnolent state. And that's really what our media does. It keeps us in an apathetic, somnolent state. The media has no interest in sparking real issues, in debating those issues, in discussing those issues, in parsing those issues so that you can see the meat and the blood and the bones of those issues. They don't want to do that. My god, that might excite someone to actually become smart.

JAY: Yeah. It's also like you take, like, the NBA or any of the professional sports leagues, where they do what they can to kind of even out the teams, because if the teams aren't competitive, who wants to go pay money to go see basketball or football? I mean, the media has the same interest. If they don't keep the Republicans and Democrats competitive, then who needs to spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on television advertising? So it's in their interest to rehabilitate a party and not let it collapse completely.

WILKERSON: Absolutely. You just put your finger on the heart of things, too. One of my students asked me the other day: do you really think there's that much difference in foreign-policy formulation between the Republicans and the Democrats? And, of course, my answer was no, there's not. There's hardly any distance between them. Oh, you can pick an issue here and an issue there ... but you're not going to find that big a divergence between either party. And I would even submit you're not going to find that big a divergence with regard to what corporate interests dictate those politicians do between either party either. You're going to find that there's just as much responsibility, as you just pointed out, for the current economic problems in this country belonging to the Democrats ... who engineered the disassembling of FDR's protections during the Great Depression and afterwards, as there is amongst the Republicans, who were so explicit, if you will, in the way they fought war at the same time they didn't raise any taxes and things like that. But they're both complicit in the same kind of maneuvers, in the same kind of abuse of power for their own interest, for their very parochial, narrow individual interest, and for the larger and grander interests of the corporate interests whom they represent--big pharmacy, big food, big energy, and so forth.
...

State of the World: In Search of Leadership

A good opinion piece on ineffectiveness of world leaders on leadership. Although, this piece is from last year's UN General Assembly, I have no doubt that this year's gathering will once again yield no concrete solutions but a lot of empty promises to improve the world.

A little search on Google or Amazon will get you millions of titles on the topic of leadership. Corporate world can't get enough of "leadership". But the one place the world needs leadership the most, it has the least leadership there.

Today's world leaders have big mouths but short on actually doing something about resolving several problems the world is suffering from. Today's leaders are more of "yes-people" / "butt-kissers" of the general population. Their words & actions are there to appease the general populations, just so they can be elected & money can be rolling in their bank accounts. Only difference between these so-called leaders is that some force their way in such a leadership role (dictators, for instance) & some hold so-called "elections" in so-called "democratic" countries.

Perhaps, then, we should blame the general populations of countries & even the whole regions. Today's leaders are essentially elected on the results of lofty campaign promises, not on the actual substance of their past achievements. General populations around the world have resorted to choosing their leaders based on physical attributes (Justin Trudeau of Canada, for instance) or how many lies a candidate can spew, as long as, those lies confirm the general population's own biases (Donald Trump, for instance, has been proven to state outlandish lies in his campaign speeches but millions of Americans still love him & ready to elect him their leader).

On top of that, leadership, nowadays, can be bought. Money has become the defining factor for a person to be leader, instead of, ethics, morals, empathy, conscientiousness, social responsibility, a strong sense of accountability for its own actions etc. These traits are sorely missing for today's world leaders. Instead today's leaders are the ideal definition of hypocrites. As the writer in his opinion piece says that they "preach that which they don’t practise, cause tensions, & create more problems than they solve." Furthermore, the secretary-general for Amnesty International, Salil Shetty, correctly accused the world leaders of hypocrisy "as they lecture about peace while being the world's largest manufacturers of arms, & how they rail against corruption while allowing corporations to use financial & tax loopholes."

The world indeed needs strong leadership to resolve its many problems, but, perhaps, it needs an educated & informed citizenry which chooses that kind of leadership in the first place.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/09/state-world-search-leadership-150927053354263.html 

Here they go again. And here I am: once again in New York as world leaders pose for photographers & deliver lofty speeches at the UN's "new year" party gathering.

Judging from the attendance, the opening of the 70th session of the UN General Assembly promises to be no less of a tedious ritual than previous years.
...

The problem as I see it as I look around: There are many world leaders, but no leadership.

Spiteful and pathetic

Instead of leading by example among the "Family of Nations", world leaders are acting like toxic in-laws. They come into town to preach that which they don’t practise, cause tensions, & create more problems than they solve.
...

Obama and Putin will talk about Syria and Ukraine, but I doubt they will listen.

