“No one is born a good citizen; no nation is born a democracy. Rather, both
are processes that continue to evolve over a lifetime. Young people must be
included from birth. A society that cuts itself off from its youth severs its lifeline;
it is condemned to bleed to death.” said Koffi Annan, Former Secretary-General of the United Nations.
I think it’s the short answer of the question B. No one born with democratic morals, respect to other people or ideology. People learn that values after they born. And people can not learn all of these values in exact time. Person can learn democracy when he/she is 10 or person can not learn the democracy during his/her lifetime.
“Interaction” is one of the key term of “learning process”. If you interact with many other people, with different ideology, if you contact with people who has different cultures you may effect the other people and also effected by them. Effected by someone could not be that bad, when you learn to be a rational. No one can learn that complex stuff by his/her own. You may not change other people, but you can change with them. That learning process could take decade(s) and it could even not completed when you about to die. And you can not be “all alone” during that process. There is a risk that skid between ideas (or ideologies) but “rational thought” could be the solution.
Competition is very much involved in “modern politics” Even same ideas fight scrap with each other for their benefits. Most famous one of this “competetive system” is in America I guess. American politicians have ideologies but they generally work for their power. They can lie, they can manipulate, they can supplant, if they are going to win. It’s so pragmatical and also individualistic.There is a common discussion that “Which one is more important? Consequence or they way you reach consequence” In American system consequence is almost everything,when you win, no one is going to crictise your way. But I think, neither consequence nor the way you reach consequence can be important all alone. Consequence is important because you choose that target but also they way you reach consequence could be similiar importance. I think you shouldn’t say like “Every one manipulates someone, so do I” If you agree with “Manipulation is bad stuff” opinion, you shouldn’t manipulate people. (Manipulation is just example for explaining my opinion)
In summary, I am both agree and disagree with those three claims. If someone say “you must try to persuade and change other people” should I understand “I will manipulate people for my ideology” or “I have idea system that makes both happy, we can use it” If it’s about manipulating I’m totally disagree but it’s about idea system I’m agree with that. Also, “if you change yourself, you change the world” is about “change yourself and do nothing more, don’t tell the people what you are thinking” I’m disagree with that but it’s like “When you change yourself, you can change your enviroment” I’m agree with that. Finally, there could be competition but it shouldn’t be just election competition and it’s not about “come to power” It should be like “We can all hapy with my ideology and I will prove it” If we are back to square one, it’s both what you say and how you do it.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder