Thomas Hobbs (1851–1679) was not an misanthrope, but he harbored a deep cynicism as to the construct of human nature; and posited that, man, if left in the 'state of nature' (i,e., prior the formation law abiding society), “... the life of man (would be), solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” So, he constructed his Leviathan arguing that society to be successful and cohesive, there must be a social contract where a all-powerful but just ruler and/or government shall establish a commonwealth protect the populace from each other by enforcing laws of the land. Hobbs imagined the commonwealth as a giant human body (named Leviathan after the name of a Biblical sea monster) made out of its citizens and the head being the omnipotent sovereign; the absence of which shall culminate into anarchy – a war of every man against other man.
John Locke (1932-1704), in addition to be a giant of empiricist philosophy who famously considered mind a tabula rasa, also was an extremely influential political philosopher. Unlike Hobbs, Locke had faith in innate goodness and rationality of human nature, that, however, shows a selfish tendency especially in the matters of wealth and property. He also argued for the same call for a social contract, where government shall uphold the law, protect citizens; and in return civil obedience shall supervene. Unlike Hobbs, Locke also felt that religion does not cause strife; it is the intolerance that is the root cause of social unrest. Locke sanctified three natural rights: firstly, right to life; secondly, right to liberty or freedom of action (so long it does not imperil any one's right to life); and thirdly, right to property (so long it does not infringe on any one's life to life or liberty).
John Locke (1932-1704), in addition to be a giant of empiricist philosophy who famously considered mind a tabula rasa, also was an extremely influential political philosopher. Unlike Hobbs, Locke had faith in innate goodness and rationality of human nature, that, however, shows a selfish tendency especially in the matters of wealth and property. He also argued for the same call for a social contract, where government shall uphold the law, protect citizens; and in return civil obedience shall supervene. Unlike Hobbs, Locke also felt that religion does not cause strife; it is the intolerance that is the root cause of social unrest. Locke sanctified three natural rights: firstly, right to life; secondly, right to liberty or freedom of action (so long it does not imperil any one's right to life); and thirdly, right to property (so long it does not infringe on any one's life to life or liberty).
Locke's improved version of social contract inspired French Revolution and US constitution, and as of now forms the basis democracy all over the world – ours included! And this brings forth the most important facet of this social contract; and that is execution of law by the government – 'JUSTICE'.
In his seminal work on politics and philosophy– Theory of Justice, John Rawls (1921-2002) looked at the social contract from different tangent. He argued that principles of justice are those principles that any fair minded, logical person person shall agree upon when viewed from an impartial perspective. “Principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance” - Rawls argued; and this he termed the original position. Gareth Southwell explains the position as following:
“ … the only way to ensure the fairness of the social contract would be if it is formulated behind a veil of ignorance. In other words, principles of justice and fairness should be arrived at in complete ignorance of the type of individuals they might apply to. For instance, if I am the strongest or smartest, or possess certain advantages in terms of property or wealth, then (assuming I am a selfish person as assumed by Locke) I would want those principles to benefit me. However, from behind a 'veil of ignorance', I do not know I am strongest or smartest, so to protect myself – since I do not know what advantages others possess – I would favor principles which fostered equality. Furthermore, since there is every chance in this unseen society that I may suffer at the hands of fate, then I would also want to safeguard poverty or similar disadvantage.” This is very much like maximin strategy that plays out in game theory, whereby one chooses a principle that 'maximize the minimum'; for example, when freak of fate happens, one will be afforded with the best possible alternative.
Rawls' Theory of Justice of Rawls decouples morality from justice, critiques can rightly argue; however, it has become central to the modern notion of justice and equality. And as long as the 'veil of ignorance' is intact, it provides enforceable principles that can keep the society wholesome and happy.
II.
'' ... government is best which governs not all'' – yes, Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was consummate individualist to the point of being an anarchist. MK Gandhi and Martin Luther King, both were proponents of civil disobedience, however, their method was non-violence absolute pacifism; its root goes back to millennia, as underlined Plato's assertion that it's better to suffer wrong than to do wrong, for the wrongdoers are both ignorant and sick.
John Rawls was in agreement with Thoreau, Gandhi and King that civil disobedience is acceptable when the head of Hobbs' Leviathan deviates from its obligations of social contract, and unveils the 'veil of ignorance', thus setting forth events leading to its own dissolution. He however, proposed that civil disobedience, to be acceptable must meet certain criteria.