Such is the poor state of affairs among the UN in-laws. Political & diplomatic expediency dictate their communication, just as narrow interests hamper their cooperation.

When they do meet, as in last week's US-China summit, much of the preparation is centred on protocol, which apparently prompts other important or meaningful issues. Greetings, toasting, & playing national anthems are as - or perhaps more - important than dealing with dying Syrians or persecuted Rohingya.

What does the G-2 stand for?

Presidents Obama and Xi seemed to have decided, out of domestic concerns, that they can't or won't do much for each other, &, therefore, ensured that their summit included all the trappings of success but without any concrete achievements.

The Washington Post reported that ... there was little or no progress to report on currency manipulation & cyber espionage, etc, let alone Asian security & world poverty. ...

All of which dampens the hopes (wrongly) pinned on the new dynamics between G-2 powers - US & China - to responsibly manage the global economy, especially following the last international financial crisis.

Alas, they proved that they couldn't even act responsibly in Southeast Asia, where they're further complicating the security & economic landscape instead of improving it.

And while the US, Russia, & China fail the test of leadership, those in their shadows are incapable of coordinating among themselves or making the leap towards more meaningful roles.

Even Europe, which is presumably more capable than the rest to act globally, has been either terribly divided or playing catch-up with the US & Russia.

When was the last time you heard of Japan, India or the UK taking an international initiative of any sort? How effective is the group of G-20 when the leading G-2 fail to lead?

Brazil, India, & Germany might seek a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, but how will that lead to better world governance?

Ever since the world moved away from bipolarity of the Cold War, it's been torn between the unipolarity of US leadership, the new bipolarity of the US & China, & multipolarity of various world powers & groupings.

In other words: The old world order is no more, but there's no new world order either.

The confusion allows all to blame all, & in the process, everyone escapes accountability for their lack of international responsibility.

Lessons in leadership

For all practical purposes, world leaders have set themselves up to be lectured like amateurs on the rights & wrongs of leadership by an unlikely mentor.

Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic Church, lectured his audience at the UN with clarity, boldness, & conviction that is lacking in great power politics.

Among other reprimands, the pope rebuked world leaders for failing to put an end to the many conflicts in the world, particularly in the Middle East, & for putting partisan interests above real human beings ...

The pontiff even scolded the global financial institutions that subject countries to oppressive lending systems & subject people to mechanisms, which generate "greater poverty, exclusion, and dependence".

The secretary-general for Amnesty International, Salil Shetty, also accused the powerful leaders of hypocrisy as they lecture about peace while being the world's largest manufacturers of arms, & how they rail against corruption while allowing corporations to use financial & tax loopholes.
...

Yes, the world is better off when leaders act in their nations' best interests. But civilisation is best served when leaders also act in the best interest of their region & that of the community of nations.

That requires leadership.


Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera.

The debate about democracy (whatever that means)

A good opinion piece highlighting how the word "democracy" can mean something &, at the same time, can be meaningless. Although, the piece is few months' old, but the heart of the opinion is "democracy" is a fairly debatable concept.

The primary reason it is debatable or "essentially contested concept" is because most of the public don't understand what the heck is "democracy". Most of the public thinks that merely voting in an election by the general public is "democracy", but it isn't. In many developing countries, elections take place quite frequently, but as soon as the election results are called, the losing party calls foul.

Democracy in the modern world has become similar to a soccer / football match. If a referee awards a penalty or free kick & then that penalty or free kick results in a winning goal for one of the teams, the other team (coach, players, fans etc.) call foul & blame the referee for the decision that helped the other team win the match, regardless of that decision being correct or wrong.

People like & want "democracy" as long as it benefits them economically, financially, socially, politically etc. As soon the "democratically-elected" government makes a decision which goes against the wishes of the public, that same public turns against the government & start claiming that "democracy doesn't exist in this country."

As I stated above that people don't know what democracy is about. Elections & voting are not "democracy," because after all, these activities also happen in Zimbabwe & Congo. Perhaps, those are rigged elections but then most elections are, around the world. In some place, rigging happens at the polling station & in some place, rigging or, in other words, public relations, happen long before the polling day; throughout the election campaign.

