Thursday 23 August 2018

Are modern, middle class Westerners cowards?


Are modern, middle class Westerners cowards?
Although I have touched on this before, I’ve been moved to write more after watching a documentary about the so-called “Peasants Revolt” in England in 1381 (YouTube here and here).
Despite the name given to that event, it was actually led by people who would be the closest equivalent there was to a middle class in that era – even including a Member of Parliament. These people are often described as seeking justice over taxes, but the triggers also involved tax collectors basically groping young women to see if they were married (the assumption being that only married women would not be virgins, and married women had to pay an extra tax). They were outraged by these sexual assaults (not mentioned in Wikipedia’s insipid article: is that because men wrote it?), and their reactions to that were the first steps in an event that wound up involving marches on London and unrest elsewhere in England, and a violent suppression.
They were courageous, but eventually some of their members “went too far”, with common thievery becoming violent vengeance, with murder and ransacking.
It went off the rails, and that has lessons in it around managing any movement, including controlling supporters. To be fair, I suspect the closest any large movement has come to being able to ensure its followers were behaving properly would probably be Gandhi’s satyagraha-inspired Indian independence movement. (When I was watching the YouTube documentaries, I idly speculated about Gandhi possibly having been either part of, or a witness to, the Peasants Revolt in an earlier life, and that it going so spectacularly off the rails helped give him the impetus to be non-violent.)
Management of followers is easier if the group is small – for instance, the team I was part of that was lobbying for reform of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act in the late 1990s was able to be so effective because, using the advice we were getting from our contacts in the various political parties, we could tell our supporters when to back off on letters and emails because it was becoming counterproductive (as it was annoying recipients – there can be a reaction against events such as writing campaigns, or street marches [the evil  Maggie Thatcher is an example of that]).
Nevertheless, for most larger movements, the consequences of what one says to followers can be significant – such as the violent and vicious assaults inspired by neochristian homophobia, or the equally violent and vicious racism inspired by racist “dog whistling” politicians. (I firmly consider all such people are accountable for the actions and reactions they inspire, and that, in Australia, goes back to the evil John Howard, who started the current xenophobic rot of Australian society and morality, a rot that is being enthusiastically spread by MPs such as Peter Dutton. Howard’s motivations are often ascribed to nostalgia – wanting to go back to the 1950s when blissful ignorance meant most people were unaware of the suffering that then existed: I think it was the more prosaic quest to keep power.)
Going back to the Middle Class (so-called Peasants) Revolt, I compare their reaction to the largely bland submission in response to outrages such as the groping by airport security, and have to wonder: has fear robbed us of the capacity to resist the unacceptable?
Unquestionably, some in the middle class (and upper class, looking back at some of the social movements in the 19ths and early 20th centuries) are (and were) brave – and I am referring to moral courage, as shown by things like standing up against the invasion of Iraq. In our society, which has had millennia of, perhaps, too much unbalanced hero mythology, physical courage tends to be what is recognised and revered – even when both form of courage are present, as was the case with the Gandhi-inspired march against the Dharasana salt works, it is the physical courage that tends to be recognised, not the moral courage that was at least equally present.
Opportunities to have moral courage crop up many times in life – from resisting peer pressure at school, through conscientious objection  (this was a new aspect of this topic for me; see also this, on Israelis who object to some aspects of service) and not acceding to group think in companies, to social progressivism. Those who choose to be courageous are even more deserving of admiration given the lack of recognition – which is only emphasised by the recognition given to some for their physical courage, e.g., William Coltman and Desmond Doss.
There are situations where I consider courage should be moderated – for instance, if one has a young baby or toddler, going off to get arrested is perhaps not appropriate (especially in a situation where there is no support, as is often the case in developing nations).
However, some of those failing to show courage are simply lackeys of the oligarchs/elites – the hangers on that enable despots like Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Putin, Erdogan, etc to stay in power. Every manager who takes a hard line view of “having” to cut costs is one of their agents - and is a coward. The brave thing is to be objective, and don’t follow orders simply to curry the favour of bosses (who are themselves currying favour of their higher ups, etc).
In fact, as far as workplace courage goes, in my opinion union busters and mass sackers are like those who ran the concentration camps – there is nothing courageous about them, as they are simply implementing the wishes of their bosses and ignoring the suffering that is in their faces.
Now, some middle class people think they’re brave – e.g., parents (yes, I have seen parents flaunt their alleged bravery). Those middle class people are often wrong – and certainly parents are wrong, as being a parent is difficult, but that often doesn’t involve courage (sometimes it can - e.g., major illness, a “troubled child”, etc). What I consider more courageous than being a parent is standing up against pressure to have a child in this era of overpopulation and over-consumption by a minority of the world’s population.
In other areas of society, working and lower classes have often provided cannon fodder for army, so they certainly have physical courage. Many I have known have also had moral courage.
On physical courage, adrenaline junkies are not courageous: they’re addicted to adrenaline – I count them as the same as people who like horror movies. Their reactions to one of theirs who dies also suggests that they’re not actually expecting to die, so they aren’t same as soldiers.
Another aspect here is that courage can be misplaced. As an example, the undoubted courage shown by British soldiers at Rorke’s Drift does not compensate for the fact that those soldiers were part of an army violently invading and occupying another people’s land. Another example, an example of misplaced moral courage, is those who are homophobic/transphobic because of religious dogma - and I point out that such dogma often led to racism [including slavery] and sexism, until people started to oppose that for a range of reasons, including religious.
So, overall, I consider that there are signs of courage, and of wanting to be brave (albeit sometimes mixed up with other flaws) in most of what I’ve mentioned. People may not have met my standards of courage, but they want to be – the hanger-on may genuinely be motivated by wanting to stand up against pressure (it’s misplaced, in my view, but is probably worth acknowledging). The middle class people talking about the courage needed for everyday life are really, in my experience, talking about what lower and working class people go through, but they are showing that they consider courage to be an admirable thing, something they would like to have. There are also specific examples of courage, such as anti-war movement, current campaigns against underpayment (it takes courage to openly stand against one’s employer), and animal rights activists - some of whom make the mistake of going too far – I have only started to appreciate in recent years just how important it is to take followers with one on a journey of growth.
The courage is there – its latency waiting to be drawn out, perhaps by a noble cause and truly inspiring leaders, and with the sort of action – including good old-fashioned consciousness raising -that will help those who are currently fearful to realise their better selves, and to help shift the focus from physical to moral courage.

