Beginning in July of 2019, the Brazilian Amazon rainforest has been up in flames, burning up the lush foliage and engulfing much of the wildlife, along with many Indigenous groups, in its fiery wake. Yet, it’s receiving little to no media coverage due to the global community’s seemingly unconcerned liability to take action. Greenpeace, the international environmental organization, is holding Brazil’s current government under President Jair Bolsonaro responsible as the primary cause of the fires due to negligence. They claim that mass deforestation has been taking place at an increasingly alarming rate, especially following Bolsonaro’s election, and farming and ranching that have also been taking place in surrounding areas have been contributing to the rise in destruction as well (Greenpeace 2019) [1]. These problems have not been addressed in a timely manner.

Various ideologies, such as Dualism, have been heavily promoted within the past few centuries have also shifted humanity’s conscious to one that is less ecologically friendly and more materially greedy. Without help from the international community and the government of Brazil, the Amazon will continue to be subjected to destruction [1].

The Amazon is a massive area, covering roughly 2,300,000 square miles of South American land. It is one of the most important and critical components of the Earth’s delicate ecological balance and to date 2,240,000 acres have been burned due to the 2019 wildfires (in addition to the great amount of damage that has already been done). It is responsible for atmospheric oxygen composition and cleanliness, maintaining the atmosphere’s water cycle, and for the preservation of many rare animal and plant species. Much of the vegetation in the Amazon also includes important medicinal plant species that can be used to cure a multitude of illnesses and diseases [7].

Deforestation, which has plagued the Brazilian Amazon for decades now, is utilized for the establishment of farms and ranches, which has tripled the number of cattle present in this area and surrounding regions (Dwyer 2019) [2]. Farming and ranching have caused more pollution and the poisoning of, not only the lands in these areas, but the entire well-being of our Earth and atmosphere as a whole. Production of methane from cattle and other pollutants are consequential of farming and ranching, and contribute greatly to fire susceptibility of the Amazon. The fires have spiked in these areas where deforestation and pollution are at their peaks (Dwyer 2019) [2]. When it comes down to it, the Brazilian government, in general, expresses lesser concern, even though they make it apparent that they “may look into measures to combat these fires” (Greenpeace 2019) [1], it seems politics is snaking its way into crisis affairs and impeding them once again instead of acting upon them with optimism. [2]

In the past, Brazil was much more involved in helping to prevent deforestation in both public and private lands of the forests. In 2006, the government passed the Public Forest Management law. This law established concessions and funding for forest conservation and regulations involving deforestation in public areas of the forest. Other organizations and institutions that were established following this law being passed included CONAFLOR (a civil society forestry board), IMAZON (an NGO that monitors deforestation), FUNBIO (an environmental fund that budgets financing towards protected lands and biodiversity), INPE (a Brazilian space observation company that also monitors deforestation), and lastly IPAM, a governmental research institution that focuses on deforestation, climate change, and natural resources in respect to the Brazilian environment (Yale 2019) [10]. Indigenous individuals and tribes within the Amazon, along with private property owners, have also gone to great lengths to prevent deforestation and have made the most difference and impact in doing so (Yale 2019) [10]. It was ultimately a grassroots movement of people standing shoulder-to-shoulder, and not a specific government agency, that was able to make the most progress to preserve much of the Amazon’s beauty and help stave off deforestation [5].

Despite the efforts that have been exerted into the establishment of laws, policies, and government organizations in order to protect the Amazon, protection of the Amazon has been much neglected for now and for future generations. Other countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, also believe that Brazil is not doing enough. But, President Bolsonaro seems to have many political reasons to continue to resist international help to halt the fires and stop deforestation. His outspokenness of his pro-deforestation views has ignited a wave of eager ranchers and farmers to continue, and even escalate, their destruction of the Amazon (Specht, 2019) [9].

Religion and environment

As for religious and spiritual views of the environment, some people have manipulated various religious teachings to promote negative ideologies and views of the environment rather than positive ones. These ideologies argue that all animal and natural life was created to serve mankind, and that humanity has no responsibility to take care of our planet or maintain a balance of life in the natural world. The Indigenous people of the Amazon, such as the Xingu tribe, view these perspectives as “predatory” and are in fear that everything they know and love will be taken away from them due to the utter destruction, negligence and lack of aide provided by the government. Many leaders of these tribes call these events the “destruction of Mother Earth” and the fires that have been set ablaze are Mother Nature’s calls for help (Johnson 2019) [5]. To provide more of a visual, there are roughly 817,000 individuals in Brazil who self-report themselves as indigenous, and there are 67 known tribes within Brazil that do not have contact with the outside world as of now. The Amazon serves as these tribes’ livelihood. Many individuals who are a part of these tribes were born in the rainforest, grew up in the rainforest, hunt in these forests, and make their living in these forests; Amazon is all they know and love [5].

In an article titled “Dualisms – Environmental Humanities”, Dualism is outlined as one entity being viewed as “genuine and superior” while all other life is categorized as “other”. This concept has had major impacts on the way we as humans view the products of our environment. Dualism fuels the idea that the environment, and all non-human living beings within it, are put on this Earth specifically to serve us as humans and us alone. This ideology allows people to infer that there is a distinct separation between humans and every other living being on the planet, and that these distinctions make it possible for humans to justify destructive actions towards the environment. In addition to these ideas, the concept of “ecological consciousness” is found to play an important role in the relationship between religion and in being mindful of our consumption of our environmental resources, as we continue to consume them faster than they can regenerate themselves (Andrew 2019) [3].

Christianity and Islam are two religions that promote ecological consciousness and believe that the Earth’s resources should be treasured and treated with respect. This places a strong emphasis on environmental protection and environmental rights, which thus encourages followers and believers of the religion to do the same. Religion provides us with morals and values that can be adopted when it comes to our views of all other living things whom also share this Earth with us; not only our views of these beings, but how we treat these beings as well. Finally, Christianity and Islam argue that “being a servant of God” also encompasses the idea that Man must protect what God has entrusted him with, the environment included (Pahl 2018). Specifically in regards to Islamic views, Tawhid, meaning the “oneness of God”, is a critical component that Islam bases itself upon. The religion of Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is a monotheistic religion, meaning that these religions base their values and morals on the belief that there is only one God. All existence, including the human beings, are His creation, and in that sense they are part of the one same whole and exist interdependently [4][9].

Despite the disregard of public outcries, there are ways that everyday individuals, such as ourselves, may combat this issue head on and on our own without aide from government agencies. Our first mission should be to make this issue as public as possible. Share as much reliable news coverage as you possibly can and spread the word as far as it will go. If you are able, donate to wildlife conservation and forestation projects held locally or online. Spread knowledge and education. Call attention to higher powers. Other ways in which the everyday community can make a difference include supporting Indigenous groups and tribes residing in the Amazon; begin developing an allyship by using less paper and wood products, by consuming more ethically sourced foods, by voting, and by challenging large corporations who are impeding on the health improvement of the Amazon [8].

Let’s take action! The Amazon, its people, and its wildlife need the world’s cooperation, or they do not stand a chance against the ravenous gluttony that is deforestation. We can save the lungs of our Earth together.

References

1. Amazon Rainforest. (n.d.). Retrieved August 22, 2019, from https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/forests/amazon-rainforest/
2. Dwyer, C. (2019, August 21). Tens of Thousands of Fires Ravage Brazilian Amazon, Where Deforestation Has Spiked. Retrieved August 22, 2019, from https://www.npr.org/2019/08/21/753140642/tens-of-thousands-of-fires-ravage-brazilian-amazon-where-deforestation-has-spikeA.
3. UNSW Australia 2016. “Dualisms – Environmental Humanities.” FutureLearn, www.futurelearn.com/courses/remaking-nature/0/steps/57394.
4. Pahl, Justin. 2019. “Nature and Environment in Contemporary Religious Contexts.” The Fountain. Retrieved August 29, 2019 (https://fountainmagazine.com/2018/issue-126-november-december-2018/nature-and-environment-in-contemporary-religious-contexts).
5. Johnson, Jake. 2019. “Indigenous Tribes on Front Line of Amazon Rainforest Fires Vow To Resist Bolsonaro’s ‘Destruction of Mother Nature.’” Common Dreams. Retrieved (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/27/indigenous-tribes-front-line-amazon-rainforest-fires-vow-resist-bolsonaros).
6. Saving the Rainforests. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2019, from http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel/krubal/rainforest/Edit560s6/www/preserve.html.
7. Kessler, Robert. 2019. “The Amazon Is Burning.” EcoHealth Alliance. Retrieved October 18, 2019 (https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/2019/08/the-amazon-is-burning?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI59uAtoKm5QIVCNRkCh0_eAvsEAAYASAAEgI_q_D_BwE).
8. Specht, Doug. n.d. “Amazon Fires: 8 Ways You Can Help Stop the Rainforest Burning.” Public Radio International. Retrieved October 18, 2019 (https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-08-29/amazon-fires-8-ways-you-can-help-stop-rainforest-burning)
9. “Quick Links.” IslamiCity. Retrieved October 18, 2019 (https://www.islamicity.org/topics/tawhid-oneness-of-god/).
10. Yale University. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2019, from https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/forest-governance/brazil.

Being an academic is not an easy thing. In many countries, it seems you are always between a rock and a hard place when you are in academia. Politics permeate the academic halls, where positions might be assigned or created for political allies. Besides this, as a faculty member your superiors have unrealistic expectations of you, such as excruciating teaching loads and a tough oral exam with professors in your field in order to gain some tenure. In recent years, Turkey has unfortunately been one of the worst cases where all these challenges have become unbearable. Arguably the biggest problem of Turkish academics has been the lack of freedom to become critical intellectual voices in public spheres. Academics’ speeches, actions, and political views have traditionally been monitored and tracked by the Higher Education Council or government appointed University Presidents. After the July 15, 2016 coup however, some academicians’ problems became more of a struggle to stay alive. Why were thousands of academics and tens of thousands of teachers fired and arrested for “taking a part in” a military coup attempt on July 15 in Turkey? I can’t find any rational answers.

The current difficult lives of academics are connected to the societal and historical understanding of authority in Turkey. After the coup d’état in 1980, Turkish society witnessed an era where the state and the government were taken as sacred concepts. A lingering tradition since the ancient Turkish states has been that people would rather avoid advocating for truth and morals when they feared doing so would come back and bite them through the cold force of an authoritarian state. Psychological and even physical lynches could and have happened since the power owners and patriarchs are always positioned to be the identifiers of “transgressors” and dictators of the “consequences.” Few people advocated for human rights. For instance, when a group of academics signed an ‘academics for peace’ declaration in January 2016, over 60 Turkish academicians were fired or punished for “spreading Kurdish terrorist propaganda and undermining the country’s national security.” There was no big public uproar, since anyone objecting to it would be demonized as “terrorist supporters.”

