May 30, 2008 § 2 Comments
These are some of the “human temptations”/patterns I found on a journey discovering why revolutions have failed to create a “more fully humane” world (until now).
- Making promises or taking actions which may sound good at the time, but which may in the long-run only support “there can only be one” leaders (in the present or near future). More detailed: The making of excessive and undeliverable promises in efforts to get support during the struggle of group chaos, promises which later cannot be kept can lead to disillusionment and even longing for a return of “strong” leaders.
- When people in a group have conflicting (world)views, instead of agreeing to disagree, people can use incongruent stances. This choice for using incongruent stances can lead either to (1) defeat of a more fully humane movement or (2) a new leadership by a rather militant “more fully humane subgroup” or a coup d’état clique.
- Ignoring issues of social (in)justice (economic, racial, gender, …). The lack of attention to social justice within a group often leaves that issue to leaders and hands them important supporters, which are lost to the more fully humane forces, and who subsequently can feel betrayed by the “projected leaders”, if and when these fail to address a social injustice important to them. This is definitely a killer.
- Idolizing a leader, who may as a result, become a target for political assassination or corruption efforts, thereby weakening the group’s more fully humane’s practice and integration phase, on which successfully reaching a new more fully humane status quo depends.
- Being content with patterns of reaction to a leaders’ transforming idea. This condemns a group to weakness and ineffectiveness, and fails to seize the transforming idea with careful action based on a wise strategy which the group together develops for that context.
- More fully humane leaders may sometimes be tempted themselves to violate more fully humane “standards”, supposedly to increase their own effectiveness (or material gain). The results can be tragic.
- Ignoring the potential for a coup d’état conducted either to pre-empt chaos or to seize control of a group when a leader collapses is a major mistake. A group which has ignored this potential and failed to prepare to resist a coup d’état if and when it comes, may find that it faces a new less humane leadership, potentially worse then in the old status quo, and one more difficult to resist.
- When less humane leadership collapses, especially laissez-faire supporters may fail to institutionalize more fully humane thinking and may flounder in integration and practice. The result may be to discredit “more fully humane”, to create a longing for the “good old days” under the “strong pyramidical leadership”, and to open the door for acceptance of a new “strong leader“.
- June 20th – Anniversary of Iranian Islamic Republic’s Massacre (porkupineblog.blogspot.com)
- An American Coup D’état – First World Nation Style (disquietreservations.blogspot.com)
- Venezuela opposition slams “coup d’etat” by Chavez (reuters.com)
- Book Review: When Everything Has Fallen by Nathalia Zongo (blogcritics.org)
- Egypt’s generals take up an unfamiliar trade (theglobeandmail.com)
- Iran Completes Takeover of Lebanon (legalinsurrection.blogspot.com)
- Democratization and its Discontents (africaunchained.blogspot.com)
- Call it What it is: A Military Coup in Egypt (outsidethebeltway.com)
[…] rune is said to be a pictorial representation of an elk. Elk have massive antlers making it easy to assign significance of it being a protection […]
[…] A plurality voting system usually leads to a two-party system (the centi-kilo and lesser murderers), a relationship described by Maurice Duverger and known as Duverger’s Law. And can easily drop back to the one-party dominant system. […]