Rights in a democratic society are based on the universal principles of liberty, equality and justice. These are generally entrenched in the constitutions of democratic nations.
by Mass L. Usuf
World-renowned Sociologist Emile Durkheim would have it that the State, the legal system and the dominant sentiments of people must be understood from the angle of their functionality for society as a whole. These should not be used as tools by politicians, political henchmen and religious leaders to achieve their ulterior motives. What Durkheim cautioned people to avoid is being fully practised by some of our folks with vested interest. Such persons expound novel theories on the subject of coexistence tailored to their advantage and not the society as a whole. Indeed, these champions try to speak like an authority on the subject. In the process, denouncing others who do not conform to their line of thinking. This is evident from the divergence in views for example between those in the government and those in the opposition, as much as those in the majority community and those belonging to the minority communities.
Rights in a democratic society are based on the universal principles of liberty, equality and justice. These are generally entrenched in the constitutions of democratic nations. We are proud that our constitution too, in Chapter III, has incorporated these in no uncertain terms under the title Fundamental Rights. It is, therefore, the natural expectation of all the minorities living in this island that the government will always stand by and zealously protect the constitutional proclamations.
The Objective Is Lost
The line demarcating the surrendering of any right enjoyed by a minority community, to facilitate coexistence with the majority people, is not etched in stone. Nor are they dependent upon the likes or dislikes of those in the majority community. When French Statesman Maximilien Robespierre (1790) first expressed the motto Liberté, égalité, fraternité (French for "liberty, equality, fraternity"), he did not contemplate of majority or minority sentiments, likes and dislikes etc. The words, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" comprise part of the natural law, described as a basis for all human conduct. Thus, enshrined as the First Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
When the self-styled exponents of life in a plural society speak, there is one element that becomes a victim and, that is, the ‘Objective’. In the absence of this important qualitative measurement, expressions can be biased, ill-informed, threatening or calculated to mislead. Such, then, would be a dangerous opinion and certainly not an honest one worthy of any consideration. Unfortunately, it is in this exercise that many involved in politics or religion engage themselves in, craftily camouflaged under the term coexistence.
It is those having opinions furthest from the objectives who would nonchalantly call to submit, surrender, sacrifice or forego a right of a person or a community linked to the noble pillars of democracy namely, liberty, equality and justice. As emphasised above, the criteria to develop these pillars were not emotions or sentiments of a majority community. These are the endowments by Providence. Lexicons explain it as a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct irrespective of caste, creed, race, nationality or religion.
Confusion Replaces Objectivity
Objectivity serves to understand and help navigate the direction that needs to be traversed. When the objective is not clear confusion occupies that space. When there is confusion, there is a lack in clarity. Most of the people who talk about Coexistence can be categorized as confused. Amongst this confused state, there is another class of people who want to politicise Coexistence. Such rhetoric borders on cheap threats and being spiteful on what one government had done or not, compared to what the incumbent government is doing or not doing.
At a national level the choice is very clear. Either work towards salvaging the polity or allow the disintegration of the social fabric. The former is a difficult path to trek while the latter is the easiest route to choose. In fact, those who are myopic are happy to outweigh democratic principles with self-interest. Such persons also display a deficiency in the sociological values of multicultural, multiracial and multireligious coexistence thereby, unwittingly opting for the second option. Can the right-thinking people who are able to discern the impending danger keep quiet about it? Can we allow our social structure and the future stability of the country to be jeopardised in this manner? This is not an issue of Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim or any other. It should be of concern to every citizen of this nation.
Minority Votes
The minorities not voting at the last election in large numbers to the incumbent should not be a reason for grouse for anyone. The use of franchise is the absolute wish of the citizen. This is democracy. Any person worth his salt, will never articulate one’s self in a manner driving a wedge between communities in the stupid fantasy of analysing facts. Constantly repeating that the incumbent President was voted to power by the Sinhala community sounds Goebbelish. These are nauseating talks provoking racism.
Voting is a symbol of citizenship. To accuse a people for not voting as anyone desired, is not normal. To ask to let go any right enjoyed by the minority in the guise of coexistence is not normal. Shying away from the undeniable fact that we are living in a plural society is not normal. Being hypercritical of the minorities is not normal. These abnormalities are being normalised by parochialism and meandering semantics. Further, laden with confusion and devoid of objectivity.
Collective Consciousness
Every community, be it majority or minority, is bound by its collective conscience (the evolved shared beliefs, ideas, attitudes, and knowledge that are common to a people). Each community need to understand this collective consciousness and learn to promote, foster, tolerate, accommodate with equanimity the sentiments and values of the other.
It has been argued that for diverse societies to function and to be fair, we need to show respect not just for individuals but also for the cultures and beliefs in which those individuals are embedded and which help give them a sense of identity and being. (Rethinking the challenge of anti-Muslim bigotry, Kenan Malik, (2017).
The Role of State
The State cannot act like a divisive force in this regard. The government has a great responsibility to discourage and deter all forms of hatred, hostility, bigotry, religious intolerance and religious prejudices. Each one of these are abnormal phenomenon. The State should ensure that all the organs within its power are used to function for the greater good of the nation and the people as a whole. To uphold racial amity, shared national identity, tolerance towards other religions, languages and ethnicities; To accept and live in the context of a plural society.
A cohesive society cannot be built where discrimination prevails and citizens are provoked to interact with one another on that basis.All citizens must challenge such deviant views which tries to legitimise what is not normal. All must strive to ensure that common values of democracy work for everyone equally, irrespective of race distinctions.
The end.
Post a Comment