Speaking your mind, expressing your opposition, and writing freely have never been easy for thinkers and academics in autocratic regimes. Unfortunately, Turkey has become one such regime in which critical academics are among those facing collective hatred and punishment for their beliefs and views.

These same arguments were recently used as a social lynch for another group: followers of Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish cleric who lives in Pennsylvania. For the last five years since one the biggest corruption scandals involving cabinet members and President Erdogan’s son broke, each investigation has been shut down by Erdoğan with the accusation towards Gülen followers, aka the Hizmet movement, that they were plotting a coup attempt against the government. What followed was the complete overhauling of the police force and police education institutions with the suspicion that many Gülen followers had “infiltrated” their ranks. After the coup attempt on July 15, 2016, which Erdoğan described as “a gift from God,” he also shut down the military and purged half of all high ranking officers, along with thousands of lower ranking members of military, many of whom are still in jail now. 15 major universities were shut down, along with more than 3,000 other schools and hospitals. In the government sector, from health to judiciary, from education to academia, more than 150,000 lost their jobs and 80,000 were arrested upon accusations of being a member of a so called “terrorist organization” with such “evidence” as using free apps like WhatsApp or Bylock, or having Gülen’s books at home or having an account at a once successful bank: Bank Asya. Many reports of abuse and torture in jails emerged since then, and about 40,000 previously convicted inmates were set free to open up space for Gülen’s followers.[1]

Erdoğan’s regime easily demonizes others who are in the opposition by putting them into the “Gülenist” melting pot. For example, atheist religious history professor Candan Badem was first detained, then released, then fired from his job for belonging to the “FETO” organization, a dysphemism produced by the government for Gülen’s followers. The people in Turkey are silent about the genocidal actions of the government because the government has the power to silence even the journalists. Hysteria is in its peak as my own family tells me I cannot send them money from U.S., call them from U.S., or invite them to U.S., which are all received with suspicion by the government that you may be affiliated with the Gülen movement (Gülen has been a US resident for almost two decades). While there are serious claims that Erdoğan himself might have had a part in the coup to consolidate his power, no one including judges, prosecutors, (who are themselves jailed), or the media (Erdoğan shut down all opposition media and arrested over a hundred journalists) can investigate these claims fully. The judiciary system is also on complete lockdown: it made the news when a judge was arrested during his very own court hearing. On another account, as a judge couple were being arrested, their two children, one of them a toddler, were locked in the house from outside and left home alone until their grandparents arrived from a faraway city late at night and found them hungry and desperate. Of the other kids whose parents were arrested some were taken into state custody in unknown locations and not released to their relatives even though they requested them. A female journalist, Ayşenur Parıldak, reported being sexually harassed and tortured while in custody and being confined to a cell. A left-wing journalist, Aslı Erdoğan, was withheld from taking any medicine or being provided a cardigan despite her multiple serious health issues and cold prison cells. She and other left-wing prisoners got the same accusation. After her release, she is now in exile in Germany, awaiting the outcome of her court case in absentia.[2]

Universities were already struggling with favoritism and unfair practices in Turkey. After the so called coup attempt, all university presidents were called into a national meeting organized by the Director of Higher Education Council (HEC) in Turkey, who threatened them that he would take necessary actions against those who “act slowly” in purging Gülen related academics.[3] This was the start of the public statement and demonstration contest among universities where University Faculty Senates hastily wrote statements shunning the group and calling them FETO (abbreviated for “Fethullah Terrorist Organization”) as directed by pro-Erdoğan media, and walked in groups in the streets protesting FETO, while there was no real evidence, official prosecution, or trial. This public hysteria resulted in thousands of fellow academics being fired without any evidence or due process based simply on the lists of profiling done by Erdoğan’s regime officials. Worse, many unions were asking when these positions would be reposted so “other” citizens could apply. Obviously, again, no one was questioning the ethics of this situation, but rather trying to think of ways to benefit from it, whether by trying to replace them with their own kin, or reporting on others to get them fired. Their attitude was, “If you are not going to bite me, long live the rattlesnake, and bite others as you wish!” As an academic who proudly thinks academics can carry an identity to become the bearers of hard truths, this is especially scary to me; not only did academics in Turkey remain silent about social injustices, but some unscrupulous people helped perpetuate this silence by demonizing a group of colleagues. Of course those people proved their worthiness of being strong allies to the current hierarchical system of university presidents, who follow orders from the Director of HEC, who in turn is reporting to the government. It is obvious that this system cannot produce the next generation of critical thinkers and intellectuals.

Why do I care about this personally? Along with some of my friends, my brother, who is an academic, is currently in jail for an unknown accusation after the coup attempt. His wife, who was an entry level secretary within a small municipality, was the first one to be detained. Police stormed into their house 2 days after he and his wife learned they were fired from their jobs. Since the government increased the detainment period to 30 days we were under a big trauma after they took her, not knowing her whereabouts since no one was allowed to make any contact with her, including any attorneys. Was she being raped or tortured? Was she being beaten severely to get some kind of confession out? What is currently happening is similar to what happened in World War II or the Bosnian War where an entire system to protect basic human rights collapsed along with the judiciary system and sense of justice. Can you imagine the feelings of a helpless husband, mother, or father? Worse, can you imagine them having a 2-year old toddler screaming non-stop after witnessing the shock of his mother violently being taken from her family? Three days had passed when she was in front of the judge and the prosecutor for “being a member of a terrorist organization.” Seeing how fragile her health was, the prosecutor asked for her release. She was united with her son at last. However, those judges and prosecutors were shortly fired for not being ruthless enough to hunt all Gülen followers. We don’t know where she and her son is, since she left her town to avoid the trauma of being separated from her toddler, fearing they may call for her arrest again.

A few days after they released her, my brother was taken into custody. He was a shining star in his work, attending each and every conference in his area of expertise, publishing both Turkish and English articles. Philosophy was his passion. They released him after a few days of detainment and courts. Later, when the prosecutors were changed, they sent out another warrant for his arrest. He immediately turned himself in knowing he had nothing to hide. They seized his computer, all of his digital files, and his phone, and they were never returned. All of his academic work was gone. In the first five days of his arrest, his wife snuggled with his coat, refused to eat anything, and just lay in bed. Their toddler still is under a huge shock, and asks for his dad and does not understand why they had to leave his toys, clothes, and everything else he knew to be home.

Besides being permanently fired from their jobs with no social security, health benefits, and retirement without any due process, these academics are no longer able to be hired by any other company or institution due to official and unofficial orders from the government dehumanizing them. Their children who have terminal diseases got their Medicaid cancelled and denied any services at hospitals. They were left to become homeless, helpless, and hungry. “They will beg us to kill them,” Minister of Economy Nihat Zeybekçi said,[4] while a municipal director of AKP, the ruling party, said: “Let them eat tree roots.”[5]

The collective hatred towards and punishment of all opposition for their beliefs is reminiscent of Jewish genocide under Hitler’s regime. This incredible violation of human rights destroyed Turkish academia, freedom of speech, writing, and research, and caused social fractions and hatred among universities. To all governments and to the international community of academics: We must support the rights of these scholars and not let another genocide happen in Europe in the 21^st century.

[1] www.turkeypurge.com

[2] https://pen.org/advocacy-case/asli-erdogan/

[3] https://tr.sputniknews.com/turkiye/201607191023938783-yok-baskani-universite-feto/

[4] https://www.birgun.net/haber-detay/bakan-zeybekci-gebertin-bizi-diye-yalvaracaklar-122392.html

[5] http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/ak-parti-il-baskanindan-fetoculere-agac-koku-yesinler-40242531

Discussions over personal liberty and government intervention are as old as modern governments, as J.S. Mill’s writings show.

John Stuart Mill was among the many philosophers, both before and after, who attempted to determine when government intervention in the private lives of individuals was legitimate. The authoritarian regimes of 19^th century Europe triggered thinkers to study citizen’s rights and state powers. Mill attempted to regulate the actions of these authoritarian regimes by distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate government intervention in his book On Liberty. Mill’s ideas were one influence among many on the structure and laws of the modern nation state. Using his ideas on freedom and government as a starting point, we can discuss psychological harm, human fallibility, and social responsibilities.

Mill, in On Liberty, identifies two mechanisms for determining legitimate government intervention: the harm principle and utilitarianism. The harm principle states that government can only legitimately interfere with the actions of individuals if the actions of the individuals harm others against their will. Thus, if an action does not harm another against their will, the government cannot interfere. Notice that an individual can harm themselves or even other people with the appropriate consent. Effectively, the harm principle constitutes an absolute bar to government intervention on unharmful private action.

The second mechanism, utilitarianism, comes into play after government intervention is considered to be legitimate due to harmful consequences of private actions. At this point, the government must do a utility calculation, or a cost-benefit analysis, in which it must determine whether government intervention will result in more harm than the private action it will attempt to stop. If the analysis indicates that government intervention will result in more harm, government intervention would be considered illegitimate, and vice versa. Thus, while the harm principle constituted an absolute categorical bar, the utilitarianism mechanic requires a case-by-case determination of the legitimacy of government intervention.

In order to apply the harm principle it is important not only to know what the principle is, but also what constitutes harm. The broader the definition of harm becomes, the larger the pool of actions that the government can interfere with becomes. In general, the classification of physical damage to body and property as harm is generally accepted by society as well as by Mill. However, the definition of harm can include things other than just physical damage. In order to properly apply the harm principle, it must be determined whether psychological harm and failure to act can be classified as harm, warranting government intervention.

Psychological Harm

Can feeling distress, being upset, or experiencing psychological harm due to another individual’s actions be categorized as harm? If one were to accept distress as harm, then the definition of harm has effectively been broadened to include every instance in which one feels discomfort or is upset by another’s action, expanding the sphere of legitimate government intervention.

Mill does not determine distress or psychological harm to be harm. The distress or psychological harm Mill refers to is one originating from a disagreement of values between two individuals. For example, one individual may like the color blue while another dislikes it. The distress, anger, resentment, or any other negative feelings the other may feel when the first wears a blue shirt is the psychological harm that Mill refers to. A more consequential example would be the distress that a Democrat may feel about the ideas expressed at a Republican rally. The views expressed at the rally are clearly contrary to the individual’s beliefs, yet the distress originating from this ideological difference cannot be categorized as harm. If it was categorized as harm, then the government could intervene whenever actions or speech was contrary to the ideology and beliefs of the most powerful or the most vocal.

