The ‘polis’ of ‘politics’ is the original root word deployed for Athenian ideals and ideas about rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. The same ideal is called democracy today.
Athenian democracy developed around the fifth century BC in the Greek city-state (which was known as a polis) of Athens, comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, and is the first known democracy in the world.
Therefore, politics, policies, and policing are all three words which carry the same root and related meanings of our modern appreciation of democratic states and their inherent processes. Politics includes all processes for the acquisition of legitimate power to rule; and the consequent opportunity to govern the entire geography.Trump now rules.
Policies are the guiding philosophies, whether documented and non-documented, which become guiding parameters but usually set the direction for the governance by the leadership.
Policing is the executive authority deployed to ensure the direction set is therefore adhered to. Most distinctly, criminal conduct (against the state) in any democracy is closely monitored and policed through a singular authority with specific provisions to ensure compliance through prosecution and punishment.
Most democratic polities establish a policing force and capability but my important question is: can/should this include ‘moral policing’ or should/must it only be restricted to criminal policing? What then is the difference between a criminal offence and a moral offence in any modern society?
Can or should there be in any modern democratic nation-state which subsumes and redefines personal or private violations as they are offences against the nation-state?
I have often asked the question, if the air we breathe can be repainted any other colour at our whim or fancy? For example, under Abdul Hadi Awang’s Act 355 amendments which define Muslim-specific criminal conduct, there is an attempt to overlap and override with Federal Criminal codes. Is that a good intention?
How is that any different than ‘policing as practised by the Israeli state?’ How is that any different than the former compulsory one-child policy of the Chinese state? Or is that not what Donald Trump is doing vide his ‘so-called Muslim ban’; of Muslims from the seven countries identified?
Is not the root question then, at which point in one’s thinking, or heart-felt concern, does it become wrong to consider or ponder thoughts that are different than those of the state? Is that also not the same issue or concern with Trump’s so-called Muslim ban?
He genuinely believes and thinks he can “order away” hate and bitterness that radical Muslims feel about some in the West who hold an entirely different worldview and philosophy of life. My suggestion to him is rather that he should start by looking at himself in the mirror.
Bigotry is always an inherent worldview that demeans or makes false assumptions about someone else as a lesser human being simply because they are different from one. If there are radical Muslims out there in Syria and the six other countries; it is fairly safe to assume that these same ‘extremists’ will also exist in all other congregations within the US. One cannot dictate morality.
Where then do we start?
Human dignity of every person in the world is always a good starting point. Nevertheless, we are all aware that, even children by age of two, begin to show and demonstrate their personal independence of thought and action.
Is it then any wonder that this age of human development is called the ‘terrible twos’? Both parents and grandparents may not quite understand what is really happening in the heart and head of the two-year-old.
As I have written previously, nevertheless, children even at this tender age need to know that there are boundaries which cannot be crossed. These lines when not learned earlier, later in life become state-drawn lines of criminal conduct. One crosses it at one’s own peril.
Nevertheless, is there not always also the need to allow for some personal and social space for every human being in private areas and arenas? Do we not all need some private and personal psychological or spiritual space for both; contemplation and resolution of issues and concerns?
What is that space called and how can we agree, or agree to disagree about which of that space belongs to the state and which belongs to private personal and family space? Is not also such community space different from that of the state? What or how do we come to a resolution about these matters?
Do not modern politics, policies, and enforcement the police of criminal demeanours declare where that role of the state begins and where private personal space ends? Can we now therefore allow so-called ‘moral police’ who are not criminal enforcement authorities to begin to assume an unsanctioned and illegal role within those private spaces?
Whether in the USA under Donald Trump or Malaysia under the current Barisan Nasional regime; where that personal and social space begins and ends will remain a key issue for debate and dialogue. This is not an issue which can be “dictated into compliance”.
Whether in the USA or in Malaysia, simply because we have each inherited a “process for politics” which has already been predefined in the Federal Constitution; is that not the sole beacon of light for growing and shaping our democratic culture of governance and personal spaces?
I rest my case.
Last week: ‘Bogus Potus’ – Part I