Firstly, act of disobedience must be public; the purpose of act is to highlight the injustice. There is no scope of secret act or sabotage. Laws must be respected, and imprisonment, if comes, should be accepted. Secondly, disobedience has to be conscientious with a political aim and seek remedy of the injustice; thus ruling out the possibility of using the tool for enhancing personal gain. Thirdly, it must be non-violent that distinguishes civil disobedience from criminality. Protesting Rowlatt Act of 1919, Gandhi called for a nationwide hartal, but when the protest gave rise to sporadic violence in Punjab, he immediately suspended hartal, for violence has no place in civil disobedience! And fourthly, it must appeal to the social sense of justice.
II.
'' ... government is best which governs not all'' – yes, Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was consummate individualist to the point of being an anarchist. MK Gandhi and Martin Luther King, both were proponents of civil disobedience, however, their method was non-violence absolute pacifism; its root goes back to millennia, as underlined Plato's assertion that it's better to suffer wrong than to do wrong, for the wrongdoers are both ignorant and sick.
John Rawls was in agreement with Thoreau, Gandhi and King that civil disobedience is acceptable when the head of Hobbs' Leviathan deviates from its obligations of social contract, and unveils the 'veil of ignorance', thus setting forth events leading to its own dissolution. He however, proposed that civil disobedience, to be acceptable must meet certain criteria.
Firstly, act of disobedience must be public; the purpose of act is to highlight the injustice. There is no scope of secret act or sabotage. Laws must be respected, and imprisonment, if comes, should be accepted. Secondly, disobedience has to be conscientious with a political aim and seek remedy of the injustice; thus ruling out the possibility of using the tool for enhancing personal gain. Thirdly, it must be non-violent that distinguishes civil disobedience from criminality. Protesting Rowlatt Act of 1919, Gandhi called for a nationwide hartal, but when the protest gave rise to sporadic violence in Punjab, he immediately suspended hartal, for violence has no place in civil disobedience! And fourthly, it must appeal to the social sense of justice.
In essence civil disobedience is the last resort of defying legal authority of the sovereign when all legal avenues are exhausted and Leviathan's head is out of sink with its original obligation.
III.
For many years, relentlessly Bangladesh is tiptoeing towards an unfortunate undoing of rule of law. There were despots both unelected and elected type. The current regime of Sheikh Hasina Wajed continues to hold on to power following sham election thus undermining its moral legitimacy. The recent stint of governmental abuse of power during the Upo-Zila elections and government's unwillingness to hold election in the capital city where oversight of the process could be rigorous, are signs of a morally bankrupt regime. Its inability and/or unwillingness to reign on the rouge elements including law enforcement outfits and its own rancorous affiliates just add to its difficult moral standing.
A cacophony of bad news emanating from Bangladesh points towards a societal entropy where the rich and the powerful are increasingly confident of their standing without the fear that there may be a day reckoning! This is especially true in the port city of Narayanganj. Although mystery of Twaki murder is no mystery in people's mind, the government continues to dither. Even after unearthing significant evidence implicating a certain family (if the newsfeed is correct), politically allied with the the ruling party, process of justice conspicuously stymied with no clear reason whatsoever. A publicly understood rough element was selected to be the powerful MP despite miserable performance in the mayoral election of Narayanganj just a year ago. Then came the abduction of AB Siddique - an incidence that was about to unleash a tsunami of civil unrest. AB Siddique's initial description of the abductors as a group of stout men with short hair is curious! Even more curious is his release after the appeal from the high seat. On the hilt of that, came the sad abduction of seven people in broad daylight; their eventual murder and recovery of their mutilated body. Junior home minister was privy to such possibility. Family filed complaint mentioning of a suspect. And yet, the police took six days to search the house of the suspect.
Narayanganj, hence, seems to be slithering to the hole, where, government is unwilling to abide by its end of social contract by letting some of its allied people defy the rule of law. These people, by virtue of their wealth and connection, has broken through the 'veil of ignorance'!
IV.
Just today, an eminent jurist Shahdin Malik and a group of civil society members were not allowed to demonstrate peacefully in front of Sangsod Vabon – the supposed sanctuary for law and order and for people's power. This is a telltale sign that the nation demands a Gandhi or a Martin Luther!
No comments:
Post a Comment