Mill, in On Liberty, states that “unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right and they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves” (1). Here he attempts to stop the use of the harm principle in attempts to impose beliefs or one’s own moral values on others. He argues that imposing views on another is wrong, because one would not want others to impose their views on them. Additionally, Mill emphasizes the fallibility of human reasoning and preferences, stating that despite one’s conviction in one’s own position in an argument, there is always the possibility of error.

Admittance of the fallibility is not only a sign of humility and recognition of possibilities, but also a very real demonstration of understanding one’s own limitations inherent in being human. This principle has been recognized and applied by many scholars and thinkers in addition to Mill, like Socrates and Said Nursi. For example, in The Republic, Plato quotes Socrates as exclaiming “[a]s for me, all I know is that I know nothing” (2).

Similarly, Said Nursi demonstrates the same recognition of the fallibility of human beings in his Risale-i Nur and attributes true knowledge only to God. This is clearly displayed in his use of text from the Quran at the beginning and ending of all the chapters in The Words. Thus, Nursi begins his work by drawing from what he considers the true source of knowledge and ends with that same infallible source.

Lastly, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes seems to support Mill’s position against persecution by arguing in Leviathan that “do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself” (3). Hobbes’ view is in effect a version of the golden rule, limiting social interaction to only actions one would deem acceptable if done to him/her. In congruence with Hobbes’s golden rule, Mill argues that imposing one’s views on others is wrong, and that feeling upset due to the failure of others to conform to those views is not harm. Thus, even if the actions of an individual upset or cause psychological harm to others, the government cannot legitimately interfere.

Failure to Act

Though Mill prevents distress or psychological harm from being used to legitimize government intervention over an individual’s actions, he permits failure to act to be classified as harm. In situations where a failure to act causes a negative or harmful outcome, government intervention would be legitimate. For example, the government may prosecute a firefighter if his negligence allowed a building to burn down. However, classifying failure to act or inaction as harm is dangerous, because people are not capable of infinite actions in a moment. The jurisdiction of government intervention is expanded tremendously by this classification. Why would Mill, who constructed a mechanism for limiting government intervention, expand government power in this way? And what restraints can be applied to the failure-to-act classification?

Socrates’ ideas, as expressed in The Republic by Plato, provide some insight into answering the previous questions. After examining Plato’s views in The Republic, it is possible to claim that Socrates would agree with Mill in including the failure-to-act as harm. His definition of a just society is a society in which everyone is doing their job or role in society (4). From this, one can assume that a just action within a society would be whatever action is in accordance with the job of the individual as determined by his soul and position in society. Thus, failure to perform one’s job would then be classified as an unjust action by Plato, open to government intervention for the restoration of social justice.

Socrates’ view seems to emphasize the nature of the action that the individual is failing to do. If the failure to act involved the failure to do one’s job in society, then the failure to act would be considered unjust. On the other hand, if the failure to act involved inaction about an issue that was not the individual’s responsibility, then it is possible to conclude that the failure to act in this instance is not an unjust action. Thus, this approach distinguishes between a firefighter who chooses not to stop a fire from a regular citizen who chooses not to stop a fire. The firefighter neglects his responsibility, opening him to criminal prosecution, while the regular citizen’s inaction is not open to prosecution. By allowing the failure to act to be considered as harm, Mill avoided conflicting with the conditional nature of determining whether the failure to act is just or unjust as extrapolated from Plato’s views.

Socrates’ and Mill’s analysis regarding the failure to act is based solely on the legal and formal responsibilities of the individual. The police have a responsibility to stop crime, and parents have a responsibility to take care of their children, etc. Each nation’s unique constitution and laws make legal responsibilities country-specific and unique. For example, many European states, like Germany and France, require citizens to provide assistance to persons in danger (5). However, the duty to rescue those in peril does not exist in other countries, like the United States (6). Of course, most people call the authorities for help and attempt to provide first-aid, but the fact remains that in most of the United States, there is no legal obligation to rescue. Each country determines the legal responsibilities of its citizens, some choosing to expand and some choosing to restrict the extent of responsibilities.

For many people, informal responsibilities extend beyond formal responsibilities; these are often based on the individual’s religion, culture, and ethics. While government intervention may not be legitimate for failures of informal responsibilities according to Mill, informal responsibilities constitute an important piece of the society. For example, children have an informal responsibility to care for their parents, especially during their old age. If children ignore this responsibility, the government cannot and should not intervene. After all, the government is not the ultimate solution for every social problem, and each member of the country may not believe in the same informal responsibilities due to different culture, religion, and ethics. Instead, the true solutions to failures in informal responsibilities are education in social values and decency, social structures, communities, and institutions.

Mill’s principles on government intervention in the lives of free people provided a platform to discuss psychological harm and social responsibilities. Government can provide solutions for certain social issues, but not for all. In recognition of this, Mill wrote of an alternative limited government to the authoritarian regimes of his time. In this alternative, conflicting and controversial ideologies could co-exist, and government would only regulate formal responsibilities. The burden rests on the society to care for the informal responsibilities.

Notes

1. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, 155
2. Plato, The Republic, (Plato 354c, book 1)
3. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Pt. 1, Ch. 15, para. 35
4. Kara, Mahmut. “Rethinking Plato: Philosophical Idealism and Political Totalitarianism.” Fountain Magazine, April-June 2001.
5. Weinrib, Ernest J. “The Case for a Duty to Rescue.” The Yale Law Journal , Vol. 90, No. 2 (Dec., 1980), pp. 247-293 Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. URL:<http://www.jstor.org/stable/795987>.
6. Yania v. Bigan, 397 Pa. 316, 155 A.2d 343 (1959)

A consocational democracy is a type of democracy which emphasizes the importance of power-sharing and decision-making among different segments in society. But is consociational democracy the most suitable form of democracy when it comes to establishing lasting peace in post-conflict societies?

Consocational democracy addresses problems in democratic state building that result from deep segmentation. These divisions as a result are easily defined and measured where real boundaries (political or otherwise) exist. As a result of these environmental and social conditions there exists a natural tendency for competition and the supporting of ethnically-based parties (Andeweg 2000).

The consocational framework is dependent on elite cooperation. This is the centerpiece of the model and is based on the premise that communal violence between groups is often exacerbated by elites so that when these elites have a voice in government, they have a vested interest in maintaining its integrity. Although elite meddling in conflict is the most potent, it is not the only incendiary in inter-group relations (Andeweg 2000).

Under the current model where a society has the characteristics necessitating a consocational framework, the sub-groups have two choices: to remain a part of the country or to separate. These two forces pull on individuals of each group in which decisions are often based on various factors. Those societies that do not cooperate are termed “centrifugal.” In this case, the sub-groups emphasize separation over integration. Consocationalism is a top-down integration/cooperation mechanism that seeks to overcome centrifugal forces (Andeweg 2000).

Loyaltiyes and state building

One of the forces that create these centrifugal tendencies is also one of the characteristics that make communal life possible i.e. group loyalty. According to A.A.M. Kinneging (2004) loyalty, “pertains to a bond that withstands the passing of time and the winds of change: a bond that is conceived of as lasting, permanent, unbreakable, even holy” (Kinneging 2004, 68). This definition of loyalty indicates how intractable it is when integrating many different groups with different loyalties under one government. In this case, as Kinneging points out, the community is higher than the individual. In ethnically homogenous countries this presents no problem and allows democracy to flourish at all levels. Often times this is not the case in heterogeneous societies where either the state enforces a loyalty to its institutions, such as in the republican liberal democracy model, while still maintaining individual rights or enforces it in such a way that violates individual rights in an undemocratic manner.

Loyalties typically follow racial or religious lines. They can even be more fragmented such as loyalty to one’s town or city. Evidence can be seen in the sport’s world. Loyalty is typically to a person or an institution (Healy 2007). Loyalty to the nation-state has been somewhat of a recent phenomenon. The lack of loyalty can be detrimental to state integrity when it is towards another group. The lack of loyalty between sub-groups is something that consocationalism does not address as it represents an administrative/electoral solution to a heavily divided society. It does not address the psychological/emotional element that loyalty forms a part of and which in essence is the backbone of society.

Lijphart envisioned consocationalism as a temporary solution in which it was only meant as a transitory phase to greater levels of democratic cooperation (Andeweg 2000). This of course assumes that through elite cooperation and living peacefully alongside each other under one roof, it is possible that these groups would eventually reconcile their differences and move to greater integration. Unfortunately, there is the other direction such as entrenched differences that only get worse with time that may stalemate/postpone the conflict i.e. not resolving the conflicts (Fox & Miller 2007). Still, consocational democracy is considered the best option for deeply stratified societies because it recognizes, among other things, that some sub-groups have a complete way of life that requires a certain level of autonomy from the state.

The risk in this approach is that these sub-groups may look at the government as a burden or unnecessary overhang on complete control of their affairs. In response, the state may have a few choices at its disposal that may either create incentives such as the consocational framework or force a state identity upon all sub-groups, essentially eliminating them.

Bosnia: Adversarial communities under one roof

Bosnia is composed of three adversarial communities that have existed since the 15th century. Primarily, these communities came into existence around a particular religion. These religions of interest in the Bosnian case are Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity and Islam. The Serbian people primarily follow Orthodox Christianity, the Croatians follow Catholic Christianity, and the Bosniacs follow Islam. These communities erupted into full-fledged war in the early 90’s when the Orthodox Serbs engaged in genocide against the Muslim Bosniacs (Kasapovic 2005).

These people were subject to the first consocational system of the world, the millet system which was implemented by the Ottoman Empire shortly after conquering the area that is now the former Yugoslavia. The millet system, which has roots in the religion of Islam, gave different religious communities their own autonomy headed by an elite (millet bashi) who was responsible for different religious and civil areas. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the various nation-states that emerged did not act so kindly on the remaining Muslim groups and either forced them to leave or massacred them. The Bosniacs represented a unique example as well as other indigenous ethnic groups who converted to Islam during Ottoman rule (Katsikas 2009).

These communities have historical differences that cannot disappear overnight. The Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croatians owe their divide to the Great Schism in the 11th century between Constantinople and Rome (Norwich 1999). The Muslim Bosniacs and Orthodox Serbs owe their divide to Serb defeat at the hands of the Ottomans in the 14th century (Kinross 2003). Although present-day communities probably give little thought to these events, the mimetic transmission of hatred means that these communities are seemingly locked in an adversarial relationship.

After the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord, a consocational-type government was established. Kasapovic described it as an “asymmetrical confederation” in which the country is divided into two parts with one part being more consocational between Bosniacs and Croatians and the other representing a more homogenous state of Serbs. At the national level equal representation is given to the three groups, mutual veto exists, autonomy is given to each group, and consensus is maintained (Kasapovic 2005).