Democracy is essentially about the leader (elected or otherwise) listening, learning, & then doing what the majority of its public wants; all the while keeping a close eye on the human rights of minorities, so they are not trampled afoot, while the decisions to benefit the public majority are being implemented. It's not so easy to do. It requires a leader who is not afraid to do something, which may even harm its political party in the short term. It requires a leader who puts the needs of its countrypeople well ahead of his/her & its political party's needs. These kinds of leaders are non-existent in this modern world, where it seems that every other country is either "democratic", or "undemocratic", depending on the public's benefits gained from that given government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-debate-about-democracy-whatever-that-means/

...
Is anyone actually against democracy, after all? Surely not. But democracy is a tricky word. It can mean all sorts of things, or something close to nothing at all.
...

But there I go, using one of the most loaded words in any language, “democracy,” to score cheap debating points. It’s hard to resist the temptation. We do it all the time in Canadian politics. When a cabal of opposition politicians wanted to supplant the Conservative government at the end of 2008, they said they were serving parliamentary democracy. When Harper fought back, he made similar claims. In 2009 & 2010 & 2011, every time Michael Ignatieff thought he might defeat the minority government of the day, it was easy to find observers who’d ask what could be wrong with a little democracy. As if only an election is democracy. As if Parliament isn’t an expression of democracy.
...

“Democracy” is what the Scottish philosopher W.B. Gallie called an “essentially contested concept,” a notion everyone can praise in the abstract while disagreeing, honestly & in good faith, about almost every detail of any given case. (Gallie listed “art” & “duty” as other essentially contested concepts. Art is wonderful & everyone should do his duty, but is that mess on the wall art, & what’s my duty today?) Debate is at the heart of democracy, or should be. But appeals to democracy are usually designed to shut debate down, not to deepen it.

Climate-sceptic US senator given funds by BP PAC

I know it's no secret that climate-skeptic senators, congressmen, & ministers are financially supported by oil & gas companies, but what I am trying to show with this article is that this is the level of honesty, in the government leaders, in the so-called democratic Western hemisphere. The general public doesn't know how many millions are spent from top federal to municipal levels by lobbyists to change viewpoints & get their points across. I consider lobby money as "bribe". Whoever can give the biggest bribe gets the biggest piece of action.

How can these leaders, & esp. this senator, who is the environmental committee, while being a climate-skeptic & getting paid by BP (British Petroleum), do anything useful, climate-wise, for the public?

On top of that, BP is also trying to show to the public that they are working tirelessly towards alternative energy & a green planet. Corruption & lies at the government & business levels. Where is Transparency International now?

Shouldn't this be happening in the authoritarian & corrupt regimes in the Eastern hemisphere of the world? That's why, I always say that democracy in the West is only on its face; inside, it's no different from any authoritarian & corrupt regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/22/climate-sceptic-us-politician-jim-inhofe-bp-political-action-committee

One of America’s most powerful & outspoken opponents of climate change regulation received election campaign contributions that can be traced back to senior BP staff, including chief executive Bob Dudley.

Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax & challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 (£6,700) from BP’s Political Action Committee (PAC).

Following his re-election, Inhofe became chair of the Senate’s environment & public works committee in January, & then a month later featured in news bulletins throwing a snowball across the Senate floor.

Before tossing it, the senator said: “In case we have forgotten – because we keep hearing that 2014 is the warmest year on record – it is very, very cold outside. Very unseasonal.”

The BP PAC is funded by contributions from senior US executives & company staffers who sent in contributions to the PAC totalling more than $1m between 2010 & 2014. Over the same period the committee paid out $655,000 to candidates, with more than 40 incumbent senators benefiting.

Yet, BP & Dudley have long called for world leaders to intervene & impose tough regulatory measures on the fossil fuel industry. Publishing its 98-page research paper, Energy Outlook 2035, last month, BP warned: “To abate carbon emissions further will require additional significant steps by policymakers beyond the steps already assumed.”

Dudley has personally given $19,000 since June 2011 to the BP PAC – very close to the $5,000-a-year maximum allowable by law. Although Dudley is resident in Britain, he is eligible to give via the BP PAC because he is a US national.

While the sums channelled to Inhofe’s campaign represent only a small proportion of the BP PAC’s election spending & the senator’s own campaign funds, they show how unafraid the committee has been to spread its donations to the most controversial candidates. According to the BP PAC website, it financially supports election candidates “whose views and/or voting records reflect the interests of BP employees”.

Records suggest Inhofe’s 2014 campaign was a funding priority for the BP PAC, ranking as one of the top recipients of committee funds when compared with disbursements to other serving senators.

This was despite Inhofe’s senate battle not being a close one. His opponent, Matt Silverstein, who Inhofe beat comfortably in last November’s midterms, had a tiny campaign war chest by comparison.

