A Cult of personality

This might be a new term for all of us,a cult of personality is a phenomenon in which an individual uses propaganda and mass media to create a an idealized and heroic image of himself,often through the use of praise and flattery. This phenomenon is very much closely associated with dictators.

A cult of personality is very much like hero worship, the difference being that unlike hero worship it is supported by mass media and propaganda.Surprisingly it also bears a close resemblance to the third category of Max Weber's Tripartite classification of Authority,Charismatic authority wherein an individual is able to gain power through the use of his charisma.

A cult of personality is always used to promote a political or religious ideology and enforces conformity by herd mentality and constant praise and adulation of the "leader" and his work.

Cults of personality have been around since the Roman empire,where Emperor worship was promoted and enforced,but gained prominence during the traumatic years after World War I,specifically in the countries of Italy and Germany. Both of these countries suffered greatly from economic depression,political instability,loss of international prestige and a plethora of social problems. All of these problems gave rise to a sense of desperation,in which people looked out for a leader who could solve all these problems and restore their national prestige by any means necessary.

From my observations a cult of personality needs all of or most of five situations to appear and manifest itself:

1)A majority of the population must be poor or middle class and be ruled by a small elite.

2)A majority of the population must be illiterate.

3)An extreme event must have taken place which creates fear or desperation in the populace(War,Revolution and the like)

4)Any group or individual must have enormous political capital. i.e:the group or individual must have the support of a prominent part of society(the army or the poor etc.)

5)The individual being glorified must be very charismatic.

To better illustrate what a cult of personality is I'll cite two very famous examples:

Adolf Hitler:The infamous German dictator is the earliest example of a cult of personality.Hitler's case satisfies 4 of the 5 situations required to foster a cult of personality. During his time, a majority of the German population were part of the middle class and the farmers, Germany had just lost a war and was suffering from the effects of economic depression and the payment of reparations hurt it's prestige, By appealing to the German middle classes by promising to restore Germany's tarnished image he had enormous political capital and finally Hitler was a very charismatic person.

When the Nazis took power in1933,they consolidated their power by eliminating their political opponents and enacting laws that made the Nazis and Germany a single entity. To ensure that the entire population supported the party. An enormous cult of personality was built around Hitler portraying him as the savior of Germany and as a hero. The entire armed forces and the civil service swore an oath of loyalty personally to him(instead of to Germany).Images of him were put up in many public places all over Germany,streets and public squares were named after him and the famous slogan"Heil Hitler" became common.His book"Mein Kampf" became the bible of Nazi Germany and people everywhere would often cry upon just seeing him.His 50th birthday(April 20 1939) was lavishly celebrated with a parade by the armed forces held in his honor and a palatial mansion was built for him by the Nazi party. His image was so well promoted that even in other countries such as Australia, U.S.A and even Britain, people admired him,kept pictures of him and even promoted Nazi ideology and because the Nazis made sure that the party and Germany were made one entity. Hitler,in effect, was Germany itself,this was famously highlighted by a party member during a Nazi party rally. The oath sworn to him by the armed forces helped the German Army's morale during World War II and even during the last years when Germany was losing badly. When Berlin was surrounded by the Allies,Hitler's closest aides begged him to leave Germany and even offered to sacrifice themselves. Once the war was over, Germany was de-Nazified and Hitler was denounced for his crimes.However,interestingly, his image and his ideas still survive today as small groups of Neo-Nazis try to recreate his deeds and some world leaders even claim inspiration from him,his legacy shows how well a cult of personality can promote an ideology that has lost it's appeal.

தூக்கு தண்டனையாகுமா ?

மு. பெரியசாமி.

மரணம்....... ஒவ்வொரு மனிதனையும் ஆழ்ந்த சிந்தனைக்கு அழைத்து செல்லும் ஒரு வார்த்தை. பல மனிதர்களின் வாழ்க்கையில் திருப்பங்களையும், எண்ணத்தில் மாற்றங்களையும் கொண்டு வரும் ஒரு நிகழ்வு. இந்த மரணம் என்பதை ஒருவன் செய்த தவறுக்காக அந்த சமுதாயத்தின் அமைப்பானது அவனுக்கு தண்டனையாக அளிப்பது சரியா? தவறா? என்பதுதான் இன்று நம் முன் எழுந்திருக்கும் கேள்வி. பெரும்பாலான நேரங்களில் நாம் இந்த மரண தண்டனை என்னும் விஷயத்தை உணர்ச்சி பூர்வமாக அனுகுவதால்தான், இதனை நாம் சரியாக மதிப்பிட முடிவதில்லை.

