When unacceptable is said out loud
Madam,
,ssues in an authoritarian society are rather different than in a democratic order but lead to a similar Tuestion. :hat happens when the unacceptable is said out loud" :hat does that really signify in both a democratic order and an authoritarian state"
,t is clear from the original invasion map of Ukraine that Russia¶s plan was a Tuick absorption of the areas that were already destabilised since with a rapid strike on the capital to effect regime change.
+ad the km long convoy target ing .yiv and the attempt at estab lishing a base at Antonov Airport in +ostomel reached their targets and had =elenskiy fled, Russia would have taken Ukraine at low cost.
FASCISM
Putin would have vastly increased his prestige among Russian nation alists, hero worshipping white su premacists in the :est and, ironically, those on the left who have not seen through his fascism.
,n short, his plan was to erase Ukraine as a separate entity and com plete the Russification project started under 6talin, nullifying centuries of Ukrainian culture and history.
The reality turned out differently: Ukraine resisted far more effectively than almost everyone e[pected and Russia is locked into an e[pensive war that it cannot win e[cept by radically rewriting its goals every time Ukraine has a significant break through.
0eanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Russians have fled the country to avoid being drafted into the war. 6ad ly, much of the negative commentary about the war from Russians that , see on social media is about how they are ill trained, ill eTuipped, ill supplied and ill led.
, do not see much about how wrong the war is. Ukrainians are referred to by derogatory ethnic slurs. There is plenty evidence that Putin and his supporters in Russia do not see Ukraine as a valid country or culture and its occupants must either accept being Russian or cease to e[ist.
RESULT
That the Ukrainians disagree and are prepared to fight hard for their right to e[ist should result in a correction. %ut it doesn¶t an authoritarian ruler never admits fault. Perhaps at some point, Russian losses will result in an attitude change and mass protests. ,f this happens, e[pect it to be sudden.
0eanwhile, ,ran is facing protests that are escalating despite good rea son to fear an authoritarian crack down. ,ran has a sorry tradition of denying women the most basic rights based on the e[cuse of 6haria law. There are ,slamic scholars who argue that this interpretation of 6haria law is based on selective reading and failing to reinterpret based on mod ern understanding. ,n their opinion, patriarchy and misogyny are being used to filter 6haria law to favour a particular worldview.
AUTHORITY
+owever, that is not the real issue. The real issue is that ,ran is an au thoritarian 6tate so once this sort of reading of the law, whatever its ori gins may be, is set, it is impossible to challenge. Theocracy is a particularly hard form of authoritarian governance to dislodge because theocratic despots claim divine authority.
,n Russia, it is a little the other way around: Putin has appropriated the Russian 2rthodo[ &hurch to justify his worldview. Another facet of authoritarian governments is that they can maintain the appearance of tranTuillity and consent for a long time as everyone who is discontent keeps this to themselves.
:hen, suddenly, the dam bursts, the change can be dramatic and fast. 6ometimes such change can be too fast and leaves the would be revo lutionaries unable to control events. That was a freTuent occurrence in Arab 6pring movements. The nature of interior dialogue is an interesting conundrum wherever free speech is suppressed, but is also an issue when social norms damp down certain lan guage or where free speech is limited in justifiable ways like prohibiting hate speech.
:hat makes change sudden is changing the view that thoughts are not shared by others. 6uddenly discovering that they are shared can grow like wildfire – or go viral. Lan guage matters words can hurt and can be amplified to trigger major social movements, whether for the good or for the bad.
REGIMES
)or reactionary regimes, language that causes harm to the other is often tolerated or even encouraged, such as the dehumanising labelling of Ukrain ians though to be fair, Ukraine sup porters often label Russians as µorcs¶ .
Progressives attempt to suppress such harmful language. %ut what is often missing on the left is under standing what causes the impulse to use harmful language. An authoritar ian regime may see µharmful¶ as an ything that undermines its authority. ,n a democratic order, citi]ens have a right, sometimes a duty, to disrespect authority. %ut disrespecting the vul nerable is not the same thing, even if the psychology of suppressing what should not be said is similar.
The biggest difference is that in a democratic order, unacceptable views can and should be addressed openly. ,f someone has harmful or derogatory views of others, silencing those views is not enough.
Philip
his partner¶s name and the case number it was received for.
,n so doing, should anything happen to him before delivering the money, no one would dispute the amount and for whom it was intended.
Although it sounds trivial, this practice earned him huge respect among his people and in the legal fraternity.
:e should make it our mission to live in such a way that the word µhonest¶ sounds right when placed in front of our names.
³:hatever things are of good report, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, what ever things are praiseworthy, we must think of these virtues,´ so says the %ible.
Samuel Radebe