BP was asked whether it was appropriate for the PAC to make campaign contributions to such a vocal opponent of action on climate change, or for Dudley to be contributing towards such payments.

In a statement BP replied: “Voluntary donations [by staff] to the BP employees’ political action committee in the US are used to support a variety of candidates across the political spectrum & in many US geographies where we operate.

“These candidates have one thing in common: they are important advocates for the energy industry in the broadest sense.”

It added: “BP’s position on climate change is well known & is long-established. We believe that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action.”

PACs exist in the US where companies & trade unions cannot give directly to the campaigns of those running for office. Instead funds are pooled from staff – often senior executives – into a PAC, & disbursed by a committee board, often in a manner sympathetic to the company’s lobby & other interests.

Other US oil industry leaders, including Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, make contributions to their own corporate PACs – money which in many cases can then be traced to Inhofe & other climate-sceptic politicians.

But Tillerson & other peers have not been as outspoken as BP & Dudley in calling for state intervention to tackle climate change, making the BP boss’s links to Inhofe campaign finance more controversial.

Last week Obama said it was “disturbing” that Inhofe had been made chair of the senate environment committee. In broader criticism of unnamed political opponents, he then went on to say: “In some cases you have elected officials who are shills for the oil companies or the fossil fuel industry. And there is a lot of money involved.”

Inhofe is unabashed about election campaign financing he receives from the industry. In his 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, he wrote: “Whenever the media asked me how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, my unapologetic answer was ‘not enough’.”

According to data compiled from public filings by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), Inhofe’s campaign raised $4.84m between 2009 & 2014, with $1.77m coming from PACs, many of them sponsored by fossil fuel companies.

BP’s PAC was more active in the US 2014 election cycle than any other for more than a decade. Despite insisting it is non-partisan, 69% of contributions to federal election candidates in recent years have been to Republican politicians. This is a stronger bias than most other corporate PACs, according to the CRP.

There are, however, other leading recipients who have attracted criticism from climate change campaigners, including Republican House speaker John Boehner & fellow Republican, Sen Mike Enzi from Wyoming.

When asked his views on climate change in January, Boehner said: “We’ve had changes in our climate, although scientists debate the sources, in their opinion, of that change. But I think the real question is that every proposal out of this administration with regard to climate change means killing American jobs.”

“I don’t see [Obama] as trying to control pollution. I see him trying to put business out of business,” Enzi said last year.

Campaign contributions is just one aspect of US political engagement linked to BP & its staff. Filings show the oil & gas group spends millions on lobbying efforts.

The CRP classifies BP as a “heavy hitter”, ranking it among the top 140 biggest overall donors to federal elections since 1988. Its PAC ranks as the six largest such body with a sponsor company that is ultimately part of a non-US multinational.

Water crisis coming in 15 years unless the world acts now, UN report warns

It's funny how humans themselves are causing more crises in the world than the nature ever could. And it's happening more & more in this modern world, when a great majority is supposed to be educated. Although, a lot of developing countries have a large mass of poor who are not educated, but they are not cause of this crisis but they are the first ones who will suffer from these water & general environmental crises. The developed countries, which are educated & much better technology to help resolve these crises, are the ones which created these environmental problems & are willing to do more harm than good.
 
Some will counter with the argument that the world has too many people now & population control is the answer to resolve these problems. Increasing population is not the problem & controlling it won't resolve the climate change problem. Primary problem is the concentration of resources in a very few hands & those hands are misusing those resources.
 
For instance, the developed countries (e.g. G8 countries) could've used the opportunity of recession as the impetus to invest heavily in alternative energy & consumer products using alternative energy, e.g. transportation systems using alternative energy. That would've solved the problem of job creation & perhaps, could've took the world out of recession much more quicker.
 
Now, cars (e.g. Tesla) are being made to work on alternative modes of energy, but those won't be affordable for the general public for, at least, 10-20 years. Plus, in the race to becoming energy independent, America is allowing fracking all over the country to extract oil & gas, & turning a blind eye to the problems of polluting little clean water the country has, which is getting polluted because of fracking.
 
These water crises could have been managed much more astutely in the past 10-20 years where we wouldn't be having these reports of impending doom & gloom. Science was much farther ahead in coming up with products to counter the problems of climate change, but the leaders of developed countries never took any meaningful steps towards resolving these crises.
 
Now, the problems have snowballed to where the poor masses of the developed & developing countries, alike, will suffer the most & eventually, the rich will feel the pressure & pain of neglecting the suffering of the poor. Water, unlike oil, is much more vital resource & people will rise up, much more violently, when they are robbed off this basic vital resource to keep themselves alive.
 