More than fifteen years after the Dayton Peace Accord there is peace, but as Kasapovic pointed out, this is only because all groups consented to peace. Kasapovic notes that the state is still highly unstable because there is no consensus on its organization and there are continuing external threats that may tear the country apart (Kasapovic 2005). This instability means that these groups, by and large, have not resolved their differences.

He argues that there are three reasons for this inefficiency of the model of consocational democracy, one “at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state, and one more at the level of the Federation as a state sub-entity: no consensus on the state, no consensus on the political system, no consistent strategy of international actors in establishing a democratic state, and the unfavorable two-segmental structure of the Federation with one segment outnumbering the other” (Kasapovic 2005, 9).

The fact remains that despite living in a consocational-type system for six centuries, the different groups that compose Bosnia’s adversarial groups have not cooperated at any level that would have caused them to avoid the deluge in the early 90’s. This indicates that although these people are living together under one country, they harbor distrust or hatred of those who compose the other group. The fact that they are all part of one country appears to have no influence on the perceptions towards the other group.

Considering that this conflict has been ongoing at varying intensities for several hundred years, an unfreezing process is needed. The concept of unfreezing has its roots with the organization theorist Kurt Lewin who proposed an unfreezing, moving/changing, and re-freezing process. In the process, values are changed and thus can be labeled change management. The re-freezing may have more clout with individual organizations, but the re-freezing creates an organized way of thinking akin to concepts of efficiency i.e. an established uniform identity (Levasseur 2001).

The involvement of religious leaders has importance in this case. Since these conflicts involved Christian and Muslim communities which are international religions, and since these conflicts also involved an international response, these local conflicts have implications that are not only local. International religious leaders should remember to be sensitive to religious sentiments despite their distance from Bosnia.

Haynes pointed out that one of the problems of the roles religious leaders face is that they lack the capacity to build a strategy for peace (Haynes 2009). As members of an international faith, these leaders would have access to a large network of resources that would facilitate them in their role as peace-makers. One of the aspects that may be appropriately addressed in Bosnia is training these leaders to both acquire these resources as well as use them appropriately. This would make their role far more influential than the elites.

The side effect is that many of these religious leaders may have instigated violence against the other or continue to preach hatred towards the other. These leaders need to either be isolated by the national government or reprimanded severely by those leaders of international representation. The globalized world makes all this possible. The world in this essence can either be a harbinger of peace or a catalyst for war at the local level.

Religious leaders should be engaged in dialog with each other as much as other community members are engaged in workshops both inventing solutions and implementing them. Once a healthy environment of dialog is fostered, then either naturally or through planned social action, inclusive networks should be developed. These networks can create cooperation and community.

Lastly, the existence of these networks means that the state as a reactionary entity becomes a mirror of that society. In this case, the consocational model of governance might work and if possible a more unified democratic format may be chosen. The result would be a multi-group democratic state with shared loyalties to the state, one’s own group, and to another group. This does not guarantee continued peace, but at least secures it much more tightly than as proposed under the consocational framework alone.

Hummel is a doctoral candidate at the School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University.

References

• Andeweg, Ruby B. 2000. “Consociational democracy,” Annual Review of Political Science 3, no. 1: 509-536.
• Fox, Charles & Hugh Miller. 2007. Postmodern Public Administration, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
• Haynes, Jeffrey. 2009. “Conflict, Conflict Resolution and Peace-building: The Role of Religion in Mozambique, Nigeria and Cambodia,” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 47, no.1: 52-75.
• Healy, Mary. 2007. “School Choice, Brand Loyalty and Civic Loyalty,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 41, no. 4: 743-756.
• Kasapovic, Mirjana. 2005. “Bosnia and Herzegovina: Consociational or Liberal Democracy,” Croatian Political Science Review 42, no. 5: 3-30.
• Katsikas, Stefanos. 2009. “Millets in Nation-states: The Case of Greek and Bulgarian Muslims,” Nationalities Papers 37, no. 2: 177-201.
• Kinneging, Andreas A. M. 2004. “Loyalty in the Modern World,” Modern Age 46, no. 1/2: 68.
• Kinross, Lord. 2003. The Ottoman Empire, London: Folio Society.
• Levasseur, Robert E. 2001. “People Skills: Change Management Tools – Lewin’s Change Model,” Interfaces 31, no. 4: 3.
• Norwich, John J. 1999. A Short History of Byzantium, New York: Vintage Books.

Rwanda is a country that has passed through a disastrous conflict and genocide with devastating effects. But the lessons learned in the aftermath of the genocide have changed the country forever.

Rwanda, a small country located in central Africa, has been home to nine million people from two tribes known as the Hutu and the Tutsi which have lived side by side in peace for centuries. There was no known ethnic conflict or major conflict between Hutus and Tutsis until the last fifty years. Rwanda was first colonized by Germany in 1899. Belgium took control of the country in 1919. In 1961, Rwanda’s monarchical government was removed by a referendum and the first parliamentary elections were held but at the expense of a number of massacres. In the following year, the country gained its independence.

Although the country became independent in 1962, the effects of colonialism lingered until recently. An example of this is the ethnic division between the Hutu and Tutsi tribes. During the colonial period, the Belgian colonizers and the Church significantly favored the Tutsis over the Hutus. The colonizers had followed a divide and rule strategy and used the Tutsis in power instead of controlling the country directly; this widened ethnic differences. The colonizers had made membership of the Tutsi tribe a means of getting better education or obtaining a government or administrative position. Since both tribes speak the same language and have the same skin color, it was virtually impossible to tell them apart, so the colonizers had issued ethnic identity cards based on the measurement of people’s nose length. Until World War II, the Tutsis were masters of the country with a proven long record. However, the strategies of outsiders including the Church had changed in the mid-twentieth century so that Hutus gained more access to positions of power. In the 1950s, the Hutus took power and controlled the country. Considerable numbers of Tutsis were exiled to neighboring countries on many occasions. Until the 1990s, Hutu power was largely unchallenged in Rwanda. However, Tutsi exiles were organizing in neighboring countries and this was perceived as a grave threat to Hutu rule. Political conflict over the control of power and resources resulted in an exponential increase in ethnic violence. The Hutu government conceived Tutsi empowerment as a threat to their own interests and launched a media campaign calling for genocide. After a chain of events, including the death of the Rwandan president in a plane crash, a terrifying genocide commenced. For a while, Hutu people were strongly encouraged to kill their Tutsi neighbors, and those who did so were rewarded for their actions.

As a result, the genocide exploded quickly between April and June 1994. The world did not attempt to prevent the massacres. Men and women, children and the elderly, all were identified by their ethnicity and executed wherever they were found. Hatred was at its peak so that even relatives turned against each other. While a Hutu husband was among the survivors, his Tutsi wife was killed, and their children were kept alive as they were seen as sharing their father’s Hutu ethnicity. More than 800,000 people (Tutsis and moderate Hutus), according to official records, were massacred by the army and the extremists.

At last, without any international help, the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF), a Tutsi-led rebel movement, overthrew the regime in June 1994 and the genocide was stopped. The country has been at peace ever since; however, Rwandans continue to struggle with the legacy of genocide.

After the Rwandan Genocide, one of the biggest challenges for the new RPF government was handling the detention and prosecution of more than 100,000 people who were accused of genocide-related crimes. Pointing to the seriousness of the situation one of the RPF government ministers said, “When we captured Kigali, we thought we would face criminals in the state; instead, we faced a criminal population.” The genocide orders were given by executives of the state but the crimes were carried out by hundreds of thousands of ordinary people. The pink uniform of prisoners is well known in Rwanda today since the transfer of prisoners from one place in the country to another is common. By 2000, approximately 120,000 people accused of genocidal acts were being held in the prisons, which were populated far beyond their capacity. In ten years, the courts have only managed to prosecute about 10,000 suspects. In other words, it would require at least another 110 years to prosecute all prisoners accused of genocide-related crimes. Although almost half of the prisoners have been released to ease the system at various times, the courts still need to work faster.

To overcome the backlog in the legal system the Rwandan government introduced the Gacaca (pronounced “gachacha”) courts, a community justice system inspired by traditional procedures for cultural communal law enforcement. Gacaca means “justice on the grass” and the court is launched in an open grassy area or village green, near the main street. The main advantages of these courts are the ease of assembling the court in public, and the way they provide the opportunity for everyone to exercise their right to speak through an interactive court. Gacaca is the latest means used by the Rwandan government to realize truth, justice, and more importantly the reconciliation and healing of the community much sooner than would otherwise have been possible. Rwandans have welcomed the Gacaca. One man who lost his brother in his twenties and another who abandoned his wife since she belonged to the so-called hostile tribe have found the Gacaca court in their local area a valuable place to express their feelings and seek justice in the shadow of ineradicable memories. Yet other people, who participated in the genocide, have found the opportunity and encouragement to admit their wrong-doing and relieve the pain of their remorse.

Gacaca has its pros and cons, which I will not go into here; however, the genocide carries important lessons both for Rwanda and the world. It showed how lack of tolerance and understanding of negligible differences can indeed turn into cruelty and brutality, resulting in one of the biggest genocides in history. Rwandans, who were previously divided as Hutus and Tutsis, now do not even pronounce the words Hutu and Tutsi in public in their daily life. Rwanda today exemplifies a good example of living together with differences despite the fact that those differences were recently the cause of a tragic conflict.

Indeed the Rwandan people, who once killed each other without mercy, can tolerate with no discomfort a diversity that in other nations is a great source of potential conflict, an area of interaction that other countries have been struggling with for a long time. Rwandans welcome all religious traditions in their cultural richness. Saturdays and Sundays are like a festival time; Christians all dress in their best clothes and walk to church. (Many Christians observe and practice Saturday Sabbath in Rwanda.) Although Muslims are in a minority, the adhan (call to prayer) is recited from mosque loudspeakers; the shifting Islamic holidays are accepted as national holidays. If religious differences were a cause of fighting, then Rwanda would still be one of the most problematic countries in the world today. In contrast, Rwanda is a good example of how the establishment of accountability combined with tolerance and understanding can help to transform and strengthen a country even when it has fresh memories of one of the biggest genocides in history.

Mehmet Sen is an engineer in San Francisco Bay Area. He visited Rwanda many times for business purposes.

