Exposing civil disobedience

Again I am forced to comment on the dastardly politics of my homeland and the blatant disrespect for authority that the politicians are tacitly encouraging as a legitimate means of protest.

A police officer, no less, has been subject to an attack by opposition activists where the perpetrators have forcibly removed his trousers, leaving him parading on the streets of Dhaka, surrounded by his colleagues, in in his unmentionables.

I do not wish to discuss whether or not this was a good thing or if he (as a representative of the police) had it coming – bottom line is that the core intention was to humiliate. These hyenas were set loose to have some fun by deriding the 'administration.'

What is lost is that the police really are only following orders to beat down the protesters on the streets; these same officers had been sent against the current powers-that-be when the present opposition was in power.

What is also lost is that when you teach people that it is okay to defy authority figures (and there should be no argument that this policeman was an authority figure) that defiance will eventually not be conditional; when people have learnt that they can get away with defying an authority figure they will extend that privilege to areas that go beyond political protest during strikes and into areas of everyday civil society life.

When you lose respect for authority, you lose respect for order. While it is true that government is in charge of ensuring order, it is also true that government is not a political party. Civil disobedience left unpunished will only encourage its continuation. If ever the present opposition finds itself back in power, it then will be responsible for similar forms of civil disobedience.

Had the politicians in the opposition party any maturity and sense of decorum they would be the loudest to distance themselves from the action and the first to criticise their own people for going to such extreme measures; legitimate protest cannot be advanced through forms of humiliation but only through structured action (lest one day the very opposition leaders who are slapping each other on the back for 'giving it' to the administration find themselves exposed to a very similar predicament).

Meanwhile, the police will wait anxiously for the moment when they can mete their revenge with the blessing of the government. This may lead to further hartals, but will conclusively provide more opportunities to the law enforcers on duty.

And the cycle continues when the present government is out of power and the opposition (then in power) will order the police to mete out the same treatment.

True to self-worth

I was listening to the radio yesterday and caught a portion of a competition where the listener was given a first name and had to come up with the corresponding last name.

These were obviously famous people who were in the news recently, and while this might seem fairly easy its actually difficult to remember six last names in 30 seconds.

But this isn't about getting the names right as much as it is about confessing up to the fact that one might not know the names or what the person is famous for. The name clue was an innocuous “Lee” the correct answer was Lee Westwood, the UK man who ended the reign of golfing great Tiger Woods to take the number one slot last November. Currently he is number two.

Frankly I didn't know the correct answer.

But then this isn't about my not knowing, its about how the woman on the phone reacted. She did not know 'Lee Westwood,' and when the presenter tried to tell her he was a local rugby star – instead of pretending to know with a “oh, right”, she just shrugged it off and said that she didn't know.

She admitted on a public broadcast that she did not know rather than pretend that she did – something that I am sure a lot of people are guilty off doing to save face.

The punchline is that the presenter than admitted to her that he was kidding and that Lee Westwood was in fact a UK golfer. Imagine what kind of a fool she would have looked had she pretended to know and agreed that Lee Westwood was indeed a local rugby hero! Suddenly all the people listening in would know that she was a fool and she'd have lost face to save face.

I confess that I have fallen to pretend to know what I didn't... I am guilty of saying “Oh, right now I remember” when introduced to someone who I don't remember at all. A lot of us have done it in politeness... but when has it been polite to lie?

The woman on the radio won my respect because she was true to herself and wasn't worried about cheap face saves. One can hope to remember this lesson when put to the test.

In the living years...

Man (and woman) is a creature more prone to regret than to make the best of circumstances and grab an opportunity. It's almost like we prefer to lament about the 'what could have been' then rejoice taking the proverbial bull by the horns.

Countless times I have seen people regretting not patching things up with someone who had just passed away, or perhaps wishing they had treated the person better, or not exchanged harsh words so often. Somehow none of these sentiments ever arose when the person was alive or when there was time to correct the circumstances.

Most times, I think, people regret NOT doing something more than they do actually DOING it – discounting for murder and other heinous crimes of course. Yet when an opportunity comes up we more often than not find justification for not doing it because it seems the time is not right (in the inane logic that there is ALWAYS a better time in the future).

On occasion though, time is not always on our side. Granted the best time is always now – but sadly that particular truth is lost in ironic procrastination.

Ever hear “The Living Years” by Mike and the Mechanics? Click here for the lyrics, or simply below to hear the song.



I fear when someone close to us dies we regret the lost opportunities than we do the actual passing. The memories are lost to painful concerns of what we ‘should have’ or ‘could have.’ Yet the very next day we pile on another laundry load of regrets for next time and the next passing.

Loud and proud

Ever notice the boisterous person in a group? The person who naturally assumes control of a group and tries to bolster authority (albeit all in good humour; at least until someone else in the group tries to assume control as well and then the tempers begin to soar).

I never understood the need to take on such control over a group – in what is guaranteed to be a thankless job, plagued with ego clashes and undue headaches. But then I would be relegated to the shameful (as far as those doing the relegation are concerned) title of 'not a born leader' or, worse still, 'follower.'

Unashamedly, however, I have been known to be good leader (even if I am the only person who knows it), it's just that I do not feel a compulsion to have to take the lead in every single encounter – my ego is not frail like that to only be able to give orders but not take it.