Monday 13 August 2018

The new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

The United Nations has appointed a woman who is a survivor of torture as the new High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Michelle Bachelet was President of Chile twice (in 2006 to 2010, and 2014 to 2018 [the Chilean Constitution prevents Presidents serving two consecutive terms, which is an interesting idea]), the first woman to hold that position, and reelected in 2014 with over 62% of the vote, bettering the 53.5% she obtained in 2006.

Prior to being elected President, she served as Health Minister, in which role she reduced waiting lists by 90% and made the "morning after" pill available, and Defense Minister, where she improved pensions, continued modernising the military, and "promoted reconciliatory gestures between the military and victims of the dictatorship, culminating in the historic 2003 declaration by General Juan Emilio Cheyre, head of the army, that "never again" would the military subvert democracy in Chile".

From her Wikipedia bio, she appears to have been socially progressive and financially cautious - "resisting calls from politicians from her own coalition to spend the huge copper revenues to close the country’s income gap.[34][71] Instead in 2007 she created the Economic and Social Stabilization Fund, a sovereign wealth fund which accumulates fiscal surpluses which are above 1% of GDP.[72] This allowed her to finance new social policies and provide economic stimulus packages when the 2008 financial crisis hit the country". She faced political challenges, a scandal around one Minister, criticism for responding too slowly to a major earthquake, continued her predecessor's free trade agreements, visited Cuba (which backfired when Castro criticised Chile), and international challenges - although the OECD invited Chile to join under her Presidency.

In her second term, she fought for - and won - reform of education, tax and reform, and for same sex civil unions, a protected area around Easter Island, improved women's rights (including some abortion rights), voting and political rights. After he son and daughter-in-law were caught in an influence-peddling scandal, she implemented reforms which ultimately contributed to her loss of popularity.

Based on her political record, it seems that Ms Bachelet has been effective, largely popular, and ethical, implementing reforms in response to a scandal precipitated by family members that ultimately cost her dearly.

This former "physician with studies in military strategy" is also a member of the Club of Madrid, the world’s largest forum of former heads of state and government, so she is well connected.

In 2010, she became the first executive director of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women ("UN Women"), which had been created by merging
the Division for the Advancement of Women;
the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women;
the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women ; and
the United Nations Development Fund for Women;
some of which dated back to 1976.

An OECD review of the effectiveness of UN Women was largely favourable, and included the following:
"The ability of UN Women to recognize key actors and to work with them to address gender equality and women’s empowerment issues, most often to develop appropriate legislation, policies and frameworks, was a key factor contributing to the achievement of objectives. UN Women’s advocacy, its active lobbying and its role in building coalitions and networks also facilitated the achievement of program objectives.  On the other hand, there were also various factors limiting the achievement of objectives, such as weaknesses in program design, often linked to over ambitious objectives, an unclear theory of change, lack of a results orientation, excessively short time frames and/or limited resources."

Overall, my opinion is that the UN has chosen an outstanding woman for this role - one who is capable, credible and well-motivated because of her personal experiences including being a survivor of torture, well-connected and experienced at fighting against limitations and opposition.

There is a question as to whether the organisation she heads will be effective enough to allow her to realise her full potential:
(1) As an outsider, the budget is, if not adequate, continuously increasing and seemingly significant (to me) - see here (the voluntary contributions give me hope that the USA's cut backs may not be too serious).
(2) Staff numbers have been constant at around 1,000. I found some criticism in 2006 that the mix of nationalities wasn't representative.
(3) A 2012 review by Australia's DFAT, which was biased towards Australia's aims, gave a reasonable assessment, although criticised the lack of follow up, and noted that "effectiveness of OHCHR's work in this critical area is often constrained by denial of access, and by limitations in capacity and financial resources?
In addition, she will be in operating in a world of governments that don't want to admit their guilt or give up their nasty "tools".

So: a great Commissioner, a brave organisation with limited resources, and a savage world.

I wish her well, and look forward to her efforts, and to doing what I can to help her.