16.07.2006
.
Join Democracy for Burma Alliance
.
.
Distorted Values under Dictatorship
I would say there is still a problem about it_ please allow me to present it the way I see it.
First of all, it is natural for any political regime that is totalitarian_ so, by definition, illegitimate_ to enshrine through propaganda, as so-called "values" whatever they might find useful for maintaining themselves in power. A dictator will always consider that it is up to him to decide what is ethical and what is not, what should people worship, and what they should blame, when they are supposed to be happy and when they are supposed to be unhappy. There is always a tendency of controlling people's minds, tough propaganda.
I'm only going to give you a very common example: a case of betrayal. Someone knows that his friend is involved somehow in the democracy movements, and he turns him in at the Military Intelligence agents. Now, I would say that anyone who is in his right mind and has never been affected or indoctrinated by a dictatorship's propaganda would agree to the fact that what the man in my example did was deeply unethical. But, from the dictator's point of view, it was the right thing to do. Now think about the fact that in a dictatorship all media being controlled and access to the outside world basically denied, people in order to judge what is right and wrong have only one side, one point of view. And, of course, their own common sense, which still exists, but is never confirmed and never free to express itself. Someone living under a dictatorship will notice that those who follow their common sense instead of giving in to the imposed trend in thinking somehow don't end up well, and this will definitely leave marks in most people's way of thinking (I’m not talking about very strong characters!)
So, this way, I would say that any dictatorship leaves a scar, a mutation in cultural values. And, after a long time under a dictatorship, it even becomes somehow difficult for the average person to separate the authentic values from those imposed and fake.
I would say that this cliché of "eastern values vs. western values", although wide-spreadly used, is not very meaningful. In addition, values do not depend as much on the geographical origin, but do so a lot more on a certain ideology. Take, for example, the idea of regarding man (the individual) as a valuable entity and as a rational creature. This shows a certain conception on man; in order to understand it, without going too much into details, its origins are not of a too great importance. We are a lot more likely to identify it with an ideology or a philosophical trend (ex: liberalism, illuminism etc.) than with a geographical or even cultural area. It is a conception that applies to all human individuals on Earth, regardless of wherever they are from.
I believe that dividing values into "pro-democratic" and "pro-totalitarian" would be by far more appropriate than positioning them geographically anyhow. The main difference here would be that what I'd call "pro-democratic" values, philosophical systems and ideologies are those who value freedom, and who value the individual as well. In pro-democratic value systems, the man is regarded as a rational being, able to determine what is best for him; that's why, in fact, he is allowed to take part in the decisional process. Pro-totalitarian ones are the ones in which an individual is like a cog in a wheel_ an integrating part of a machine he has no control of. He is not regarded as being a proper human being. In a Kantian way, we could say that democracy allows treating people as purposes for themselves, while in a dictatorship, by definition, they are treated mostly as purposes for reaching goals they have no awareness and control of.
Here, I would put all discriminative ideologies (those claiming that a certain race, social class or group of any kind should detain supremacy over all others), as well as those based on an utopia, throughout the history, kept on failing and resulted into disastrous dictatorship, and at a second glance on all utopic theories, we notice that it has a tendency to offer a "ready-made" ideal: people are not free to choose their values and ways of life anymore_ they are supposed to work and live for something pre-established.
According to what some say about human rights, let me give my point of view. It is wide-spreadly used in political philosophy to divide human rights into "positive rights", which require an intervention from the State, through certain programs and policies, in order to be achieve them; and "negative rights", which do not require the State's intervention, but rather limit it. For example, the right to social assistance is a positive right: the State must implement certain policies in order to make it happen. The right to privacy or to freedom of speech are negative rights: you do have your own privacy and your own opinion. No one is supposed to give them to you. The only thing the State must do is not to intrude into your privacy, not to stop you from voicing your opinion, and stop anyone else as well from intruding your privacy or not letting you express your point of view. A lot of philosophers consider negative rights as being the real "natural rights" to which people are entitled to by definition, while positive rights as being mostly achievable goals, connected to the idea of "natural rights" more indirectly, through a wider conception concerning human dignity and conditions to achieve natural rights. For example, in order to insure that someone is fully and properly using his right to freedom of speech, you must provide him with basic education and ensure that he is practically able to be informed_ just because the citizens of a country are free to use the internet, it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has the practical means to access it, for example.
Human rights (of any kind) are typical for pro-democracy value systems. Some totalitarian states’ claim that by giving up part of the negative rights they become more likely to ensure positive rights is hopeless and inconsistent. If, eventually, it occurs that a totalitarian state comes to offer to its citizens some kind of social assistance, it is not because those citizens are regarded as human beings entitled to the right to social assistance, but just to make encourage them function productively for the State, "cog-wheels of the machine" need to be kept at a certain level of subsistence maintenance. This cannot be called respecting a right, because it is not done for the purpose of respecting it and human dignity.
Let me quote the Kantian expressions again: in a totalitarian state,
people are not regarded as purposes, but as means. A totalitarian state
wouldn't actually care too much if part of its citizens died of
starvation, unless it would seriously affect productivity. In this
context, I would say based on a conception quite regardless of any
geographical area, that positive rights are achievable and to be achieved
only in the presence of negative natural rights.
Raluca Enescu
Post-script: I wrote this article as a reply to Dr. San Oo Aung concerning eastern and western values. Please compare them and let us know what you think.
Your Comments here_
Request: If you can kindly volunteer to translate BURMA DIGEST English articles into Burmese, please let us know BDeditors@tayzathuria.org.uk .
Please download from http://www.tayzathuria.org.uk/BD.pdf a simple, portable and printable version of BURMA DIGEST and send it to all your Burmese friends.
.
Click here for This week’s articles
Last week’s English articles
ASEM 2006 in Finland and Its Implications
Persuade China & India to help junta see the light
Following the Footsteps of the Dear Leader
Keep the Heat of Democracy to Melt the Snowman
Resolution of Burmese in Europe
Taiwan People Demand: Free Aung San Suu Kyi!
Student Activism Day Activities in Japan