OpEdNews Op Eds

A People's Forum: Debating Among Ourselves, First

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (2 fans)

I must be experiencing “cognitive dissonance” with our peaceful revolutionary leaders.  If we agree that “government IS the problem” then why do we bother even talking to them?  Why debate them, why respond to them, why acknowledge them?  They cannot prove they were elected, and we can prove they do not vote in accordance with the majority of the populace (92% Zogby poll on transparent vote counting; 19% approval rating of Congress, etc.) 

Since the government so clearly and consistently ignores us, why not ignore them?  Isn’t it premature to meet with them now, before the bulk of the people have decided how to proceed? If we agree that secret vote counts (as conducted on machines) are anathema to democracy, and we believe in democracy, then why do we vote?  Doesn’t that legitimize secret vote counting? 

If we agree that hand-counted paper ballots, without media reform, without an informed electorate, without viable choices on the ballot who represent the interests and concerns of the people, are irrelevant, then why do we continue to vote?  Doesn't that legitimize illegitimate elections?

Are we not long past time to withdraw our consent? Isn’t it long past time to withhold our taxes? To withhold our vote? To withhold our attention from elites? 

I’ve been reading Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed; Pedagogy of Hope; Pedagogy of Freedom), George Monbiot’s Age of Consent: Manifesto for a New World Order; and both volumes of Derrick Jensen’s Endgame.  I am desperate to find winnable strategies to implement democracy and take back our world from the rich (whose social and environmental practices look insane, to me). 

Freire thinks we should start at the bottom – not the top.  Engage in dialogue with the oppressed, and move forward at THEIR level of awareness.  Here’s how he puts it: “Leaders cannot treat the oppressed as mere activists to be denied the opportunity of reflection and allowed merely the illusion of acting, whereas in fact they would continue to be manipulated – and in this case by the presumed foes of manipulation.” 

Isaiah Berlin agrees: "But to manipulate (people), to propel them toward goals which you -- the social reformers -- see, but they may not, is to deny their human essence, to treat them as objects without wills of their own, and therefore to degrade them." Source: Two Concepts of Liberty, 1958 (thanks to Tom Feeley for the quote.)

Freire characterizers our would-be revolutionary leaders who would develop the platform of change without our input and consent as merely asking us to exchange one set of oppressive rulers for another.  He believes that when we use the tools of oppression – in this case manipulation thru “sloganizing” – we are oppressors.  We are what we do. 

And while I agree with Derrick Jensen's 20 Premises, his solution to dismantle civilization's infrastructures will only aid the rich in sweeping the poor off the planet.  His "endgame" strategy will only heighten the suffering of the vast majority of oppressed peoples, at least in the industrialized nations.  Still, his tome is well worth the read.

Monbiot, interestingly, does not believe that localization will lead to a successful revolution. Instead, he argues that a global world parliament (similar to the World Social Forum, and to the US Social Forum in Atlanta this weekend) will be what leads us to victory.  He makes a strong case.  The basic premise of his argument is world government by elites is a given – whether we like it or not. Our only hope, then, is to develop a people’s forum that holds global government to account. 

But all agree that the oppressed (including nature) must be given voice.  While our revolutionary leaders are off in the halls of power debating, cajoling, discussing with elites, the oppressed continue to be ignored.   

My question goes to this.  How do we engage the populace?  Isn’t that where our strength really lies?  What would get those teens at the public library to read our blogs, to post their own, to posit their own solutions, instead of playing video games on library computers?   

What would make 20-somethings more interested in social justice?  In fair elections?  In peace and a living wage, or universal health care? 

I agree with Digby that bloggers are part of a revolutionary participatory democracy. I see journalists as recording history according to elites, and bloggers as recording history according to the people. But obviously, we cannot limit ourselves to the internet – where only a small fraction participates.  

Do we follow Che Guevara’s (and Paulo Freire’s) example and travel from town to town in dialogue with the oppressed?  My experience with this is that without offering an alternative that seems reasonable to the people, they don’t even want to talk about the sorry state of affairs.   

Where we do agree is that before we can have a meeting of the minds between social justice activists and elites, we must first have a meeting of the minds among ourselves. 

Next Page  1  |  2

 

In 2004, Rady Ananda joined the growing community of citizen journalists. Initially focused on elections, she investigated the 2004 Ohio election, organizing, training and leading several forays into counties to photograph the 2004 ballots. She officially served at three recounts, including the 2004 recount. She also organized and led the team that audited Franklin County Ohio's 2006 election, proving the number of voter signatures did not match official results. Her work appears in three books.

Her blogs also address religious, gender, sexual and racial equality, as well as environmental issues; and are sprinkled with book and film reviews on various topics. She spent most of her working life as a researcher or investigator for private lawyers, and five years as an editor.

She graduated from The Ohio State University's School of Agriculture in December 2003 with a B.S. in Natural Resources.

All material offered here is the property of Rady Ananda, copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. Permission is granted to repost, with proper attribution including the original link.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." Tell the truth anyway.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

this resonates with me. put the unity back in com... by Dave Berman on Friday, Jun 29, 2007 at 10:46:41 PM
This is probably a good piece, reflecting quite im... by Sah Bittu on Monday, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:00:05 AM

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend


Copyright © 2002-2014, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum