FIERCE URGENCY OF NOW
“The urgency of now” was the call for change by Dr Martin Luther King, the change that made history. “The urgency of now” was repeated by President Obama (Milwaukee 2008) during his debate for changing the health system in the USA.
Australia needs to recognise that it is faced with a fierce urgency of now, as this is the time when the electorate has called for change. It wants a change away from the two party system, it wants a voice in the government’s decision making, a process that involves individuals representing their disparate opinions, fears and desires.
The opportunity is here and now for the leader of the government to invoke the voice of the people, a voice that clamours to be heard.
The new government needs to show unity. That unity is not merely a united front within a party claiming to lead, but a unity with the people who voted for change.
This change is obviously not what either of the major parties had put forward as its election platform; it is a mix of many ideas that could bring the electorate along towards a better Australia. It represents ideas form the extreme left through the centre to the extreme right. All of them want to be heard, and all of them want a government to embrace such change with leadership and innovative action.
If it were possible to have a government that unites all sides into the decision making processes, such as was achieved by Winston Churchill’s War Cabinet (10 May 1940) when the fierce urgency of now was forced upon Great Britain in September 1939, then the electorate would smile. It needs courage, as the introduction of change always needs strength and a steely spine.
Before and after the winning party is given the privilege to govern, it can start this process of discussions among themselves and with all elected members of parliament and senators to establish the many aspects that all sides have in common. These discussions would then open the door for selecting suitable members for Cabinet, whether from its own or other parties, in order to enable negotiations for the preparations of new laws that should incorporate as much as possible of the opinions of the public represented by the independents and opposition.
Such negotiations, conducted without pressure but based on clear thinking, cooperation and common sense, would at first result in consensus (Jürgen Habermas, the Theory of Communicative Action). This would then become the basis for well-considered Action (Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition) by the government, legislation that satisfies the electorate’s call.
This is innovation at the core of governing; a new way of embracing the politics of all, yet reducing it to the feasibility in law. The Law can and should not embrace all contingencies (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of Right), but must set the principles that mirror the culture of the people.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Monday, January 11, 2016
ESSAY ON SYRIAN NEGOTIATIONS
The planned negotiations to stop the killing in Syria are the first indication that a truly human solution can be found.
The combatants in the conflict are driven by the belief that they can achieve their aims by violence. They believe in Leviathan force, as described by Thomas Hobbes , as their only means to hold, obtain or expand their power. That is by violence and brutal oppression, backed by the distorted propaganda of religious truth.
Those who intend to reconcile them may well approach the task in two different ways:
• by political negotiations that aim at finding a compromise political solution of give and take in terms of a cease-fire, rigid front lines, and perhaps some aspects of disarming; or
• aiming at true and lasting reconciliation, where the opposing sides engage in negotiation on the basis of Communicative Action to reach consensus.
Whichever approach is adopted, it must be carried out by the peoples engaged in the conflict without interference from the rest of the world, although assistance may be requested.
In order to achieve a lasting peace, all combatants must be invited to the table, including Da-esh, as without their inclusion their imperialism will never be halted; whether or not they are a recognisable entity in international negotiations is irrelevant with regard to the ultimate success of the project; and whether or not it can be expected of them to keep any promises is another matter that can be dealt with when they don’t.
Jürgen Habermas, the still living German philosopher, in his 'Theory of Communicative Action' proposes that consensus, not necessarily total agreement, can be achieved if such communicative action is conducted in an environment of fairness and without the pressure of superiority of any one party. It would also require an equal capability of speaking in the medium of discussion.
Although consensus is not an agreement in the strictest dense, it still is a promise, and a promise is part of the norm of the human ethic. Even overlapping consensus (John Rawls, 'Political Liberalism') can be documented as it is based on political discussion, and such document can be signed, as it relies on faith in reason, namely the reason that it is possible to keep that promise for the sake of peace.
It is, however, only a first step in the longer term, and it should in the end be followed by true consensus . Faith in reason relies on both sides being reasonable, while true consensus relies on both sides removing all incidents of friction, including, in the case of worldviews, offending phrases in both religious and secular doctrine. It may also need the understanding that Islam can support the separation of state and religion.
This then would, in the case of Syria and the other peoples in the Middle East, require a removal of those points of friction within Islam and vis-à-vis the other Abrahamic religions. Such points of friction are behind much of the Middle Eastern aggression and war. It has its historical equivalence in the original cause of the thirty-years war (1616-1648) that started as a war between Roman Catholics and Protestants and killed more than half the population of Europe. In that case even the treaties of Münster and Osnabrück (1648) in the Peace of Westphalia could not stop the murderous Inquisition. Such a risk remains throughout the Middle East until such internal reconciliation is achieved, perhaps as it existed in the Ottoman Empire.
This is not impossible, as Sudanese born Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law, has described in his seminal book Islam and the Secular State, negotiating the Future of Shari’a , a book he distributes free of charge in its Arabic translation in countries with a majority of Muslims in the population.
Calling here upon ground breaking thinkers, is because, as Hannah Arendt’s 'action' in 'The Human Condition' suggest, that the widest communication with the community or even the world is needed for such action to find common ground.
