A few thoughts on national rights and duties
January 22, 2006
I don't want to say anything on the speech. Nothing new of course. But the marketing material alone deserves a response.
Apparently, grammatical errors or horrors notwithstanding, "defending Syria is national right and duty." Fair enough. Or is it? Maybe omitting the article was a Freudian slip; maybe the creator of this slogan really wanted to keep the notion vague. Is it a right? Our right? Your right?
Has the Syrian regime given Syrian citizens that right in the first place, before it imposes it as a duty? Or any other rights for that matter?
If I were to be made responsible for the survival of a project at work, I could not be totally segregated from the decision-making process. The project manager and his/her pet assistants cannot be allowed to make a mess of things and expect the team (which had been warning of impending disaster) to repair the damage when they screw up. It is doubtful that the team could even be capable of suddenly picking up the pieces. Trouble-shooters aren't always effective, especially when they weren't called in time. That is a basic Management 101 lesson. Elementary.
Likewise, if defending Syria were both my right and my duty, I would have needed some degree of power to initiate action or instigate change. At the very least, I would have needed to have the illusion of power to make me feel I mattered. Right now, the only people with such powers are those that have pushed Syria into this corner in the first place; shouldn't we rather be talking about their accountability? Their duty?
Be that as it may, to be held accountable for the country's defense, citizens need many things. They need to be living in dignity, to be well fed, well educated, well employed, well taken care of when they are ill, robbed, abused or cheated.
Citizens need some power - the power to vote in the people they believe are most capable. Citizens need to have a choice, and not have to depend on the "choice" of the Baath party (or of any other single party). Citizens need to know there is a limit (say two?) to the number of terms in which an official can hold office.
Citizens need to have the power to take action against corrupt, unjust or plain incompetent officials. Citizens need to have the power to use the media to crucify, if necessary, those who abuse their positions. Citizens need to have the power to make officials leave their posts when they digress.
Citizens need to have the power to propose changes to the laws of the country, to demand that parliamentarians reflect the wishes (nay, orders) of their respective constituencies' majority, to expect that the MPs will vote accordingly in parliament sessions, and to imagine that parliament discussions have a real effect on government.
Citizens need to know that there is a real balance between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary branches of government. Citizens need to know that the government represents them.
If citizens are to be held accountable for the defense of the country, then the ruling class will first have to be held accountable for its (mis)management. Especially when citizens didn't have a choice in the matter. So let's first talk about the regime's duties - before we even get to its rights.