மரண தண்டனை என்பதை சட்ட புத்தகத்தில் வைத்திருப்பதற்கு சொல்லப்படும் முக்கிய காரணம், அதனால் கடும் குற்றங்கள் குறையும் என்பதுதான். ஆனால், உலகில் மரண தண்டனை நடைமுறையில் உள்ள நாடுகளிலும், மரண தண்டனை நடைமுறையில் இல்லாத நாடுகளிலும் நடக்கும் கடும் குற்றங்களின் எண்ணிகையை ஒப்பிடும் பொழுது, அதில் பெரும் மாறுதல்கள் ஒன்றும் இல்லை என்பதுதான் யதார்த்த நிலை. இதன் மூலம் கொலைக்கு இன்னொரு கொலை என்பது ஒரு பொழுதும் தீர்வாகாது எனபது தெளிவாகிறது.

"கண்ணுக்கு கண் என்கிற கொள்கை உலகையே குருடாக்குகிறது", என்ற காந்தியின் வார்த்தைகளில் உள்ள ஆழமான கருத்தை நாம் தெளிவாக உணர வேண்டும். கொலை செய்தான் என்பதற்காக, நாம் ஒருவனை கொள்வதும் கொலைதான் என்பதை நாம் உணர வேண்டும். தவறு செய்தவர்களை தண்டிப்பதனால் பாதிக்கபட்டவர்களுக்கு நீதி கிடைத்துவிடும் என்பதும் தவறான வாதம்தான். தவறு செய்தவன் தண்டிக்கபடுவதனால் பாதிக்கப்பட்டவர்களின் வாழ்க்கையில் எந்த மாற்றமும் வந்துவிடாது. மாறாக சமுதாயத்தில் பழி வாங்கும் உணர்ச்சி என்பது மக்கள் மனதில் ஆழமாக வேரூன்றி விடுகிறது.

தண்டனைகள் என்பது எதிர்கால சமுதாயத்தினருக்கு படிப்பினை என்றும், சமுதாயத்தினை பயப்பட வைக்கும் கருவி என்றும்தான் பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டு வருகின்றது. இவ்வாறு தவறு செய்பவர்களை பழி தீர்ப்பதர்க்காகவே தண்டனைகள் என்று நாம் சொல்லிக்கொண்டும், செய்துகொண்டும் இருக்கின்றோம். இதிலிருந்து நாம் கற்காலத்தின் தாக்கத்திலிருந்து முழுமையாக விடுபடவில்லை என்பதை தெளிவாக இந்த மனித சமுதாயத்தின் முன் பறை சாற்றுகின்றோம்.

நாம் ஒரு கருத்தை தெளிவாக உணர வேண்டும். இந்த சமுதாயத்தில் நல்லவர்கள் என்றும் கெட்டவர்கள் என்றும் யாரும் இல்லை, அவர்களது சூழ்நிலைகள்தான் அவர்களை அவ்வாறு பிரதிபலிக்கின்றன. "இங்கு நிற்பவர்களில் பாவம் செய்யாதவன் எவனோ, அவன் என் மீது முதல் கல்லை எறியுங்கள்" என்ற இயேசுவின் வார்த்தையின் அர்த்தமும் அதுதான். ஆனால் இங்கு தவறு செய்பவர்கள் இருக்கிறார்கள் என்பதை மறுக்க முடியாது, அவர்கள் கட்டாயம் தண்டிக்கப்பட வேண்டியவர்கள். இங்கு நான் தண்டிக்கப்பட வேண்டும் என்று குறிப்பிடுவது பழி வாங்குவதை அல்ல.

உண்மையான தண்டனை தவறு செய்தவனுக்கு அவன் செய்த தவறை உணர்த்துவதுதான். அது மட்டுமல்ல, எது சரி என்பதை அவனுக்கும் அவனை சார்ந்தவர்க்கும், இந்த சமுதாயத்திற்கும் உணர்த்துவதும் ஆகும்.

