|
|
|
ByTarek Heggy
The pattern of
behaviour displayed by the victims of poverty differs from one culture
to another. In some cultures, it takes the form of a defiant refusal to
succumb to the grip of poverty and an openly rebellious expression of
that refusal; in others it engenders an attitude of resignation marked
by a docile acceptance of what fate has decreed. Many factors determine
which of the two patterns will prevail. Societies which have been
subjected for much of their history to tyranny and oppression and with a
tradition of venerating their rulers will tend to exhibit the second
pattern, accepting their lot philosophically and expressing their
disillusionment by using the weapon of sarcasm against public officials,
but only in private conversations conducted behind closed doors. In some
countries, this mechanism gives rise to political jokes which reflect
what people would have wanted to say openly but which, in the absence of
available channels, they are forced to express in epigrammatic form. The
ability of some of the political jokes thus spawned to encapsulate
prevailing opinions and impressions in terse, witty aphorisms is
sometimes nothing short of brilliant.
Despots realize only
too well that their people's economic independence and the existence of
an economically self-sufficient middle class can have disastrous
consequences for them. For it is this which allows a people to move from
apathy to action, from a resigned acceptance of whatever the ruler
decides at his absolute discretion to active participation in political
life. To be answerable to his subjects is the last thing an absolute
ruler wants, knowing that his grip on power cannot survive open
questions on the source of his legitimacy or on the legitimacy of the
privileges he and his cronies enjoy.
Apathy, education and
teamwork:
Modern educational
systems in advanced societies are not based on traditional teaching
methods in which the teacher is relegated to the role of a transmitter, so
to speak, and the student to that of a receiver. They are based, rather,
on a feedback process involving student participation, dialogue and
exchanges of view. One of the main features of this process is the
division of classes into groups which are required to seek for themselves
answers to given questions by accessing available literature on the
subject, whether in libraries or on the Internet, comparing notes,
consulting together and finally presenting the conclusions reached in the
light of their research. This sort of group endeavour promotes a team
spirit among its members, develops a sense of participation and the
conviction that every individual is entitled to seek the truth for himself
and to express the truth as he sees it openly and fearlessly. It also
promotes tolerance and a respect for the right of any member of a group to
differ from the majority opinion without this necessarily rupturing the
overall cohesion of the group. At the same time, it develops the critical
faculties of the students and ensures that they will not elevate anyone to
the status of all-knowing oracle, neither teachers, authors nor, by
extension, political leaderships.
Students raised under
this system, which recognizes and consecrates the value of teamwork, grow
into citizens equipped to participate effectively in the life of their
community. By the same token, students raised under the system of learning
by rote, where the relationship between student and teacher is a one-way
street, never develop a team spirit and are content to remain passive
recipients of information that will never be translated into active
participation in public life. Nor is the material they are spoon-fed by
their teachers processed by the students, who merely learn it off by heart
and reproduce it word for word in their exam papers.
An educational system
which is based on the quantity of material that can be stuffed into young
minds rather than on the quality of the values that should go into their
formation; which consecrates the cult of personality and fosters blind
obedience to diktats from above rather than the spirit of pluralism that
is the driving force of progress and civilization, and which does not
teach students how to accept criticism and engage in self-criticism can
only produce a breed of passive citizens incapable of rising up to the
challenges life will throw at them, let alone of participating in the
political life of their community. Not only is the inflexibility of the
system by which they were governed throughout their formative years
capable of killing any initiative, but the fact that it denied them the
right to choose, which is the essence of political participation, instills
in them a spirit of apathy and a sense that any attempt to change the
status quo is an exercise in futility.
Apathy and the rule of
law:
Most political systems in
the Third World claim to uphold the rule of law, but this is usually an
empty boast rather than an accurate reflection of reality. The majority of
these systems operate according to the absolute will of an absolute ruler
who is answerable to no one for the decisions he makes. More often than
not, these decisions serve to encourage the spread of corruption and
protect the vested interests of the ruling establishment, in the total
absence of either democracy or the rule of law to which these political
systems pay continuous lip service. It is not surprising that in such a
climate apathy should spread. People are only motivated to participate in
public life when it is governed by the rule of law. Conversely, when the
decision-making process is clearly designed to serve the interests of a
select few at the expense of society as a whole, people will retreat into
their shells and resign themselves to accepting what they cannot change.
There is thus a direct relationship between the absence of the rule of law
and the apathy of the citizen.
Apathy of citizens in an
autocracy:
The discourse of most
undemocratic systems of government is rife with reverential references to
“the People”. Following a time-honoured tradition which began with
Hitler and Mussolini, they glorify the people as an abstract concept but
do not display anywhere near as much respect and concern for its
constituent elements, viz, the individual citizens. There is a glaring
discrepancy between the glorification of the entity known as “the
people” in the official discourse of the state and the abasement of the
citizen on a daily basis at the hands of the system, whether in government
offices, police stations or hospitals, where no attempt is made to
translate the dignity accorded to the people collectively into common
courtesy for the individual citizen. In short, undemocratic systems of
government pay lip service to an abstract non-existent entity known as
“the people” while treating citizens much as the Mamelukes treated
their Egyptian subjects in one of the darkest chapters of our history. The
tyranny and oppression to which the Egyptians were subjected by a caste of
slaves they themselves had bought and to whom they then inexplicably
handed the reins of power have left traces in our general cultural
climate. The best description of the long shadow cast by nearly three
centuries of Mameluke rule on our present reality can be found in a book
entitled “The Legacy of Slaves” by an eminent Egyptian author.
Apathy and the herd
mentality:
There is absolutely no
doubt in my mind that undemocratic systems of government engender a
cultural climate which can only be described as a “herd culture”.
Under these systems, the government treats people like cattle with the
result that citizens gradually come to display many of the characteristics
of a herd mentality, including a retreat of individualism which, along
with democracy, is one of the greatest achievements of human civilization
and a prerequisite for the consecration of human rights –in the real
sense of the term, not in the sense it is bandied about by some of the
most despotic systems of government today. Once a herd mentality takes
hold in any society, the members of that society will develop a passive
attitude incommensurate with the requirements of good citizenship. A
positive attitude that leads citizens to involve themselves in the
workings of their society requires a perception of self as an individual
human being, not as an anonymous member of an abstract and dehumanized
group known as “the people”. A useful device for despots, the term
“the people”, which is not necessarily the same thing as “the
citizens”, allows them to benefit from the apathy and indifference of
their subjects. This indifference, one of the main symptoms of a herd
culture, is most graphically illustrated in the low turnout at the polls
by educated voters who simply could not be bothered to participate in the
electoral process.
**********************
Back to Top
© Arab World
Books |