In my last post I discussed accountability or what I perceived to be as the lack thereof. In response a colleague, whose opinions I value, took issue with a statement that I made related to the event that precipitated the current ongoing and violent incursion by Israel into Gaza. Whilst I would not entirely agree with her interpretation of what I wrote, I have empathy for and understanding of her opinion. Indeed I agree with her that the history of the Middle East is such that the current events must be placed in the context of what has gone before.
Nevertheless what struck me in our brief interaction was the fact that in many situations the fixed views of opposing groups often lead to situations where the resolution of differences or conflict becomes difficult and at times appears impossible. Recently I read False Prophets1, a book authored by Nigel Ashton, which outlines what he terms the “fateful fascination of British Prime Ministers with the Middle East”, which in many ways exemplifies this challenge outlining the role played by British Prime Ministers and governments in the genesis of much of what is taking place in the Middle East today. I can recommend Ashton’s book for those have an interest in delving further into this topic.
Many of the complexities of the Middle East originated in 1915 during the First World War when the Arab territories of the Turkish Ottoman Empire were divided by Britain and France into ” proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East” in what was known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Although subsequently modified, this agreement by the then colonial European powers, lead in essence to the situation that prevails across the Middle East today. A situation that has resulted in people and societies implacably opposed to and increasingly intolerant of each other with a resolution of conflicts seemingly impossible.
I do not intend to further explore the complexities of the Middle East which many, more erudite than I, have done so extensively but rather to focus on an aspect that often frustrates agreement which is a lack of tolerance for alternative views. Tolerance is an interesting word meaning on the one hand, the ability to endure pain and hardship, but on the other, sympathy or indulgence for the beliefs and practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own2. As an aside, those who regularly read what I write will have noted my love for my Merriam-Webster dictionary. In addition to the 2014 11th Edition, I also have on my bookshelf the 1967 seventh edition gifted to me by my father. Rather like differing opinions I find an excellent dictionary such as the Merriam-Webster a fascinating source of differing meanings and nuances of the same English word.
Returning to the topic of tolerance, whilst it is something sought through religion and philosophy, it seems that the converse, intolerance, is an inherent characteristic of individuals and groups. Opposing views, be they political, religious or otherwise, are met with hostility. Hostility leads to a hardening of positions and an unwillingness to consider whether an opposing view may have any merit. Qualifying what I have said, I am not suggesting actions which cause harm should ever be tolerated.
A debate is a formal discussion in which opposing arguments are put forward. This may end in a vote when the participants, based on the merits of the arguments advanced both for and against, decide to support or reject what has been proposed. Democracy is a government in which supreme power is vested in the people exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation involving periodic free elections. A feature of democracy should be open and honest debate. This allows the people to express their views but also ensures that their elected representatives take rational and meaningful decisions. A debate where the participants harangue one another based on group allegiance cannot be regarded as a debate since the participants are not swayed by the power of the arguments but rather by their group allegiance. What we see in many legislatures in democratic countries are debates characterised by the latter rather than the former.
Tolerance of divergent views, religions and cultures is the key to solving so many disputes. This seems to be in short supply across the world, which is not new. There was hope after the horrors of the First and Second World Wars that an alternative means of resolving disputes between countries could be developed through bodies such as the League of Nations disbanded in 1946 and the United Nations formed in 1945. However, with the advent of the Cold War hopes that this could be achieved through the United Nations were dashed. Hopes rose again after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the increase of democratic governments in Europe and elsewhere. Unfortunately events since the formation of the United Nations have demonstrated that hopes that tolerance could prevail have proved to be as fleeting as a morning mist.
The situation in the early 1990’s with the increase of democratic governments across the world gave rise to what was termed by Francis Fukuyama3 as the “End of History”. Fukuyama suggested that liberal democracies were the ultimate society that could be achieved. I remain an unashamedly optimistic liberal democrat. But I see the threat of increasing populism both here in South Africa and elsewhere with rising degrees of intolerance as a threat to both the peace and the well-being of us all. The 1994 democratic transition in South Africa through a process of debate and negotiation was a rare victory of tolerance over intolerance. Everything must be done to preserve the gains of victories such as this from the intolerance that now threatens them.
