Are Modes of Resistance Different in Democracies than in Monarchies - Essay Example

Political Theory: Are modes of resistance different in democracies than in monarchies? Why or why not? Resistance and dissent against established institutions have proven to be difficult throughout the history of organized societies. Even today, many parts of the world languish under the rule of autocrats, plutocrats and oligarchs, where opposition to authority is silenced by coercion or crushed by force. Even in the so-called democratic countries there have been political prisoners and radical rebels who are pressured in so many different ways to abide by the will of the ruling elite. For all its claims to be the ‘land of the free’, the United States had passed draconian laws under the PATRIOT Act, to take away hard won civil liberties from the general public. In effect the Bush Administration took advantage of the psychological fears of the general public in the aftermath of the 911 terror strikes and created a legal atmosphere that stifled dissident voices and undermined legitimate resistance campaigns. But when we look at the history of human civilization, those in authority had always disliked resistance to their authority. Going back two millennia, we see in the real life of Socrates and the mythological one of Antigone, characters who ultimately succumb to the power of their rulers. Socrates lived during the 5th century A.D., nearly nine hundred years after the demise of Antigone. During Socrates’ lifetime the prominent city of Athens was noted for its democratic institutions. Long before modern democracies took centre stage, Athens was a model city-state that implemented democratic practices and granted its citizens several rights and liberties. The setting of Antigone is quite different though. The legend of Antigone comes to us through the interpretations of several playwrights, both old and recent. One such popular version of the play is scripted by Sophocles, who sets the play in Athens that was still ruled by monarchy. Though the series of events on which the plot is founded -- the determination of Antigone to submit her life rather than forgo her customary duties appeals less forcibly to contemporary than to ancient sentiment, yet the general thrust of the play, the conflict between man-made civil law and the self-evident rights of the individual, is one of universal and profound importance. With the tragic death of Antigone toward the end, the play lends itself to further reflection and analysis regarding the socio-political context in which the event takes place. Should Antigone, it is asked, be regarded as an innocent victim of her social class or a victim of unexpected circumstances? Are Creon and Antigone both deserving of their fate, the one for his disrespect for the divine laws, the other for her courage to defy established order? What we realize is that the issue of state authority verses the scope of individual expression has been evident from the pre-Christian society of Antigone to the democratic Athens of Socrates to contemporary liberal-democratic nations. Furthermore, it is clear from Antigone’s interactions with Creon that she believed that human beings are endowed with inalienable rights and that the man-made laws that prevailed in Athens were secondary to it. Even when Antigone was informed of her impending fate, she refused to abandon her strongly held beliefs and as a consequence facilitated her own death. One can see the similarities between the deaths of Antigone and Socrates. Socrates believed that a commitment to moral reasoning is an essential condition of a well-lived life. An individual should base his actions upon the outcomes of such internal dialogues. The exercise of self-examination and introspection as a way of arriving at moral truths is of paramount importance to Socrates. So much so that he unequivocally declared that “an unexamined life is not worth living”. This commitment to truth by way of rational, critical enquiry would eventually cost Socrates his life. But, even when in sight of his impending death, Socrates calmly reasoned with his friends and supporters that accepting the judgment of the state is to follow the moral course of action and he refused to escape into exile. Socrates was brought to trial by the democratic Athenian jury, which had scores to settle with prominent members of the previous regime. Socrates’ association with the previous regime made him a target of persecution, irrespective of the validity of the alleged charges. He was accused of undermining religious and state authority and for also corrupting the minds of Athenians. But in reality, Socrates made no deliberate attempts to bring down the religious, state authorities. Instead, he encouraged his students to adopt a critical approach to moral actions, also suggesting that the Athenian rulers themselves are not exempt from such scrutiny. Socrates lived during 5th century A.D. Fifteen hundred years later, there are pockets in contemporary world that have remained backward for ages. An obvious example is the Islamic world, wherein some states are strict theocracies with no refuge for dissenting opinion. In the more progressive and liberal democracies of Western Europe and North America, the situation is markedly different, with a whole array of civil rights offered to citizens. This includes the right to “freedom of speech” as well – a right that was not available to Socrates and Antigone. While there is no doubt that modern democracies offer their citizens rights and privileges that were unknown of before, dissidents still don’t find it easy to get their views across. To cite an example from present times, it is fair to say that those from far left of the political spectrum face plenty of hostility from the mainstream establishment. Noam Chomsky, the linguist and political activist based in Masachussets Institute of Technology, Boston, attracts wrath from mainstream polity for his critical assessments of American foreign policy. The mainstream media and political institutions simply ignore his analyses and proposals for remedy. While it is true that dissidents such as Noam Chomsky cannot be prosecuted for charges of sedition, their role in public life is nevertheless subdued and marginal. It is an acknowledged fact that the religious right in American polity also owns and runs a majority of media houses. They thereby control the editorial stances on various public issues. Only those opinions and views that get through their filters get published. It is true that the challenges faced by people such as Noam Chomsky is not as grave as the life or death situation confronted by Socrates or Antigone. But it does point out that modern liberal democracies are far from ideal and utopian. There is still progress to be made in terms of fulfilling Socrates’ notion of living an “examined life”, which would allow citizens of a state to critically examine their state and its wielding of authority. In conclusion, it is fair to state that contemporary liberal-democratic societies offer more protections and privileges for its citizens than what Socrates or Antigone could avail. As the example of radical dissident opinion in the US political discourse shows, human civilization has indeed progressed from the days of Socrates. But it should be remembered that the United States is only the most illustrious example. The world of today is comprised of a diverse range of nations, each with its own cultural, economic and political configuration. Some of these nations have not progressed beyond the status of 5th century Athens; some others in Sub-Saharan Africa have barely stepped out of Stone Age mode of living. Indeed, it is fair to say that for much of the human population today, survival on a day-to-day basis is a paramount challenge. In these backward regions the task of resisting dominant institutions for fundamental rights of individuals and the right to live a dignified life is an onerous and an almost impossible task. But there is no doubt that the world would be better-off if all people could enjoy the rights, privileges and civil liberties that we in modern liberal-democracies seem to take for granted. Read More