Did we lose something bigger in 2004 than the election? This thought has been nagging me a lot recently as I work with various people gearing up for the 2006 elections. Leading up to 2004, there were so many people who had been told that they have the power, that they could go out act on their own without asking permission from some campaign, and it would make a difference. I went ahead and organized a flash mob 3000 miles from my house.
…(read more)…
As for me, I’ll learn what I can from media consultants, I’ll see if I can teach them a little about the beauty of chaotic online chatter and then I’ll go out and say what I feel, and part of what I feel right now is a longing for people that embrace Will Roger’s style of being a Democrat.

Or is it an oxymoron?

Clearly, a democracy for, of and by corporations is an oxymoron.

How can we understand the Bush administration’s use of security agencies for internal spying, as well as the powers and rights they claim for the executive branch to create and enforce laws as they see fit, independent of the checks and balances of the other branches of government? One analysis is that it is an unintended result of their corporate view of the people as passive consumers, objects to be manipulated in an ethics free marketing zone, not as active citizens with Constitutional Rights. This view of the American people may be the consequence of a culture in the late stages of mass market consumerism.

The dominant market culture’s view of the people as fundamentally one dimensional consumers, not citizens, is also, sadly, deeply ingrained in the Democratic party as well. During the Clinton administration, the “Re-inventing Government” project focused on service to the “customer” [consumer].

Words matter. In the above analysis, the word “consumer” suggests a notion of a person reduced to the impoverished status of an passive and objectified target to be manipulated for power and profit. Targets clearly have less power, in any form, than the “shooters”. Further, such a view can create a relatively ethics free zone with respect to how that object is treated. Objects without power are ideal for an economy too dependent on mass market consumerism. Without the power of real choice, they are much more easily stimulated to behave as desired. In the end, how can a dynamic democracy be sustained and vigilantly maintained by passive targets?

Dr. Farooq Hassan [1]

Synopsis of a presentation given to
The Medford Democratic Meetup
Medford, MA at Lino Avellani’s
11 January, 2006.

I am very privileged to address this highly intellectual component of the Democratic Party to speak on a subject that is of immense concern to people. I will articulate tonight some thoughts on the future of democracies. I fear, despite the recent two “wars for democracies”, this new millennium does not auger too well for the concept of representative governments. This is not only manifestly evident from even a glimpse of the basic international realities that confront us presently, there is also much doctrine and history behind this phenomenon as well. This state of affairs, to my mind, is most visible in those communities that have a diverse composite character.

Dr. Farooq Hassan [1]

Brief thematic synopsis of Address given to
The Center for Society & Secularism, the Vikas Adhyayan Kendra and to
Pius College Seminary, Mumbai 29 October 2005

Religion has been a dominant factor in determining the history of the people’s of South Asia. It still continues to be the case. Today this region has several countries representing a diversity of faiths. Out of these countries, Pakistan was created, at least in an historical context, on the solitary basis of religion. Yet, despite this fact pertaining to the doctrinaire basis of the country in 1971, it was torn asunder by the political aspirations of the people of East Pakistan. At the same time, India, the world’s largest successful democracy, has had to face up to this phenomenon numerous times – sometimes with tragic consequences. More recently, even in Bangladesh, created on solid secular foundations, there are signs of emergent nuances of Islamic extremism.

At times it is very hard to distinguish between seemingly ethnic conflicts and more deeply held religious controversies. Generally, the minorities have had to face the brunt of unpleasant implications. But this is not invariable. Both in India and Pakistan, Hindus and Muslims have respectively suffered the effects of sectarian turmoil at the hands of their own followers of the same faith. A question thus naturally arises: does religion assume a secondary role of importance if political necessities of a given time, as perceived, are considered more urgent for redressal even at its expense? This realization is based on empiricism. Effects of far reaching significance affecting the geo-strategic realities of this region have been witnessed to occur presumably on such a foundation. Or, conversely, is the real question that religion is primarily used initially as a cloak or cover for wider political aspirations of the “relevant” people? If it is indeed so, then the enormity of the dynamics of the religion factor is evident. In sum, whether or not religion per se is the initiator of change, it continues be to a major matter propelling alterations of the status quo.

Recently aspects of competition and cooperation as it exists in our media, in our politics and in our daily lives keep recurring in discussions I’m in. I think this is a very important part of the political dynamic that should be explored.
…
We can argue whether the structure of broadcast media contributed to the rising individualism or if the structure of the web will be instrumental in moving us back towards being a more cooperative society. However, I believe that the message of cooperation is going to be an important part of the political dialog over the next few years and those who can demonstrate their commitment to the idea that “we’re all in this together” will end up having a great effect on the political dialog.