Democracy. The crossroads we face

Democracy is a beautiful ideology. but can it really work for all?

   From the beginning of the civil rights movement after the death of Emmett Till in 1955 to the most recent events in India to ensure the protection and equality for women in India after the rape and murder of medical student Jyoti Singh in 2012, the movement towards an equal and fair treating world has seen many changes which continue to this very day. Although these changes may be seen as both obvious and sensible, the rate of these changes shows much resistance to change from the conservative world. However, we have now reached the equilibrium in many societies that we must choose which side we want to be on. Should we truly consider all views as a true democracy should, even if these views prevent this very movement itself?

 

   The implications of Islam in democracy have proved to be very difficult in the past, and continue to cause separation and debate even in recent years. The publication of the Satanic Verse, one of the most infamous of the critics of the Islamic world, was first released in 1988 and dared to question the fundamentals of the Islamic faith, including the purity of the prophet Mohammed. The book caused outraged throughout the Islamic community, including the placement of a bounty on the head of the writer, Salmon Rushdie. Though the implement of all followers of Islam as violent and homicidal is a view that is both false and frivolous. However, the implication that a simple book is an assault, as if it was an actual attack on the follows of the faith it questions is surreal. Surely there must be some inclusion of those who, although may not believe that any writer should be killed, to even believe that someone must face prosecution for even raising questions about a faith, can they really say they support democracy? Democracy must choose its side on matters such as freedom of speech. Most believe that to encourage this gives the right for people to use language that includes racism, islamophobia and other forms of discrimination, which is a statement which contains much falseness. However, all communities must be free to be questioned.

   This is not the only example in which democracy has been divided amongst its followers. The world was shocked by the attacks on the office of Charlie Hebdo in 2015 by two brothers, Said and Cherif Kouachi, both radicalised by the fundamentalist Islamic group Al-Qaeda, in which the question of what can be published came into question once again, with the image of Muhammad being used for comedic purpose came into question. The satirical cartoonist had used all religious figures and world leaders in the past in its black and surreal humour. Has Islam become a group that simply cannot be part of the joke? Is it so feeble that it must be protected at all cost? After the killing, the phrase “Je Suis Charlie” became a worldwide movement and became a symbol of freedom, similar to the iconic image of the raising of the American flag during the campaign in Iwo Jima in February 1945.  This motion was met by the equally powerful phrase “Je Suis Muslim”, as many of the Islamic community felt outrage that this paper would receive any sympathy for what they saw as islamophobia and mockery of their prophet. People all over the world have discussed what can be deemed as offensive. Maybe the cartoonist had over-stepped in many people’s eyes. But, is this not an indication that the idea that, even with the murder of innocent people, Islam must be protected at all cost and cannot even be question and mocked like all others? It should also be noted that, although the Quran does not specific talk about the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, there are hadith that protest against the drawing of the prophet. Therefore, should Islam’s supplemental teaching not come into question? Is that not one of the fundimentals of democracy, to question everything?

   There are many ideologies within human history. All of them contain a dark past, and must be questioned and analysed with the same level of precision. The Catholic church, one of the most powerful religious sects in the eyes of believers and followers, has caused much damaged to the progress of democracy as much as any other. The subject of suicide has been continually seen as a grave sin; with it being classed a sin of violence, specifically violence against oneself. Although they may have tried to change their stance on the matter, Paragraph 2283 of the Catechism contains the line “God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance.” Many people in the democratic world would believe that those with mental illness or those who may have reached the lowest they possibly can should receive help to aide them out of the darkness. With this quote, the Catholic Church has implied that suicide is a thought that must be seen as that of murder, as shown in Dante Alighieri “The Divine Comedy”, in which the circle of violence against oneself isplaced the same as those who would murder their fellow man. Those who believe in democracy surely should be outraged by this motion, should they not? To punish those who feel they have no hope should be brought into question, but some would see this as a form of discrimination and imposing hatred onto those who follow the Catholic church without question, like mindless puppets, with the Pope as the puppet master. Also, the Catholic Church has always deemed the Pope as the representative of God on Earth, and thus be given a great palace in which to watch over its people. This is most commonly known on the Vatican, and has been seen as an architectural masterpiece. As a representative of God, why must this palace, built by the people for their pseudo master, be used by those who are within the churches circle?do the poor not equally deserve the chance to have a life of luxury and tranquillity within its walls? Is that not what the bible teaches, or must freedom of speech learn its place for those with power?

   The Catholic Church has also seen its ability to create false heroes be exploited to make a profit. Mother Teresa, a simple nun from Albania, has become a symbol of the poor by exploiting them at the same time. Her movement to India in 1948 and the eventual opening of her “Home for the Dying” in 1952 was the beginning of her story. With the opening of the hospital, it was clear that this house of the dying had in no way been set up with the promises the future Mother had pledged. The photos of the dying laying on the floor, with no sheets, a poor excuse of a mattress, all crammed into small rooms, one can only describe similar to those found in concentration camps. There was also an evident lack of knowledge amongst the missionaries. One clear example would be the idea of sanitation, in which when asked why needles were not being correctly sterilised in hot water, the sisters would croak that there was no point. There is some who would believe that she is untouchable and that she should receive her sainthood for her work. I pray that those who believe in the power of free speech could show her for what she really was. An exploiter of the poor for her own image. But, in Democracies eyes, we must decide if we are on the side of faith or on the side of intelligence, we cannot be on both.

 

   The division within the democratic world does not always begin within religion, but also with those who are at the forefront of equality, who believe there is only one clear path. Feminists have shown great change throughout history, with Emily Davidson and her suffragettes in the early 20^th Century showing tremendous bravery in Great Britain. However, in recent years, the feminist movement has come to a crossroad. The women’s movement has shown their disapproval and great strength against the sexualisation of women in the media, and has changed the way in which the female form is seen. However, they have sometimes perplexed me in this stance. The strongest being the implication of women in pornography, stating that it depicts the women as objects and as showing women in a form that cannot be achieved and  is unrealistic. However, should this not be something that affects men too, or should they “man up”? In recent years, needle dispensers in the UK, originally set up so those who are addicted to heroin, has seen an increase in the number of men using it for steroids, a substance used in the aid of development of the users physique. The ideal physic of a broad chest and a six pack is widely known look in male adult actors, and yet feminists seem to discard it as easily achievable for men. This is not equality in which democracy calls for. Also, men can also be portrayed as weak within the adult industries, with images of men tied up and beaten to gain sexual pleasure. Is this not the objectification of men? Does this not show that men can be walked upon by women?

   There are those within the Feminist community that believe they have the right to say what makes a real woman. Most prominent is Germaine Greer, in which she has denounced transwomen and has described the procedure of expressing transwomen as they want to be perceived as a form of self-mutilation. There are those who are conservative feminists who believe that transwomen cannot be women as they cannot produce a child. But what about those who have gone through the menopause, and no longer produce eggs? Or those who may have had to have their ovaries dues to the horror of cancer?  Now democracy must choose, do they allow freedom of speech and allow what can be perceived as transphobia, or do we ban it and destroy freedom of speech? Democracy must choose. It cannot have both.

 

   Finally, political correctness has become one the last taboos in modern day society. This once great symbolism of freedom and democracy has become under threat by neo-liberalism and the over sensitive. Everyone discussed so far, from religious groups to minorities in the community, have destroyed this one great part of our society. And what has it done? It may have stopped the hypersensitive from being offended, but has prevented understanding and the development of knowledge. If I must end on one last point, it is this. Democracy can be a beautiful thing, but we must always be aware of the fact that we must be allowed to have different opinions.

Author's Note

all constructive critisism welcome