Life is about imperfections and dilemmas. On a damp and rainy season evening temperature may be too hot, you open the window and fresh air comes in accompanied by mosquitoes. The good you try to do is accompanied by something unwanted and evil. This happens often.
You provide in a constitution for people’s freedom and expression. You hear that someone is in court on charges of blasphemy or sedition. What exactly do these terms mean?
Walter Bagehot, an English constitutional lawyer in the n19th Century wrote: “No one knows what blasphemy is or what sedition is, but all know that they are vague words which can be fitted to any meaning that shall please the ruling powers.”
By and large freedom of speech is in the interest of society. But often people react differently to certain things that others utter. If some disgruntled fellow refers to those in authority as incarnations of the devil that they should hang by their necks, another says Parliament is packed with fools and urges a mob to go and kill the law makers, as well as destroy the parliament building, is this free speech in the interest of society?
Even those who are not in power would say no at all.
What about those who publicly demand the beheading of homosexuals, murderers of albinos and defilers of preteens? We are not likely to get unanimous responses to these questions.
Founders of the United States said that men had natural rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it.
They went ahead and took up arms against George III, their king who was resident in London. All those who start civil wars say they are doing so because the government is oppressing or neglecting them.
Those in office say they are only keeping law and order.
It is said that when people make inflammatory speeches because they have grievances the best thing for those in authority to do is to discuss and remove those grievances. But in the course of discussing some members of the governing side may be highly reactionary while those on the non-governmental side may be too radical with their demands. Compromise then becomes impossible. In such a situation those in authority may assume dictatorial measures or those outside authority may take up arm. Who is justified?
The most in famous dictatorships of the 20th Century were those of Hitler and Mussolini because their activities led to World War II, the most tragic war that mankind ever experienced.
At the beginning, however, the advent of power of both Mussolini and Hitler was welcomed by substantial members of their people.
There was chaos in Italy when Mussolini marched his cohorts from Northern Italy to Rome and demanded from Kin Victor Emmanuel authority to run the government. Within a few years there was law and order in Italy. The public was enthusiastically saying at last trains were departing and arriving on time. His form of government was called FRASCISM. It demanded that before workers stage strikes or employers staged lockouts they should bring their grievances to his government officials and settle matters without disrupting industrial peace.
Power tends to corrupt.
Success went into Mussolini’s head. He now began to talk of reviving the Roman Empire.
He made threats to smaller countries like Greece claiming parts of them. Worst of all he, in 1936, invaded Ethiopia to avenge the defeat the Ethiopians had inflicted on an Italian army at Adowa in 1896. This time the Ethiopians were heavily defeated. Emperor Haile Selassie went into exile in England.
When Hitler came into office in 1933 Germany under the Weimar Republic constitution was virtually ungovernable.
Germany’s constitution was said to be the most democratic in the world. But millions of Germans were unemployed, the government of the time was completely at a loss what to do. When Hitler came into power within two or three years unemployment had been wiped out. The Germans shouted, “Hitler, Hitler.”
As he went on successfully reclaiming portions of land from neighbouring countries the Germans shouted even higher “Hail Hitler”. When he attacked Poland, France and Britain declared wars on German, on 3rd September 1939, the Second World War had started.
There is often a dilemma: a weak, incompetent leader or a dictator who gets things done but eventually plunges the country into greater troubles.
Dilemas of a different sort are facing the rulers of Europe and North America especially the United States. They believe in human rights and extending such rights even to immigrants who seek asylum. They are now reaping terrible harvests of their liberalism. Both in France and the United States supporters of the Islamic State movement have staged suicide bomb attacks resulting in heavy losses of life.
In both countries reactionary and populist political parties are gaining ground demanding closure of all borders to Moslem immigrants from any part of the world. Is this fair?
In Nigeria Boko Haram has been using women wearing the Hijab to stage suicide bombs.
Heavy casualties have been incurred. President Mohammed Buhari has banned the wearing of the Hijab, something that has naturally angered Muslim fundamentalists. Chad and Niger ordered the ban earlier. The Hijab of course satisfies certain sects of Muslim faith but then the privilege is being abused.
In Mombasa, Kenya, members of the Al-Shabab stored their arms in mosques.
When the government was tipped of this, it sent soldiers who invaded the mosques.
Holy places had been profaned. But which was the greater evil, storing guns there or soldiers invading the mosques?
Leave a Reply