References

• Mahmood Mamdani, When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda, Princeton University Press, 2001.
• Reyntjens, Filip and Stef Vandeginste. 2005. “Rwanda: An Atypical Transition.” In Roads to Reconciliation, edited by Elin Skaar, et al. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
• Stover, Eric and Weinstein, Harvey (2004). My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Susanne Buckley-Zistel (2006): “The Truth Heals?” In Gacaca Jurisdictions and the Consolidation of Peace in Rwanda. Die Friedens-Warte Heft 1–2, pp. 113–130.

Variation in forms of democracy

Although it is common to discuss democracy as if it is problematic only in the Muslim world, in reality democracies all over the world have to deal with a number of controversial issues about the diverse forms of government, varieties of representation, the types of freedom citizens require or demand, the unlegislated distribution of political power, uneven separation of powers, and the breach of the system of rule by the accumulated powers. (Diamond, 2008: 17-24, 30-33)

Gulen’s intellectual contribution to the global discussion of democracy, which is determined by his adherence to Islamic values, is not limited to an analysis of democracy’s value and meaning for individuals and societies. In addition, he examines how democracy is affected by the crises which people and systems undergo, as well as the complexities of life in modern industrialized societies, and the contraction in the space available for individual and collective expression of cultural, moral and spiritual values. (Cetin, 2008: 226-30)

According to Gulen the understanding of democracy and human rights within the theoretical heritage of Islam is not dogmatic but it centers around values such as compromise, stability, the protection of the life, honor and dignity of the human being, justice, equity, dialogue, and consultation. Islamic political theory is flexible and does not bind Muslims by any rigid limits in the choice of concrete forms of government and political system. The main principle in Islamic political theory is the implementation of three fundamental values: equality, justice and consultation. The forms and means of enactment of these are vested in the hands of the community. Thus, the actual realization of the three pillars can and must take into account the conditions of Muslims’ lives, their traditions, cultural preferences, and other factors. Gulen argues that the social, cultural, political and historical aspects of societies, should be taken into account in the development of democracy in the entire world.

Observers discussing the compatibility between Western and Muslim perspectives on democracy and human rights sometimes make the error of attacking “Islam” and demanding its reform, instead of commenting on the approaches or methods of particular activists, regimes or countries and reforming those. Some observers even claim Islamic principles and institutions directly contradict democratic values in their modern meaning, and so any step by Muslim societies towards the establishment of democracy must be accompanied by rejecting Islamic political and legal traditions. At the other extreme, ideologically motivated Muslims claim to have the only correct understanding of Islam, and that Islamic fundamentals of power, politics and believers’ rights have nothing in common with Western democratic institutions. These extremists often argue that “the power of the people” is alien to Islam, which puts forward the principle of the supremacy of Islamic law instead. (Sykiainen, 2007: 122-3)

In fact, the concepts advanced in this type of argumentation are taken out of the whole context of Islamic thought and its socio-political heritage and are addressed to less well-educated Muslims (and others) in order to justify political extremism. Nevertheless, within both traditional and modern Islamic political and legal thought, there are several different perspectives on government which are more genuinely representative of the Islamic legal tradition and which do not justify extremism. (Gulen, 2004:220; also <http://en.fgulen.com/a.page/press/interview/ a1203.html>).

Islamic jurisprudence embodies the divine revelation, the art of lawyers, local and global cultures, and global relationships. Islamic law and the legal system, its common principles and the majority of its concrete norms are similar to the fundamental ideas and particular provisions of other legal systems. Islamic legal culture has always cooperated closely with and been receptive to other legal cultures. In this sense, Islamic law is of benefit not only to Muslims but to the whole of humanity. Over many centuries a great variety of views on the fundamentals of the executive and the legislature have developed within Islamic culture, and diverse notions of the relations between the state and the individual have been elaborated. (Sykiainen, 2007: 119-132)

One of the key features of the Islamic understanding of democracy is the concept of shura (collective and community consultation). Without any qualification or limitation, all members of a community are eligible to give or request consultation on any matter, except one covered by a clear-cut revelation from God. Consequently, all political matters concerning the selection of the ruler, the structure and shape of the government, the form of political system, the running of the government and of the various affairs of the state, and all other related matters are to be decided by consultation through the participation of all the members of the community. (Gulen, 2005: 43-58)

In public and government affairs collective consultation is concerned with two main issues: the selection of the head of state and running of the government together with reviewing the legality and propriety of governmental and presidential actions. On the selection of the head of state, collective consultation is flexible and adopts various forms. Elections, whether direct or indirect, are considered to be an Islamic method of selecting the head of state or members of the legislative body which satisfies the consultation process. With regard to the running of the government and control over the legality and propriety of the executive’s actions, Islamic law is also very flexible. The establishment of a representative body through direct or indirect elections is compatible with Islam and is a good application of community and collective consultation. In addition to their reviewing authorities, representative bodies may be empowered to legislate on different matters provided that such regulations do not violate any unambiguous and clear-cut principle or rule of Islamic injunctions. If democracy is the government of the people by the people for the people, shura is a process which guarantees that all affairs of the people are decided by the people and for their interests. So, the basics of democracy and the fundamentals of shura in the political field are not opposed. (Gulen, 2004:223; Sykiainen, 2007:110, Cetin 2008: 218; Gulen, 2005: 43-58)

This genuine Islamic idea is one of the most basic human rights and a means of protecting and preserving all other human rights under Islamic law, especially the right to equality, the freedom of thought, and the right to express oneself freely in order to correct or demand the correction of what is not right, even if it is something committed by the highest officials, including the head of state. State officials and authorities do not have political immunity while in office in Islam. (Gulen, 2006)

Law, order and, human rights

Gulen analyzes the different rights recognized in Islam, including freedom of religion and belief, thought and expression, to own property and the sanctity of one’s home, to marry and have children, to communicate and to travel, and the right to an unimpeded education. He underlines that the principles of Islamic jurisprudence are based on these and other rights, all of which have now been accepted by modern legal systems, such as the protection of life, religion, property, family life, and intellect, as well as the basic understanding of the equality of people, which is based on the fact that all people are human beings, and subsequently, the rejection of all racial, color, and linguistic discrimination. (Ünal and Williams, 2000:135-8)

Every single right must be respected in Islam. In particular, the right of an individual cannot be violated for the interest of the community. This idea is central to the concept of human rights in Islam and the interpretation of Islamic tradition with regard to this issue. Gulen recalls that if there are nine criminals and only one innocent person on a ship, in order to punish the criminals, Islam does not permit the sinking of that ship because of the innocent person. Though this may sound utopian today considering the mass and “collateral” damage caused by modern nations at war, Gulen argues that the bar should be set at the highest possible level for democracy and every effort to reach that level should be attempted. (Gulen, 2006; also personal correspondence, 08.11.2008).

Gulen underlines that people everywhere always demand freedom of choice within their beliefs, that is, in the way they run their affairs and in their expression of spiritual and religious values. He stresses the separation of the eternal and the evolving judgments (ijtihad) of Islamic jurisprudence. Specifically, political affairs in general and democratic institutions and human rights in particular are covered by Islamic legislative provisions which can relate and respond to the needs of changing circumstances and times. Gulen points out that democracy will continue to evolve and refine itself in the future. Islamic principles of equality, tolerance, and justice can help in this regard, provided that the injunctions of the Qur’an and the Sunna as well as any definite judgments of Islamic law are re-examined and restored in the light of advancing knowledge and changes in societies. (Sykiainen, 2007: 129-30)

It is possible to envisage a kind of democracy with a spiritual dimension. It is a democracy which contains respect for and observance of human rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, expression and religion, a democracy which prepares the necessary conditions for people to live and practice as they believe, which renders people able to fulfill their wish and need for eternity, and which takes or deals with human beings as a whole with regard to their all material and immaterial needs. For, human life does not start and end with life in this world; the world is only a temporal, transit station, and people are ceaselessly moving toward their eternal abode. The system that governs them must not ignore or neglect this crucial matter. We therefore have to seek ways to sophisticate and humanize democracy. No such stage or democracy has been attained yet, in east or west, north or south, but we can aspire to and work for such an aim. (Gulen, 2006; Gulen in Saritoprak and Ünal, 2005: 452)

Democratic culture

In Gulen’s view, therefore it is vital to encourage the building of a strong civil society in order to have and retain a ‘culture’ of democracy, and this can only be done through sound education. In a democracy, where people are entitled to freedom of speech, expression, religion, and the right to sell their labor, and other such rights, every individual should know what kinds of rights they have and what authority, weight and say they have in state and government affairs. (Gulen, 2006; Cetin, 2008: 216-20)

In all societies on some occasions, or even for extended periods, some interests will not be happy about all individuals being aware of their rights; they may see such education as an obstacle to their gaining political or economic power or even arbitrary rule. Consequently, they may attempt to limit citizens’ access to information and institutions and try to guide them in directions which do not serve citizens’ own true interests. (Gulen, 2006)

However, it is impossible to enjoy and practice democracy in a society where people are unaware of their rights and freedom, where people do not know how to seek and pursue their rights, where, in short, they do not have a developed democratic culture. In such societies occasional openings or temporary freedoms might be enjoyed, but it is always possible for special interests to come up with further impositions and undemocratic interventions. In many parts of the world we see tyrannical, authoritarian and dictatorial leaders who exploit or manipulate, for example, the electoral process, the legal system or the constitution not in the name of the progress or development of the country but for the continuance of their own power or in pursuit of self-interest or the interest of a select group around them. (Gulen, 2006)

To counteract the activities of vested interests, while individuals are being asked to fulfill their rights and duties in democratic system, in addition to knowledge they also need to have the self-confidence and the civic courage to own and defend their rights (Gulen, 2006). Here Gulen’s contribution to the development of democracy around the globe lies not only in his intellectual contribution to debate, but also in his ability to inspire action; this practical ability has led to the development of schools, universities, intercultural and interfaith dialogue groups and other institutions throughout the world.

Conclusions

Gulen’s approach is powerful proof of the democratic ideas propagated by Islam, as he is convinced that Islamic democracy and secular political liberalization are not two separate phenomena. He points out that the dominant Islamic culture in the Muslim world co-exists with democratic arrangements on the global level. So, the concept of modernization and democratization does not inevitably mean Westernization but can involve the possibility of adoption of many Western democratic achievements within the Islamic framework. Thus, political culture and democracy practiced among Muslims develop not by their isolation from or opposition to others but by giving of their own achievements and taking the best from others. Gulen proves that Islamic intellectual heritage and political culture must be revisited and respected and that Muslims’ progress depends on the development of knowledge in Islamic sciences (‘ilm) and contemporary technical education (fen). Finally, Gulen life’s work has shown that there is no inherent conflict between Islamic thought and tradition and modern democracy. He has contributed positively to the understanding of democracy, civil society and human rights. (Cetin 2008: 219; Hunt, 2007:8-9; Barton, 2005: 43; Eickelman, 2002:4.)

