|
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 Serfdom Heritage” by an
eminent Egyptian author.
Apathy and the herd
mentality:
I tend to believe 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.
|