On a side note, Islam told its followers 1,500 years ago to use water very carefully because you will be questioned, on Judgement Day, for each & every drop of water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/water-crisis-coming-in-15-years-unless-the-world-acts-now-un-urges/article23551722/

The world could suffer a 40% shortfall in water in just 15 years unless countries dramatically change their use of the resource, a UN report warned.
 
Many underground water reserves are already running low, while rainfall patterns are predicted to become more erratic with climate change. As the world’s population grows to an expected 9 billion by 2050, more groundwater will be needed for farming, industry & personal consumption.
 
The report predicts global water demand will increase 55% by 2050, while reserves dwindle. If current usage trends don’t change, the world will have only 60% of the water it needs in 2030, it said.
 
Having less available water risks catastrophe on many fronts: crops could fail, ecosystems could break down, industries could collapse, disease & poverty could worsen, & violent conflicts over access to water could become more frequent.

“Unless the balance between demand & finite supplies is restored, the world will face an increasingly severe global water deficit,” the annual World Water Development Report said, noting that more efficient use could guarantee enough supply in the future.
 
The report ... calls on policy makers & communities to rethink water policies, urging more conservation as well as recycling of wastewater as is done in Singapore. Countries may also want to consider raising prices for water, as well as searching for ways to make water-intensive sectors more efficient & less polluting, it said.
 
In many countries, including India, water use is largely unregulated & often wasteful. Pollution of water is often ignored & unpunished. At least 80% of India’s population relies on groundwater for drinking to avoid bacteria-infested surface waters.
 
In agriculture-intense India, where studies show some aquifers are being depleted at the world’s fastest rates, the shortfall has been forecast at 50% or even higher. Climate change is expected to make the situation worse, as higher temperatures & more erratic weather patterns could disrupt rainfall.
 
Currently, about 748 million people worldwide have poor access to clean drinking water, the report said, cautioning that economic growth alone is not the solution – & could make the situation worse unless reforms ensure more efficiency & less pollution.

“Unsustainable development pathways & governance failures have affected the quality & availability of water resources, compromising their capacity to generate social & economic benefits,” it said. “Economic growth itself is not a guarantee for wider social progress.”

Leaders & Public

Regardless of where we live nowadays, in a so-called "democratic" country or a dictatorship, the public is molded & treated by respective government the same way. "V for Vendetta" -- put the fear in people's heart & they will follow you to the gates of hell.

 

Muslims obligated to speak out against evil

I had a fiery discussion with a family member (let's call this person, Person X) about this raid & specifically, that young MQM worker who died in the raid. Person X was saddened by the death of that young worker.
 
My point essentially was, "Karma's a bitch." What did I mean by that?
 
That young worker, Syed Waqas Ali Shah, was an active member of MQM. Although, he never killed anyone himself (as per news reports), he was involved with an org'n that is considered criminal in Pakistan by the general public of Karachi.
 
1. Person X: we don't know what that young worker did good or bad things, so I should not say such things against him. We should only talk about good things about other people & not what bad things they have done.
 
My answer: You, as a Muslim, must've heard this a million times, "amr bil maaroof wa nahi anil munkar" (essential meaning: tell people to do good & stop them from doing bad / evil).
 
All Muslims are held responsible for this deed.
 
However, in our modern neo-liberal, neo-Islam, Muslims have forgotten the later part of that statement & only remember the first part.
 
How can you stop someone from doing bad when you don't want to even talk about bad things? Good & Bad are relative to each other. You cannot know what's good until you know what's bad.
 
In our secular, non-religious world, when we do something bad (i.e. illegal), we are punished through the judicial system. Using the logic stated above, isn't that the wrong approach? There shouldn't be any punishment for any kind. Teacher shouldn't punish kids for not doing homework. Parents shouldn't punish kids for doing something bad. Similarly, state shouldn't punish wrongdoers & law breakers. After all, all those people who are getting punished have some good in them. Even Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Qaddafi & several other kings & dictators, past & present, have done some good while in power (provided food, medical, shelter, clothes etc to their public).
 
In our religious world, God / Allah has told us what good to do to receive rewards & what bad things will get you punished. We all know that. Now, people have forgotten that we, all of us Muslims, are held responsible to remind people what's good & what's bad & stopping them from doing it because we are afraid from offending anyone.
 
