June 8, 2015
Left versus Right - third article in the series
Throughout the years while watching the
political activity, including its various protests, I have often felt the need
to comprehend why things happen the way they do. The urge to understand is
inherent in me and drives me to listen, read and think, so that I will be able
to decipher the motivations behind such events. I do not feel comfortable with
situations that involve conflicts, when people express criticism towards each
other, and I wonder what these situations mean. How will people, towards whom
criticism is directed, act in such situations? I ponder about the essence of
arguments between people and wonder whether arguing is the right thing to do. Perhaps things should be resolved by means of
a dialogue? What happens to a dispute which is unresolvable? And if we are
against criticism and arguments, how should a person act when his rights are
violated? How will he be able to express the violation of his rights? What
tools are available for him? On the other hand, does every argument really
involve violated rights? Is every criticism justified? I must say that at this stage I cannot come up
with any good answers to the subject.
The question is how this is related
to Left and Right. I feel it is related since there are a lot of arguments
between Left and Right Wingers and a lot of criticism arises between both
sides. Is any criticism of one side more justified than the other? Does any disagreement
between the parties maker sense? We see a lot of disputes between the parties
despite the fact that the same nation is involved and often even the same
family. Isn't it a pity that such a situation prevails? By understanding these
issues I may put things in order and accept the situation as it is.
In my previous articles I raised the
question what differentiates between the Left and the Right. In the first
article I discussed the different ideology of each party, an ideology consisting
of different priorities. In addition, I mentioned the fact that each side holds
different perspectives in any of the significant aspects of life. In the second
article I addressed the topic that democracy encourages confronting conflicts
between parties, and that actually the Left and the Right, are an outcome of
democracy. In this article, I will further examine the relationship of
democracy with the two main parties. I will also try to explain our personal
needs that may determine whether we should vote for the Left or the Right.
This subject is very complex; the
field is dynamic, as every day we hear new issues - both in Israel and in other
countries, relating to this field. Democracy is the basis for contrasts between
Left and Right, and it facilitates them. They are, in fact, part of a constant
struggle for Power. This may be the time to stop and ask ourselves what is there
in that Power that generates such huge attraction to those who want to take it
over. It might be part of the inherent disposition of people who have a need to
decide and determine for others. This need is always a drive to reach the top
of the pyramid. Some powerful roles are similar to the top of a pyramid. At the
bottom of this pyramid there is a lot of space which enables many people to
function there. However, the higher one rises in the hierarchy, the more
limited are the available positions for the candidates. Naturally, as one rises
in the hierarchy, he has to apply more force and sophistication, and so, on the
upper levels of the hierarchy only those who successfully coped with the
confrontations may survive. I can ascertain that such contests occur in any
kind of rule. Thus, the Left and the Right are two parties that struggle for Power
as part of a natural need of their leaders to be the ones who determine and
decide, and whose aspiration is to be on the winning side.
Is democracy the only factor that
determines the nature of the government? This, too, is a complex issue and I will
only address the areas that are familiar to me. Democracy is our way of life
and we tend to think of it as the only way. The question is whether our way of
life consists only of democracy. This is a difficult question. If democracy is
not a sole player in our life, what is there in our life apart from democracy?
And who determines whether democracy is the only way? Many questions rise, such
as whether democracy is defined as law. Is democracy a government decision? Is
democracy a norm, or perhaps values? The answers are not straightforward, but
it is clear to me that democracy weakens the government, in other words, it
gives citizens the tools to act and resist the Power.
There is no doubt that democracy is
not an exclusive factor in our daily life. There are other "players" that
influence the government. Naturally, each of them wants to achieve the maximum influence,
so that it will "lead the camp". Do we know the other candidates? One
of them is the nation, which raises issues such as - does it act by the power
of law, or perhaps through norms and values? What is the role of the nation?
Who guards the country– is it democracy or nationality? The flag belongs to the
nation; do the borders of the country belong to democracy? Who defends the
state against democracy? Freedom of speech can create a convenient refuge for
people who attempt to adversely affect the country in the name of freedom of speech.
This thought raises the quest: which comes first - freedom of speech or
protection of the state? You may realize that while democracy is strong and strives
to control all elements of life the role of the nation is to protect the state
from the weaknesses of democracy. Vice versa - democracy protects people from
the power of the Nationalist Government. Another contestant in the arena is
religion and beliefs. They, too, have an impact on our daily lives and play a
significant role in the race for power. In some countries religion is a dominant
factor in decision making. Therefore, it is important to understand that we
deal with a number of factors that affect our daily lives and the course of our
government. Is democracy stronger than nationality and religion, or is
nationality stronger than democracy? These are important questions whose answers
may not be resolved.
Are the Left and the Right part of democracy?
Yes! Both camps are related to democracy. The difference between the two lies
in the fact that the Left represents freedom of expression and human rights; it
is closer in its ongoing activities to the main values of democracy. In
contrast, the Right Wingers, which according to the definition of democratic
government makes use of the various democratic tools, are still closer to the nation's
needs whose role is to ensure that nobody will exploit democracy to put the
country at risk. National government is a democratic regime in which democratic
values are not placed in the center. The main value of the National
government is the state. The central value of democracy is the citizen's
rights.
This, in my opinion, is the
significant difference between the Left and the Right. This raises the question
whether the good of the citizen should be put before the good of the country,
or vice versa. When referring to the camps - the Left, through civil rights, accuses
the Right of violating the various civil rights; on the other hand, the Right,
through the needs of the nation and the state, accuses the Left of abandoning
and jeopardizing the needs of the country. Both camps are struggling for power
according to the rules of democracy. One can see that the issue concerns two
important aspects of values for the people and the country. I cannot decide which
side is more important. Both sides are important and there is a balance, as
well as constant struggle between the two for the benefit of everyone.
Another dilemma is whether the
physical needs of the Left are different from the physical needs of the Right.
Hereby, I present another element which I did not "get down to its
end"; however, I believe that people who support the Left have a personal
need to put the other in the center. On the other hand, I believe
that people who support the Right have a personal need to see one self at
the center. These needs are conflicting needs; they are mutually exclusive.
The need to put the other in the center means that if we look after his benefits,
respect him and help him, we will reach a better place too. Furthermore, if
this brings us to a better place, it may also be the best place for everyone.
The need to give preference to the self means that first and foremost we should
satisfy our needs so that we will be able to reach the best place for us, and along
the way it may even become a better place for everyone.
Finally, I will add a few words to
explain why I think protests against democracy exist. I address this issue so
that we shall become familiar with the hardships imposed by the government, both
on the citizens from the Right as well as the Left, pertaining to the party in
power. When the Right is in power everyone has to adhere to its rules - for
example, prioritize the need of the country, or other similar issues, thus at
that time, the needs and ideas of the Left are pushed aside. And vice versa -
when the Left is in power the rights of the individual are prioritized at the
expense of the country's needs, and so the principles of the Right are pushed
aside.
A situation where the entire
population feels their needs are neglected for a long time and they have no
power to change them from within the government, may create a state in which
this population will resort to the option of contest so that issues that are
important to them will be heard, and in this manner the needs of that camp might
not be backed into a corner.