Muhammed Cetin is the Publications Co-ordinator of the Institute of Interfaith Dialog (IID) and also writes weekly as a columnist in the international daily Today’s Zaman. He has a PhD in sociology.

References

• Barton, G. (2005) “Progressive Islamic thought, civil society and the Gulen movement in the national context: parallels with Indonesia.” Presented at the conference “Islam in the Contemporary World: The Fethullah Gulen Movement in Thought and Practice,” Rice University Conference, Houston, Texas, November 12-13, 2005, pp.51.
• Çetin, M. (2008) “Reductionist Approaches to the Rise and Aims of the Gulen Movement,” at the conference “Islam in the Age of Global Challenges: Alternative Perspectives of the Gulen Movement,” November 14-15, 2008, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., pp. 204-40.
• Diamond, L. (2008) The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. Times Books.
• Eickelman, D. F. (2002) “The Arab “Street” and the Middle East’s Democracy deficit.” Naval War College Review, LV(4), p.10. Available from: <http:// nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2002/autumn/pdfs/art3-a02.pdf> [October 9, 2006].
• Gulen, M. F. (2004) Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance. Somerset, New Jersey, The Light Inc.
• Gulen, M. F. (2005) The Statue of Our Souls: Revival in Islamic Thought and Activism. Somerset, New Jersey, The Light Inc.
• Gulen, M. F. (2006) “Demokrasi Yokusu”, 02.01.2006 [Herkül online] http://www.herkul.org/kiriktesti/index.php?view=article&article_id=2846
• Hunt, R. (2007) “Challenges in Understanding the Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World.” In: Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007), 1-10.
• Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007) Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World: Contributions of the Gulen Movement. Somerset, New Jersey, IID Press & The Light Inc.
• Saritoprak, Z. & Ünal, A. (2005) An interview with Fethullah Gulen. The Muslim World Special Issue, Islam in Contemporary Turkey: the Contributions of Gulen 95(3), 447-67.
• Sykiainen, L. (2007) “Democracy and the Dialogue between Western and Islamic Legal Cultures: The Gulen Case.” In: Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007), 121-32.
• Ünal, A. & Williams, A. (2000) Fethullah Gulen: Advocate of Dialogue. Fairfax, VA, The Fountain.

The Aral crisis is the best example of an ecological problem with serious social and economic consequences, directly or indirectly connected with all the states of Central Asia. The critical situation caused by the Aral Sea drying off was the result of agrarian economy tendency on the basis of irrigated agriculture development and volume growth of irrevocable water consumption for irrigation.

The Aral Sea was once the fourth biggest inland sea of the world, located between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan (formerly in the Soviet Union). It moderated the inland climate for many centuries through water evaporation, which gave life to the surrounding deserts of Central Asia. The Aral Sea also was inhabited by more than one hundred fish species and supported productive fishing industries. Some fifty years ago the Aral Sea was surrounded by prosperous fishing towns like Moynaq.

The water area of Aral has periodically expanded and contracted in the course of history. These changes have affected the climate and the state of the region and led to important migrations in history. In spite of the massive glacier melting in the North and South Pole because of global warming, which would be expected to increase the level of inland waters, the Aral is rapidly losing its water. Because of poor environmental planning and the negligence of humans, the Aral Sea is now dying and according to the experts it will disappear in less than ten years.

The Aral Sea started to dry off in the early twentieth century. In 1918 Lenin decided that the only two water supplies of the Aral, the River Amu and the River Syr should be diverted for irrigation of the desert to increase land for agriculture. The idea was to boost agriculture, and this worked for a short period of time. The Soviets or Uzbekistan became the world’s largest exporter of cotton, which they referred to as white gold. The area of irrigated lands increased from 3 million hectares to 8 million. The population of the region increased from 7 million (1940) to 50 million (2000). At the initial stage of this project which seemed a brilliant idea at first sight, the irrigated land built up the economy of the Central Asian Soviet States and produced millions of jobs. Although, the result of the project was brief joy and success, the price of poor planning turned out to be by far too high.

First of all, the government had decided to grow cotton in a desert terrain. Cotton farming requires lots of water, which would not occur naturally in the desert. They also increased the production of other crops like water melons, cereal, and rice. Diverting the rivers cut the supply to the Aral Sea, and due to evaporation, it began to shrink. The first irrigation canals were initiated in the 1930s; however, these canals were poorly built, extremely inefficient, and wasted more than 50% of the water. Even today in Uzbekistan only 12% of canals are leakproof. The level of the sea has gone down constantly ever since; in the 1960s it became obvious that the sea level was falling; there was an average 20cm fall per year until the 1970s, when the fall became 50–60cm a year, and now it is 80–90cm a year. Especially in the period of 1960–1980 the diversion of water doubled, which reflected on cotton cropping as much as on the decreasing sea level.

The loss of water exposed the salty sea bed in the Southern Aral. Dust storms spread salty soil into the irrigated areas. Farmers tried to fight against salt contamination by flushing the soil with large volumes of water, which makes its way back to the sea. In addition, farmers used high levels of pesticides and fertilizers to increase the efficiency of crop production. However, these chemicals leave traces of nitrogen and other salts in high amounts in the soil. By flushing the soil with water to reduce salt levels, pesticides and fertilizers were also washed out and further polluted the sea.

Even more unsettling is that the Soviet government knew that they would lose the Aral Sea; in 1968 an expert said “it is obvious to everyone that the evaporation of the Aral Sea is inevitable”; and they also knew that fishing would be hit but the sad fact is that the government saw the Aral as an “error of nature.” The consequences of cutting the Aral’s water supplies and the irrigation of the desert were the beginnings of serious ecological and social problems in the 1960s. The sea was lost to fishing and transportation. This business of “killing nature” has not only affected the people living in the immediate vicinity of the sea. They did lose their jobs and they had to restart their lives, but the whole environment was affected too. Loss of water caused an increase in the overall salinity of the sea. Besides that, the bed of the sea, which held toxic chemicals and pesticides, was now revealed. The local drinking water is hence contaminated. The Aral was once the habitat of more than 120 unique species; now it has only thirty-eight. Being a heat reservoir, it had a cooling effect on the environment, but now the temperature can go above 120 degrees, winters still being harsh. Poisonous dust and salt storms take their toll. Infant mortality, tuberculosis, cancer and lung disease are thirty times higher than normal levels because the water is contaminated by fertilizers, pesticides and salt.

Currently the sea has lost more than 60% of its surface area and more than 80% of its volume; as of 2004 the salinity is 45g/l, normal value being 10g/l. While shrinking, it has split into two lakes, the North and South Aral Seas, now 95 miles away from Moynaq, leaving vast areas of salty desert behind. A BBC reporter said, “What appears to be snow on the seabed is really salt. The winds blow this as far as the Himalayas. The children of Moynaq have made a playground out of the wrecks of ships which might have provided food and a future for them.” The drying out of the Aral may lead to even more serious consequences in future if measures are not taken soon. First, increased temperatures may lead to the degradation of mountain glaciers. This could be highly dangerous for the region because the glaciers feed the River Amu and River Syr, and they are the only remaining storage for the supply of fresh water and moisture. Second, the Aral’s sea bed emits massive amounts of salt and dust into the atmosphere. Polluted air is carried over the area by a powerful air stream. Traces of pesticides and salt from the Aral region are now found in the blood of penguins in Antarctica. Moreover, the pollution affects areas thousands of miles away, such as the glaciers of Greenland and the forests of Norway.

In 2003 Kazakhstan decided to make this split permanent by building a dam (Kokaral Dike) between the northern and southern parts. The restoration effort focuses on the Northern Aral which is small and less polluted. This seals the fate of the Southern Aral, and is synonymous with its vanishing. The northern water supply, the River Syr has been restored and diverted back into the sea. Although it will not be the same again for sure, planners think that fishing will be rescued and the North Aral Sea will stabilize the climate by smoothing out the high and low temperature extremes and increasing rainfall. The efforts have helped to lower the salinity level which has even allowed the reintroduction of fishing in this area. The result is surprisingly encouraging. There are other proposals like diverting the Volga, Ob, and Irtysh rivers but this would be very costly and could cause yet another catastrophe.

This story has everything in it. Humans who disregard the ecosystem takes the gift in nature for granted. As we can see, however, nature is not infinite and it is breakable. Hundreds of years may pass until the region completely recovers. The magnitude of the disaster is comparable in scope to those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and might be even worse. This is a great example of short-term greed and ill-guided economic moves disregarding the whole ecosystem and bringing consequences which have to be dealt with in the long run. In this particular case, there could have been other ways to avoid the damaging decision to cut the water supply of the lake fully, such as relying on a different type of crop which requires less water, or making more efficient use of water, and so on.

This disaster is a single example of the type of global catastrophe we might encounter again in the future. This being so it should be kept in mind when we think of our future. A lot of the damage humankind causes might still be avoided if we act firmly and quickly. This is not just necessary for our grandchildren or our children but even for our own generation since the consequences of ecological destruction are being seen more rapidly now. The widely known global warming cannot be belittled, and, as the Aral Sea example might have taught us, the consequences can be terrible. It is likely that more such unpredicted events will afflict us. Added to this, there are water pollution, deforestation, and the destruction of wet-lands. Every day we hear or read about these consequences of negligence and greed. But these geographical features are all in perfect harmony, and we cannot rudely and unthinkingly destroy them. As Lester Brown comments, “Previous generations have always been anxious about the future, but we are the first who decide if the Earth inherited by our children will be inhabited.”

Timur Ceylan is an expert engineer at AMD Technologies, San Francisco.

References

• National report: “On the environment state and use of natural resources in the Republic of Uzbekistan.” State Committee on Nature Protection of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 1998.
• K.Isentaev. “Geological structure and perspectives of oil and gas reserves of the Aral Sea.” Workshop report. Almaty, 1997.
• Ministerial conference of Central Asia. “Assessment of the environment.” Aarhus, Denmark, 1998.
• J. Mahambetova. Non-government union. “Aral tenizi.” Aralsk, 1999.

