Mr Nordam,
         You are raising some very salient thought-provoking questions, that
is tempting to respond to. The exercise, however, would be one enmeshed in my
idealist notions. It may not necessarily smack of the radicalism that would
be the logical response to some of these queries.

         I tend to believe in the creation of an ideal, and then develop the
means and the method to make that ideal practical. The ideal is always the
good, the noble, the sacred, and the desirable. The reality could be the
opposite. What makes the reality not to conform with the ideal, is basically
the characteristic nature of the people who shape the reality. Thus reality
is the product of the contradictions, inherent or otherwise, that creates
social phenomena: the social, economic and political circumstances that
govern the lives of people.

     And, since contracdictions are inherently natural, and create the basis
upon which we perpetuate our value systems, beliefs, ideologies etc, the way
we appreciate reality or even impact it is also different. Most often it is
motivated by interest, which has become a part of the rationalization process
to be uniquely identified with a phenomenon. Thus we have different
interests, that is made more complicated, once people surrender their rights
and freedoms, to the establishment of a legal authority empowered to rule
over them.

      You asked whether leaders are the "product" of their societies. Leaders
are the product of their societies, as much as societies are the product of
their leaders. This is so, because the society can influence the leader in as
much as the leader can influence the society. What makes the difference is
the nature of the influence or the positive or negative bearing that it has
on either the leader or the society. Thus the influence that Hitler had on
German society, should not make you to "wonder how a generally educated
people like the Germans could turn out to become such a barbaric state."
Likewise, the notion that the Germans developed after the first world war,
that they were "second-ranked in Europe" created the basis for the emergence
of the Nazi party and Hitler. Once in control of the state apparatus of
government, Hitler made his influence felt with the German people.

      A society is like a peice of art that could be moulded. What emerges as
the finished product is the ingredients that has been used to shape it,
define it, and give it relevance and worth. A society needs orientation to
give it direction, to develop its value systems, to conform to the
fundamental precepts of decency, honesty, humanism, and mostly importantly a
conscience.

    There are people who try to influence society and give it such an
orientation; there are also people who try to influence society doing the
very opposite of these norms. Such people could either be leaders or
individuals within the society. What is obvious, however, is that a leader
who is ingrained in the fundamental precepts of decency, honesty, humanism
and have a conscience, can undoubtedly positively impact the society;
moreover, if the state apparatus of government can be used towards these ends.

     From the argument above, you can see the influence the society can have
on the individual, as well as the influence the individual can have on the
society. The dynamics of the relationship between the individual and society
vice versa, is the same dynamics that extend to the more complicated process
of assuming or retaining political power to realize whatever goal is desired.
Either to perpetuate the realization of an ideal, or to satiate in one's
ulterior designs and personal aggrandizement. Tyrants, despots, oppressors,
and dictators relished in the latter, while humanist, patriots, and
conscientious beings cherished the former.

    The next argument we can make is about the nature of power, its
characteristics, and who owns and should control it. The ideal is that power
belongs to the people. This notion is the foundation of all democratic
entities, or any other nation for that matter, where sovereignty lies with
the people in that they elect and empower the people who rule over them. Even
in despotic countries like Serbia, they do recognize the power of the people
which is embodied in the constitution, hence the need to change the
constitution to be in line with their selfish motivations. It is the only
legitimate basis for their power. Thus, they can manipulate it, corrupt it,
and amend it to suit their needs.

   The question, therefore, is how to change a system or leadership that has
consolidated itself in power, and has all the state apparatus of government,
to ruthlessly and mercilessly eliminate any opposition that seek to change
the status quo? From my idealist standpoint, power should not be consolidated
or allowed to be consolidated in the first place. It requires a mature
democracy for this to happen. Since this has not been the case, our attention
then is focused on how to change such a state of affairs.
This is the debate on the table. My position in this respect, I believe has
been articulated, through the humble contributions I have made.

   Mr Nordam, I recognize that I may not be sufficiently orientated to deal
with these issues, but nonetheless attempted to give it a try. I hope you
will understand these deliberations in that spirit.

   Rene

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------