There is also another now tested way to bring the fiercest opponents to the negotiation table, and to find a lasting solution. This was tested in South Africa by the institution of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) . Under the able chairmanship of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, it set a trend, completely without precedent, of promoting amnesties for perpetrators of heinous crimes on the basis of forgiveness by their victims. Such an action can only be carried out by the victims themselves, as no one else has the power to forgive the perpetrators. So, while an international body can advise and encourage, the action of setting up such a Truth and Reconciliation Commission must be reserved for the affected parties. Nevertheless, someone like Desmond Tutu could be called upon to help, if he is willing to come out of retirement to offer his supreme capacity to do so. His advice would remove the chance of an imitation of the fraudulent TRC in Chile.
The ultimate purpose of a TRC is the release or closure needed by both the victims and the perpetrators, although it does not necessarily remove the need for international court action to pursue crimes against humanity. This in turn can then support successful negotiations for an initial social contract on the basis of (overlapping) consensus, and can then pave the way towards a solution of the internal and external religious power struggles that drive the people of the Middle East apart.
Once this has been achieved, perhaps even in this generation, then it would become possible for the various ME nations to form a Levantine Union , similar to the EU. In a system such as the EU, sacrifices are made and some national rights are given up. Member nations pool some of their autonomy to achieve a common good. It is a bottom-up system.
The planned negotiations to stop the killing in Syria are the first indication that a truly human solution can be found.
The combatants in the conflict are driven by the belief that they can achieve their aims by violence. They believe in Leviathan force, as described by Thomas Hobbes , as their only means to hold, obtain or expand their power. That is by violence and brutal oppression, backed by the distorted propaganda of religious truth.
Those who intend to reconcile them may well approach the task in two different ways:
• by political negotiations that aim at finding a compromise political solution of give and take in terms of a cease-fire, rigid front lines, and perhaps some aspects of disarming; or
• aiming at true and lasting reconciliation, where the opposing sides engage in negotiation on the basis of Communicative Action to reach consensus.
Whichever approach is adopted, it must be carried out by the peoples engaged in the conflict without interference from the rest of the world, although assistance may be requested.
In order to achieve a lasting peace, all combatants must be invited to the table, including Da-esh, as without their inclusion their imperialism will never be halted; whether or not they are a recognisable entity in international negotiations is irrelevant with regard to the ultimate success of the project; and whether or not it can be expected of them to keep any promises is another matter that can be dealt with when they don’t.
Jürgen Habermas, the still living German philosopher, in his 'Theory of Communicative Action' proposes that consensus, not necessarily total agreement, can be achieved if such communicative action is conducted in an environment of fairness and without the pressure of superiority of any one party. It would also require an equal capability of speaking in the medium of discussion.
Although consensus is not an agreement in the strictest dense, it still is a promise, and a promise is part of the norm of the human ethic. Even overlapping consensus (John Rawls, 'Political Liberalism') can be documented as it is based on political discussion, and such document can be signed, as it relies on faith in reason, namely the reason that it is possible to keep that promise for the sake of peace.
It is, however, only a first step in the longer term, and it should in the end be followed by true consensus . Faith in reason relies on both sides being reasonable, while true consensus relies on both sides removing all incidents of friction, including, in the case of worldviews, offending phrases in both religious and secular doctrine. It may also need the understanding that Islam can support the separation of state and religion.
This then would, in the case of Syria and the other peoples in the Middle East, require a removal of those points of friction within Islam and vis-à-vis the other Abrahamic religions. Such points of friction are behind much of the Middle Eastern aggression and war. It has its historical equivalence in the original cause of the thirty-years war (1616-1648) that started as a war between Roman Catholics and Protestants and killed more than half the population of Europe. In that case even the treaties of Münster and Osnabrück (1648) in the Peace of Westphalia could not stop the murderous Inquisition. Such a risk remains throughout the Middle East until such internal reconciliation is achieved, perhaps as it existed in the Ottoman Empire.
This is not impossible, as Sudanese born Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law, has described in his seminal book Islam and the Secular State, negotiating the Future of Shari’a , a book he distributes free of charge in its Arabic translation in countries with a majority of Muslims in the population.
Calling here upon ground breaking thinkers, is because, as Hannah Arendt’s 'action' in 'The Human Condition' suggest, that the widest communication with the community or even the world is needed for such action to find common ground.
There is also another now tested way to bring the fiercest opponents to the negotiation table, and to find a lasting solution. This was tested in South Africa by the institution of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) . Under the able chairmanship of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, it set a trend, completely without precedent, of promoting amnesties for perpetrators of heinous crimes on the basis of forgiveness by their victims. Such an action can only be carried out by the victims themselves, as no one else has the power to forgive the perpetrators. So, while an international body can advise and encourage, the action of setting up such a Truth and Reconciliation Commission must be reserved for the affected parties. Nevertheless, someone like Desmond Tutu could be called upon to help, if he is willing to come out of retirement to offer his supreme capacity to do so. His advice would remove the chance of an imitation of the fraudulent TRC in Chile.
The ultimate purpose of a TRC is the release or closure needed by both the victims and the perpetrators, although it does not necessarily remove the need for international court action to pursue crimes against humanity. This in turn can then support successful negotiations for an initial social contract on the basis of (overlapping) consensus, and can then pave the way towards a solution of the internal and external religious power struggles that drive the people of the Middle East apart.
Once this has been achieved, perhaps even in this generation, then it would become possible for the various ME nations to form a Levantine Union , similar to the EU. In a system such as the EU, sacrifices are made and some national rights are given up. Member nations pool some of their autonomy to achieve a common good. It is a bottom-up system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)