I could claim that I did not want to go just because of my fear of flying, but I must confess that when I was first offered to join a trip to Turkey, I was filled with trepidation. The source of my misgivings was actually a stereotype I was harboring-I thought of the Turks as an unbeatable and ferocious military power. While growing up in Boston as a second-generation Lebanese, I heard stories about the “old country” all my life. As one story goes, it was the “Turks” who caused my maternal grandfather to leave his beloved Mount Lebanon and immigrate to America. That was in 1913, when it was common for Turkish soldiers to swoop down on villages in Syria, round up the young men, and consign them to distant shores to quash uprisings against the Ottoman Empire. None of them ever returned. So, at the age of twenty-two, having no heart to shoot anyone and dodging the violence he found so odious, my grandfather headed for America. On my father’s side of the family, I had an uncle called “Turk.” Family folklore had it that Uncle Turk earned his lifelong sobriquet because of the mayhem he committed on the football field at Colby College about sixty years ago. Another thing that made a lasting impression on me was a popular song that came out in the 1950s:

So take me back to Constantinople

No, you can’t go back to Constantinople

Been a long time gone, Constantinople

Why did Constantinople get the works?

That’s nobody’s business but the Turks

This song reinforced the image I had of the Turks-that their military prowess was something people wrote songs about.

My interest in Turkish politics was piqued more recently when concerns were raised about the strength and resolve of its secular government. I decided that on my trip I would try to learn more about the situation, in particular, the relationship between secularism, religion, and the headscarf.

The first time I studied Islamic history was at Harvard in a postgraduate course. I remembered the lesson on Constantinople, the brightest jewel in the crown of the Byzantine Empire. Its conquest had eluded the Muslim emirs for seven centuries, until it fell at the hands of the Ottoman Sultans, renowned for their military expertise.

Ironically, I was drawn to the military museum in Istanbul, and it was an amazing experience because the walls seemed to reverberate with the pride of past accomplishments. What fascinated me was the detailed story of the conquest of Constantinople and the life-size figures on display. There was the conqueror, Mehmet, sitting straight and tall on a white stallion, and beside him, standing with a cane was an old man with a long white beard-Mehmet’s spiritual advisor Aksemseddin. In 1453, the conquest had rocked the world. Mehmet was just twenty-one years old at the time. At Harvard, I had never learned anything about Mehmet having a spiritual advisor, although I had asked my professor many times, without ever receiving a satisfactory answer, what the role of religion was in the Ottoman Empire, especially for the Turks.

In the twenty-first century, the role of religion is the subject of much debate. In Turkey, a great deal of discussion has arisen over the law that forbids women from wearing a headscarf on government property (such as the military museum) or at government-run universities. The law is based on Turkey’s eighty-year history of maintaining the separation of church and state. For a foreigner like myself, it was strange to witness college girls who would stand outside the university gates to take the headscarf off before entering (or risk being thrown out of school), and then stand outside the gates to put it back on when they were leaving.

Although I cannot speak with any authority on the political situation in Turkey, I had first-hand experience with the law. Driving into the museum parking lot, a young man in a military uniform stopped our car, lowered his head, and leaned into the window. Pointing to me in the back seat, he said in Turkish, “That headscarf has to come off!” My gracious Turkish hosts had fully prepared me for this moment. However, it struck me for the first time that Turkey was facing an enormous challenge: to reconcile secularism and religious freedom; something we take for granted in America.

Secularists might say that to speak of religious freedom in Turkey is to be totally nave, but as a student of Turkish history, I am not that nave. I understand the threat to secular society presented by the radical Islamists, but who are the “radical Islamists” in Turkey? Surely, not every religious person wants to overthrow the government? To find clarification on the matter, the news stories I had read were totally inadequate. So, after being introduced to some career-minded college girls who wore the headscarf, I decided to ask them informally for their political and religious views.

Of Turkish history, I knew that in the past few decades there has been a movement among the younger generations to embrace Islam and more young women now wear the headscarf. As sociologists know, with most social movements, whatever has been repressed eventually rises up in society. The religious revival in Turkey could be a response to the secularizing reforms, but there are global factors to consider as well.

I asked the college girls what kind of state they hoped for. Their answer was unequivocal and unanimous. They did not want to live in a society where they had no freedom or equal rights. They vehemently rejected the fundamentalism, that is, the kind of tribal mentality that creates a society bereft of the basic values of Islam, such as peace, justice, compassion, and equality for all human beings; and places greater value on violence, oppression, and punishment. They railed against associating Islam with rigid ideologies and tyrants. The college girls I surveyed indicated no desire for a state religion. They wanted to participate and contribute to a modern society where everyone was free to work and practice their religion.

I understand that some sections in Muslim societies are unable or unwilling to modernize their societies, but such things take time. I discovered that Turkey is really at the vanguard of modernity in the Muslim world, and that Turkish scholars have already conceived of a true representation of Islam. I was introduced to the writings of one of the contemporary Turkish religious thinkers, Fethullah Gulen, who has described the essence of religious practice in these words: “Loving and respecting humanity merely because they are human is an expression of love and respect for the Almighty Creator.” Whether secular or religious, I could think of no better ethos for Muslims to follow.

On my last day in Istanbul, I stood on a hill overlooking the Bosphorus. The chilly winds and watery vistas reminded me of San Francisco Bay. In my view too was the bridge that connects two continents, Europe and Asia. In this and in other indescribable ways, Turkey combined the best of both worlds, where humanistic values and modern Islamic thought can coexist. To me, it felt natural to stand astride the two worlds, to inhabit both, or perhaps neither.

Mary Lahaj has a master’s degree from the Hartford Seminary in Islamic Studies and Christian/Muslim Relations. She is currently the first Muslim woman chaplain at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in their residency program and also works as the Muslim Advisor for the Groton School. In 2005, she received the Promoting Peace Through Dialogue Award, awarded to her by the Boston Dialogue Foundation.

Notes

1. In fact in Turkey the state controls the practice of Islam through the Religious Affairs Directorate. For example, all imams are obliged to read the same sermon (khutba) at Friday prayer, the sermon being provided by the directorate. (Ed.)

Honesty, defined as honor gained by action or conduct, is an inevitable part of our private and public life. But its implications for public life in a democracy are far more important. We can do a better job of passing on a sense of the value of honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility to the next generation in a democratic society. Teddy Roosevelt, while governor of New York, said: Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest we have no right to keep him in public life. No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community.(1)

It is not an easy task to resolve the problem of honesty in democratic governance. To the extent that knowledge gives power, to that extent do lies affect the distribution of power; they add to that of the liar, and diminish that of the deceived, altering his choices at different levels.(2) Bok, a writer and philosopher currently serving as a distinguished fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, explains the importance of honesty in public life by emphasizing how lying harms social trust:

The importance of honesty in public life is as follows. Lying and deception clearly do not affect only isolated individuals. As lies spread “ by imitation, or in retaliation, or forestall suspected deception “ social trust is damaged. Yet trust is a social good to be protected just as much as the air we breathe or the water we drink. Social goods are non-excludable, individuals cannot be prevented from sharing them, and they are available for the public to enjoy. Examples include the lighthouse, peace and security, and law and order. When social trust is damaged, the community as a whole suffers; and when it is destroyed, societies falter and collapse.(3)

In the public sphere, lying or the suspicion of lying has an added consequence: the proliferation of bureaucracy and regulation.

Gutmann and Thompson see deception, the action of deceiving or cheating, as closely related to secrecy and confidentiality. They consider the following factors in which citizens can permit public officials to engage in deception: the importance of the deception’s goal; the availability of alternative goal-achieving means; who will be deceived (other officials, other governments, all citizens); accountability (the possibility of approving deception in advance or discovering it later); and containing the deception (its effects on other actions by officials).(4)

Requirements of honesty

The principle of honesty, when applied to public policy and administration, has several requirements. The first one is the obligation to avoid lying. The Iran-Contra affair and other cases raised the perennial question of whether official lies should be permitted for the public good. When John M. Poindexter, President Reagan’s national security advisor, was accused by Congress of an unapologetic embrace of truth, he replied that he had acted in what he thought were the country’s long-term interests. Even those who disagree with Poindexter’s judgment acknowledge that certain situations warrant deception. But was this particular situation exceptional enough to warrant it?

The second requirement is being truthful when presenting information to superiors and the public. For example, a public official cannot make exaggerated claims (or vice versa) about what a proposed program will do in order to generate enthusiasm for it.

The third requirement is respecting other people’s ability to gather and present accurate information relevant to public policy. In other words, honesty requires that an official does not try to prevent or suppress studies that challenge his or her view. Deception involves intentionally (or negligently) causing someone to believe something that the deceiver knows (or should know) to be false. Political deception is not always easy to recognize, because it seldom comes in the form of an outright lie.(5)

The fourth requirement is to keep the public well-informed. This cannot be overemphasized, for an informed public is an essential ingredient of democracy. Yet in practice, some officials (e.g., the president, mayor, policy makers, or military people) have found an easy justification for both secrecy and deception. They believe that ordinary citizens, even sometimes other government officials, cannot understand such complex problems as military operations, international security and national defense issues, and other such matters. The people’s apparent inability to do so gives public officials a kind of right to deception. Since average citizens cannot possibly know the whole truth about specialized subjects, lying to them is permissible “ provided that there are some good reasons. Sometimes, government officials use the same ethic when they decide not to inform citizens of government involvement in various complex issues.

Conclusion

In a democratic society, these reasons cannot be used to justify giving anybody permission to deceive whenever they consider it necessary. The social good and public interest should not be used as excuses for deception; rather, they must be a reason for honesty. The ethical education of public officials, public awareness, open and transparent public administration, clear rules, policies, and regulations might ease the job of public officials in terms of ethical dilemmas. Such practices also might help them by providing consistency in decision-making, understanding the values reflected by that decision, and reaching more reflective judgments. Findings reported in several analytical studies indicate that ethics education is making a difference. We cannot afford, intentionally or unintentionally, to be a partner in producing a new generation of leaders who are ethically illiterate and morally misguided.

Footnotes

1. Theodore Roosevelt, The Eighth and Ninth Commandments in Politics, Outlook (12 May 1900). Online at: www.bartleby.com/58/7.html
2. Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Pantheon, 1978), 20.
3. Ibid.
4. A. Gutmann and D. F. Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1998), 48.
5. Ibid.

The twentieth century was marked by failed utopias: Maoist China, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and various fascist and communist states. Except for its inter-war militaristic period, Japan has been conspicuous for its absence.

Japan continues to baffle the world. How did a largely peasant feudal nation forcibly opened to the world only in 1853 manage to defeat Russia on the battlefield in 1905? How did a nation that was largely destroyed during World War II rise to such economic heights that by 1962 everyone was aware of the Japanese miracle? What transformed one of the most feared and brutal militaristic nations into a nation that now refuses to bear arms and only recently agreed to involve its soldiers in peace-keeping forces?

