If Obama were to announce tomorrow morning that women would no longer be allowed to drive in the United States, I suspect that it would not just be Republicans painting Hitler mustaches on the President’s face. Yet to the 27 million residents of Saudi Arabia, such a law has become an acceptable piece of infallible legislation. While we may deem Hugo Chavez an out of control socialist and label Khamenei as a crazy old man, these leaders are not in fact crying out for psychiatric care, but rather exercising their power within a delicate range they have found to be acceptable within their territories. Supreme leaders are not stupid, but rather sly creatures with heightened political instincts that allow them to test the extent of their power. There are undoubtedly social norms and expectations within each nation, but rather than limit the power of a government, these unofficial codes are most commonly set by the nation’s administration. The United States was formed as a representative democracy, thus leading our population to feel entitled to certain rights as American citizens; however, the people of Nigeria have come to accept the corruption and human rights violations that exist under the Jonathan regime. Why? Because this is all they know, and all Nigeria has ever shown them. Consider the Islamic Republic of Iran: Prior to 1979, the Shah ran a somewhat democratic operation under the watchful eye of the United States. Once Khomeini entered and seized control, democracy was thrown out of Iran, and this charismatic leader warped societal norms and crippled previous expectations. The West can mock the Ayatollah all it wants, but his cunning disposition and manipulative powers cannot be denied.
Unfortunately, this manipulation often goes unnoticed. I never like to assume, but I would consider it a fair assumption to state that American citizens feel as though they are entitled to a certain level of privacy, and that it is a societal norm to not have the government meddling in your personal affairs. Yet In recent US history, the PATRIOT Act of the Bush (or shall I say Cheney) Administration seems to have trampled that assumption. Perhaps these cunning leaders, with their use of fear tactics and hot button phrases like “national security,” manipulated society’s expectations to advance an agenda…all within the established and tested delicate range. After all, even Bush wasn’t dumb enough to take away a woman’s right to motor vehicles. They are well aware of just how far they can push our norms.
Yet sometimes leaders go to far. Green movements arise in a not so stable Iran, and history has shown us the ramifications of a leader acting outside of the acceptable range of power abuse. For the Che has spoken, and “against brute force and injustice, the people will have the last word – that of victory.”
I think you bring up an interesting point about what is considered normal in other countries. In many situations around the world, people are perfectly happy, or at least content to the point where they will not rebel, with their current societal norms. In many cases I think this is because it is what they are used to. American democracy and other aspects of western society frighten them. Change is not something everyone is prepared for and many people fear it. I think its overly cynical to say that leaders manipulate society using the norms that are in place because I think leaders are a product of their society as well. We are all receptive to the environment around us and we act accordingly. This goes for people and government. It is almost a subconscious process that occurs within our psyche.
ReplyDelete