There is another passage in Surah Al-Araf, which describes the punishment from Allah for a Jewish colony when they broke the law of no working on Sabbath. 2 out of 3 groups were punished, because one group started to actively disobey Allah by continuing to conduct business on Sabbath. Another group actively tried to stop them from doing so. But there was a 3rd group which thought, like a large section of society does now, that it's none of my business to interfere with these people who are conducting business on Sabbath. Who am I to stop them. That 3rd group still thought it was wrong to conduct business on Sabbath & did not practice such themselves.
 
But when the punishment came, both those who were actively conducting business (first group) & those who, although, thinking it should not be done, didn't actively stop the first group (third group), were severely punished (turned into monkeys). Only the group which did "stuck their noses" in others' business by actively trying to stop the first group from conducting business were spared.
 
All Prophets & Messengers who came in this world (most notably, Jesus, Moses, Aaron, Abraham, & of course, Muhammad) did not just tell people what is good & what good things they will receive if they do those good things, but they also actively stopped people from doing bad. They stood up against the kings & dictators of their respective times. All these Prophets & Messengers were made fun of, were bullied, were tortured, were imprisoned, were poisoned, & ultimately killed, for stopping people from bad.
 
And the funny thing is, they were standing up to people who were, after all, had some good in them. Pharoah, Roman emperors, King Nimrud, & even Prophet Muhammad's own tribe of Quraish, used to provide food, medical, shelter, clothes, give charity etc to their public.
 
Similarly, several prominent scholars of Islam have been tortured, imprisoned, & ultimately killed, only because they didn't confine themselves to spreading good in the public but also actively stopped people in their communities from bad / evil.
 
So, were the Prophets wrong to stand up to these kings & tyrants? Were they stupid or morons to stop people from doing bad? Were the scholars wrong to stop people from doing bad by constantly harping about it? Didn't these scholars know that they could have a very prosperous & better life by just following the herd & keep telling people how good they are?
 
Our world has gotten to this point because we all, Muslims & non-Muslims, are silent now. We only want to say good things about others. We don't want to stop anyone from doing something bad / evil. We don't want to label anyone as bad. I guess Allah gave us the wrong responsibility of telling people to do good & stopping them from doing bad.
 
It's fruitless to keep hoping for peace, justice & good in this world when everyone of us is silent & want to stay indifferent. Parents don't care what their kids are doing & households don't care what their neighbours are doing. If we don't want to bring change in our own societies by actively working against bad / evil, then we are part of the problem, & not the solution.

2. Person X: only bad person in MQM is their leader.
 
My answer: If we all consider only the leader of an org'n as the only rotten apple in the whole org'n, then it is very wrong to blame any of the soldiers around the world for whatever bad things they do to the general public; be they be the Israeli soldiers bombing in Gaza, Indian soldiers occupying Kashmir, NATO soldiers in Afghanistan & Iraq, American soldiers in Vietnam war, UN soldiers in Bosnia & Kosovo etc. Because, if they or even the military contractors (e.g. Blackwater) do something wrong in these territories, then soldiers & contractors should be off the hook for any & all wrongdoing. Human rights should not cry foul.
 
That young worker was an active member of the org'n. Even if he never killed anyone by his own hands, he was supporting an org'n which has killed (proven & alleged) several young innocent males in Karachi, who were also sole breadwinners of their poor families.
 
Sahih Hadith is that if you support someone who is persecuting or doing something bad to someone else (basically, a criminal), then you yourself are also the "persecuter" or as much a criminal as that criminal.
 
There's another one that if you see something wrong, then you should stop other people from it, speak out against it (in whichever way you can), & at the very least, think of it as bad in your heart.
 
It doesn't matter if you are an active or passive member of the org'n, but if the org'n (e.g. a Mafia, or criminal gang) is criminally hurting someone else (perhaps, an innocent) or involved in other criminal activities (e.g. money laundering, prostitution, drug smuggling, weapons smuggling etc.), then, by association to that group, you will be held responsible for that group's actions, too.
 
So, regardless of how this young worker got into MQM & how much was he involved in it, or how much he wanted to get out of this org'n, he was ultimately supporting a criminal org'n. And, all courts in the world would have held him criminally responsible by being a party worker & "associating with bad elements". Heck, in the West (where the courts are considered fairer than the rest of the world) would have charged him with obstructing justice (he was protesting against the police raid).

http://tribune.com.pk/story/851291/rangers-conduct-siege-and-search-operation-at-mqm-headquarters-in-karachi/