The ability to adapt

Japan emerged from its more than 200-year self-imposed exile only when Commodore Perry entered Edo (Tokyo) Bay in 1853 and forced it to do so. The new Meiji dynasty immediately announced the aim of returning to the events of antiquity and origins.(1) However, it simultaneously said that it would search for new knowledge throughout the world eliminate old customs and abuses, as if to immediately announce its intention to inaugurate a genuinely new beginning rather than arepetition.(2)

Even before this epochal date, the ruling Tokugawa dynasty had laid the groundwork for significant social change. For example, they had tamed the samurai, Japan’s traditional warrior ruling elite, into non-landed town dwellers who received government stipends. In short, they became bureaucrats whose loyalty was guaranteed only if the person in charge was efficient. The tradition of absolute loyalty to one’s clan lord was ended.

The four social classes of warrior, peasant, artisan, and merchant also were abolished, giving people freedom to find their own way in life. The former warrior elite was not threatened by this, for only it had the necessary knowledge to assume the high positions. But not all of them chose that path, for many participated enthusiastically in commerce, from which they had been excluded, and education. The increased social mobility and expanded horizons that this change ushered in was welcomed by all, especially the former elite.

Thus when the Meiji dynasty came to power in the newly opened Japan, it was able to abolish the last vestiges of feudalism quickly and without protest. More importantly, the former elite gave its loyalty to the Emperor willingly.

A few years after this, Japanese students were being sent to Europe and America to learn foreign languages and acquire modern knowledge and skills. Businessmen went abroad to visit factories and companies and buy products that they thought had potential back home. Japan’s reputation as a nation of intensely curious people was not long in coming. Within the space of almost 50 years, Japan went from being an isolated xenophobic warrior-dominated nation to one that was curious about everything non-Japanese, even to the point of being ridiculed by other nations.

Education and experience-based knowledge

Even before schools began to proliferate during the Meiji era, people known as technologists actively traveled the country to locate home-grown improved agricultural implements to make farmers more efficient. Such information was published and distributed widely. Local people would show how to use the new tools or methods, and the results convinced people to abandon traditional ways in favor of the new ones, which were more effective.

This represented a disguised challenge to the ruling order, for: Not only were the technologists saying, by implication, that men with enough intelligence and enterprise to alter their status and style of life might ignore the limitations placed on them by birth; they were also saying in effect that the pursuit of private interest by enough people would change society for the better by adding to the sum of human welfare and therefore that the good of society was not uniquely determined by the moral quality of the ruler but might in part well up from the selfish strivings of the masses.(3)

Entrepreneurship

In 1880, the government encouraged entrepreneurship in the national interest by selling its pilot plants to entrepreneurs, giving them exclusive licenses and other privileges, and often providing some portion of their capital funds.(4) These relations were unofficial and personal, as well as based on clan origins, marriages, and bribery. In 1881, the government attempted to manage such activities by creating the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce.

After WWI, rural Japanese flooded into the urban centers looking for salaried jobs. Working conditions were often hazardous and pay was low, but still they came, driven by the desire to have a better life than their parents. In addition, they wanted to experience first hand what they were reading in the books and magazines promoting the American way of life. They saved their money, got educated, and opened their own businesses.

Realistic planning based on accurate data

Another concern was advance planning and record keeping so people would know how long a certain task should take. Authors were discussing such matters in the field of agriculture as early as the seventeenth century. By the early nineteenth century, technologists were exhorting farmers to keep detailed records of what they did and what was the result, so that they could be compared with past and future results.

In 1930, the Temporary Industrial Rationality Bureau drew up plans for the control of enterprises, implementation of scientific management principles, improvements in industrial financing, standardization of products, simplification of production processes, and subsidies to support the production and consumption of domestically manufactured goods.(5) Basing themselves on the German version, Japan used cooperation and cartels, instead of competition to lower costs. The main goal was not profit, but to cooperate and develop in a way that made Japan able to compete with the developed countries.

One deciding factor was that of historical continuity. For example, the people who had first formulated the relevant policies during the 1920s and 1930s were still there and hard at work in the 1950s. According to Johnson: This theme of historical continuity also draws attention to the fact that industrial policy is rooted in Japanese political rationality and conscious institutional innovation, and not primarily or exclusively in Japanese culture, vestiges of feudalism, insularity, frugality, the primacy of the social group over the individual, or any other special characteristic of Japanese society. Economic crisis gave birth to industrial policy.(6)

Women and government

Women were a critical factor in Japan’s early development. According to Koji Taira, Japan’s economic modernization, which meant the implementation of the factory system after the war [WWI], was ˜manned by women.’ (7)

The government also was an active player, for it designed policies to create a predominantly American lifestyle based on rationality, efficiency, and economies in the conduct of social life.(8) The consumption of everything new was encouraged: toys, food, clothing, attitudes, identities, and so on. This policy was directed at women, for It not only announced the end of the seclusion and isolation women had experienced as virtual prisoners of the household, it had consequences for their status outside family life, as larger numbers began pouring into the labor force, especially in those areas like learning, education, and sports that had been male

preserves.(9)

This challenge to Japan’s patriarchal culture and traditional gender roles was noted but subsumed by the government’s attempt to present, at least on the surface, a society marked neither by social divisions nor by gender difference and sexual differentiation.(10) Concern was raised about the harmful effects of such materialism, self-indulgence, loss of spiritual values, and traditional roles. In fact, even though some blamed the 1923 earthquake on such departures from tradition, the new trends continued with full official encouragement and support.

Adaptation of foreign concepts and methods

After its defeat and occupation in 1945, Japan did not blame its fate on non-fidelity to tradition, straying from Buddhist or Shinto principles, or other such abstract ideas. Instead, the Emperor, who until then had been worshipped, went on national radio and told the Japanese to unite your total strength to be devoted to the construction for the future to keep pace with the progress of the world.(11) And the Japanese listened.

When the American occupation force began to use Japan as a supplier for its efforts during the Korean War and began to give it technological knowledge and help, Japan set off with a vengeance to benefit from them. Its efforts paid off so well that by 1962 the world for the first time heard the phrase the Japanese miracle. Its wholesale invasion of the electronic and auto industries was a spectacular success.

From the ashes of WWII came a new policy: administrative guidance. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) established many informal rules that sought to restrict foreign access to the Japanese market until its nascent industries could compete. Its main proponent and representative, Sahashi Shigeru, went up against Singer Sewing Company and IBM-and won. He even told the IBM representative that we do not have an inferiority complex toward you; we only need time and money to compete effectively.(12) Calls by internal and foreign interests for economic liberalization were resisted, despite the distortions caused by administrative guidance (e.g., excessive investment in production facilities and overproduction of products), so that the new home-grown industries would not be swamped.

In the 1960s, MITI developed a policy of administration by inducement to deal with the dangers of economic liberalization that both internal and foreign sectors were demanding. The goal was flexibility to adapt to fast-changing situations and new challenges confronting the national economy. Thus, laws were intentionally vague so that a suitable interpretation could be found. In short, this meant committees of cooperating bureaucrats, industrialists, and financiers that would set investment rates, promote mergers, discourage new firms from entering given industries, and in general try to build an industrial structure on a par with those of the United Sates and West Germany, the two prime external reference economies.(13)

This policy, along with certain understandings when it came to banking and investing, was open to abuse and caused its own share of difficulties, but it succeeded brilliantly. Furthermore, a large share of the profits was reinvested in heavy industry and new technology so that Japan could keep up with the industrialized world.

Time management

Time management is fundamental to a modern industrialized society, for any industrial undertaking depends upon performing a set of specific steps in a predetermined chronological order. For the process to succeed, everything must be in place so that it can be used at the correct time. But for the process to be efficient, people must know how long each step should take.

Traditional Japanese society considered time to be communal, for that was the way the people organized their lives. Like any other crop, rice has to be planted and harvested at the appropriate times to be sold and feed the family. As mentioned above, technologists who sought to replace ineffective methods with new ones, often not from the same area, had been active for centuries. The value of time was recognized and linked to the family and the village as a whole. If it were neglected, the family farm could easily fail in this highly competitive environment, which was viewed as dishonoring one’s ancestors and often resulted in the family’s self-banishment from the village.

This attitude is still a feature of Japanese life. After WWI, working days of 18 hours were common and welcomed, provided that the workers were paid adequately. Often, there were complaints that the company was not letting the people work more hours. This has been ascribed to the traditional Japanese preference for income over leisure, which corporate Japan has harnessed it its benefit.(14)

Also, the fact that Japan is community-oriented enables practices that cannot be reduplicated in other countries: government and business working as partners instead of adversaries, businesses and unions agreeing on acceptable contracts instead of one side trying to lay down the law to others, increased production through willing teamwork and mutual cooperation instead of everyone looking out for himself or herself alone.

Conclusion

Japan, having almost no natural resources, never had the option of depending upon one or more natural resources or products to fuel its development. After its self-imposed isolation ended, Japan’s rulers realized just how weak the country was vis A vis the industrialized powers and so began to devise a strategy to equal and then surpass them. China lost its role as Japan’s source of inspiration practically overnight. But these strategies were always regarded as subject to change if the situation so warranted. Moreover, these strategies and any subsequent changes were enacted only after conducting a thorough and realistic analysis of what they had to work with and what challenges they had to face. In short, the Japanese were not afraid to try and learn from their mistakes or to change.

Other major factors in Japan’s successful development were the ability to see when traditions needed to be modified or reinterpreted, the desire to reach a broad social consensus on what should be done and how it should be done, and the constant appeal to rationalize each task so it could be done faster and more efficiently. Since failure was not an option, bureaucrats and businessmen did not appeal to tradition, what should be, a past golden age, and others heard from various quarters today.

What Japan had to work with was a government that had a realistic vision of what the nation could be, an already established foundation for an industrialized and modern society, and people who were anxious to see their country become a major power due to their skills, education, competitiveness, concern for quality, adapting existing technology for new uses, and will to succeed. Unfortunately, this cannot be said of many countries today.

In the 1960s, when one saw Made in Japan on a product, it was a source of laughter. No one laughs any more, for this phrase has become synonymous with quality and state-of-the-art technology and efficiency.

Footnotes

1. Harry Harootunian, Overcome by Modernity: History, Culture, and Community in Interwar Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), 300.
2. Ibid., 301.
3. Thomas C. Smith, Native Sources of Japanese Industrialization: 1750-1920 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 197.
4. Chalmers Johnson, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1982), 85.
5. Ibid., 104.
6. Ibid., 114.
7. Harootunian, Overcome by Modernity, 12.
8. Ibid., 15.
9. Ibid., 17.
10. Ibid., 18.
11. Akio Morito, Made in Japan (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1986), 35.
12. Johnson, MITI, 246-47.
13. Ibid., 256.
14. Smith, Native Sources, 222.