The problem is that when you have too many 'leaders' you have a winning formula... to ultimately lose. Leaders in my mind, look, listen, understand,and then act – most people think that leadership starts with acting first. This sprouts from an unhealthy prostate of the mind – too much ego and too frail a self-worth, where 'taking control' is all too often mistaken to also mean 'getting respect.'

Political travesty continues in Bangladesh

I had intended not to discuss politics in this blog... particularly the politics of confrontation that is so prevalent in my native Bangladesh. But it pains me to see the country spiral its way back again into political confrontation that has more to do with who's in power and and who gets the privilege than actual democracy or nation building.

The latest issue is the abolishment of the caretaker form of government. For the uninitiated (and there should be plenty worldwide because the caretaker government is a Bangladeshi homemade solution fed on general distrust by the opposing party for the government in power, whoever that may be on the given moment) the last three general elections in Bangladesh had been observed under the caretaker government, or an interim government, that takes over for three months in order to run government functions and organise a 'fair & free' election.

This arrangement has worked because previously the opposing party was convinced that the party standing down from government would rig the elections to win office back (whether they did or not). I think that the party would eventually rig the election because they would be blamed for it anyway!

Of course the concerns were not entirely unfounded either; even with the provision for a caretaker government, the party in power would retire a 'partisan' chief justice (often early) or delay the retirement of certain chief justices (suspected of partisan sentiments for the opposing party) because the chief of the caretaker government would be the immediate retired chief justice.

Now the provision to hold elections under a caretaker government system has been rescinded and the constitution amended to reflect the change. The amendment was passed 291 to one in favour of the amendment – with the chief opposition party boycotting the parliament to mark their protest.

Normally boycotting the parliament would be considered a strong opposition protest were in not for the fact that the opposition (to whichever government is in power at the time) always boycotts the parliament... only to make a brief appearance (inevitably followed by a walk-out) a day or two before the last day of absence (in this case 90 days) to protect their seat and ensure it not being declared vacant.

Bangladesh is possibly the only country in the world where the parliamentary system of government suffers chronic ineffectivity because parliament is consistently boycotted by the opposing party. Ostensibly opposition is fought on the streets (and the detriment of the masses and business interests) but never dealt with in parliament.

Retracting the caretaker government system will only result in increased anarchy as the current opposition will embrace it as a legitimate reason to shut the country down through violence and strikes... all in the name of protecting the people from the 'dictatorial' influences of the government. No matter that the current opposition party at one point, while in power, condemned the caretaker government system as archaic and unnecessary too (to say nothing of their once strong stand against political violence and strikes by opposition forces when they were in power).

The people of Bangladesh have very short memories but are also hostage to the respective political travesty of the government party and the opposition party. Time has been ripe for our own 'Arab Spring' and taking the country back from the hooligans and the inept.

Unfortunately that's always been easier to say.

Our future is powered by a collective history

There is a school of thought that a person is really limited by his imagination... okay, it's not really a “school” but a “reasoning” of thought. And I subscribe to that thought school.

In my mind, a person's limitations is mostly in the person's mind.

(Of course there are other limitations such as phobias that put a brake on progress sometimes; and while it is easy for someone who does not suffer the same phobia to advocate “no worries” - phobias are by definition irrational fears and very “real” in the person's mind so cannot be just wafted away with hollow sounding reassurances.)

The greater the capacity to imagine, the bigger the chances of creating something magical. History is dotted with examples of people who have imagined the possibilities and used their curiosity and ingenuity to create what in their times were nothing short of “magic.”

We take the telephone, the television, the radio for granted... yet there was a time when none of these existed. Of course there were a fair share of skeptics. These people in seats of power and influence (no one ever documents the words of the average person on the streets... unless its a poll of some kind.) who, in their authority, discredited these inventions as pointless and something that would never catch on. Alas, they are now mere footnotes in history and are forever destined to ridicule for their lack of vision.

I came across a item in The Economist recently that suggested a fascinating concept that links the development of man (or at least the evolution of ideas and imagination) over the last two millennnia. It suggests that “arguing that one person's life is just as much a part of mankind's story as another's. If people do make history, as this democratic view suggests, then two people make twice as much history as one.”

A result of this idea is that 28% of all history made since the birth of Christ was made in the 20th century – an equation that is basically powered by virtue of the size of the population.

Following is the item from The Economist:

*

Two thousand years in one chart

An alternative timeline for the past two millennia
SOME people recite history from above, recording the grand deeds of great men. Others tell history from below, arguing that one person's life is just as much a part of mankind's story as another's.

If people do make history, as this democratic view suggests, then two people make twice as much history as one. Since there are almost 7 billion people alive today, it follows that they are making seven times as much history as the 1 billion alive in 1811.

The chart below shows a population-weighted history of the past two millennia. By this reckoning, over 28% of all the history made since the birth of Christ was made in the 20th century. Measured in years lived, the present century, which is only ten years old, is already "longer" than the whole of the 17th century.

This century has made an even bigger contribution to economic history. Over 23% of all the goods and services made since 1AD were produced from 2001 to 2010, according to an updated version of Angus Maddison's figures.

*

While what the item says might be so, I think that the chart is also powered by the greater imagination of people, unleashed by the technological inventions and advancements of the 20th century, as well.

Man is limited by his imagination, and as our imaginations take physical or practical manifestations it opens up possibilities for greater advances. And with it promise of greater achievements and bigger evolutionary milestones for the history books.