ஆனால் நாம் இன்று தண்டனைகள் என்று கூறி செயல்படுத்தும் அனைத்தும் தவறு செய்பவர்களை மேலும் வன்மையானவர்களாகவே மாற்றுகிறது என்பதுதான் இன்று சிறைச்சாலைகளில் நடக்கும் யதார்த்தமான உண்மை. வன்முறைகளை நாம் திருப்பி தாக்கும் பொழுது அது ஒரு பொழுதும் குறைவதில்லை, மாறாக அது மேன் மேலும் வளரத்தான் செய்கிறது. மரண தண்டனை என்பதை தீவிரவாதம், பாலியல் பலாத்காரம், கற்பழிப்பு போன்ற கொடும் குற்றங்களுக்காகதான் அளிக்கப்படுகிறது என்று நாம் கூறுகின்றோம். ஆனால், இதனால் இந்த தவறுகள் கண்டிப்பாக குறைவதில்லை என்பதுதான் யதார்த்தம். தீவிரவாதம் என்பது சமூக அவலங்கள் குறைந்தால்தான் குறையும், இந்த சமூக அவலங்கள் என்பது மரண தண்டனை என்னும் வன்முறையால் ஒரு பொழுதும் குறையாது என்பதை நம் உணர வேண்டும்.

சமுதாய அவலங்களை ஒழிக்கவும், சமுதாயத்தை நெறிப்படுத்தவும், சட்டங்களும் தண்டனைகளும் இன்றியமையாதது என்பது உண்மைதான். ஆனால் அது சமுதாயத்தில் வன்முறையை வளர்ப்பதாகவும், பல மனிதர்களை பழி தீர்ப்பதாகவும் இருக்கக்கூடாது. சட்டங்கள் கடுமையானதாக இருக்கலாம் ஆனால் அது பல மனிதர்களின் இதயங்களை காயப்படுத்தும் அளவு கொடுமையானதாக இருக்க கூடாது. மரண தண்டனை என்பது நம் சட்டத்தில் இருக்கும் வரை நாம் நம் தேசத்தை காந்தி தேசம் என்றும், அஹிம்சை தேசம் என்றும் கூறுவதற்கு வெட்கப்பட வேண்டும். மரண தண்டனையை ஒழிப்பதுதான் மக்களாட்சியின் முதிர்ச்சிக்கும், மனிதநேயத்தின் வளர்ச்சிக்கும் வழி வகுக்கும்.

Classical Society

     "Future ages will wonder at us, as the present age wonders at us now", said an Athenian leader to his countrymen when Athens was at the heights of glory. The Greek, a magnificent civilization, flourished over 2,500 years ago in a rocky peninsula of Southern Europe. This civilization was popularly known as 'Classical'. Anything which serves as a model for others and sets standards for future is called as a 'Classic'. Thus, Greece was a model for other cultures during its times of glory. 

     The ancient Greeks set a classic example for excellence. They excelled in various fields such as Arts, Science, Literature, Politics, Philosophy, Architecture, theatre performances, music, etc. They dazzled the then known world with their magnificent achievements. In fact, this civilization has highly influenced the other civilizations such as the Roman and has an enduring effect on the lifestyle of the Europe and the entire world even today. The World's quest for democracy in the 20th and the 21st century is a standing testimony. The 'rule of citizens' or the Direct Democracy (what we would call today) is the legacy of their political system. 

     In fact, their thoughts ands ideals are woven into our modern lives and we owe the ancient Greeks a debt of gratitude for shaping our modern thoughts.

Links and Differences

In my article of the law of three stages I have mentioned that the organic and the critical phases are those through which society pass in every stage alternatively discerning from the view that they are subordinate to the Metaphysical stage. Organic stages is the one in which the body social is said to be in equilibrium or simply put is stable and critical phase is one in which the body social is in a fundamental disequilibrium. The critical phase lasts for a few decades. It is the most turbulent transitional phase of the society. During this phase a new social order emerges from the death throes of the old social order.

The study of social statics and dynamics is considered to be the one that studies the progress and stability of the society. Now the confusion arises that if both the studies do the same task then why they are named different. As Lewis A. Coser puts it, “Comte attempted to formulate the conditions that account for social stability at any given historical moment. The study of social dynamics and social statics – of progress and order, of change and stability – are the twin pillars of his system.” It simply means that the study of social statics and dynamics is subordinate to the organic phase of the society considering it to be described as a phase of stability.

Social statics and dynamics are considered two separate studies. As one is the study of conditions and pre-conditions of social order and other is the study of human progress and evolution. It is essential to understand that both the disciplines go hand in hand. The study of social dynamics is of evolution or progress which as we know is a slow and steady process unlike the revolutions of critical phase. With the attributes of being slow and steady this study can only fit into the organic phase. The study of social statics is that of order which is in abundance in the organic phase.

Social Statics and Dynamics

The study of social statics and dynamics are the twin pillars of Comte’s study of social stability or the organic phase. The study of social statics and dynamics are not two distinct classes of facts but are two aspects of a theory. These studies are not separate but are complementary to each other as static is the study when society is in equilibrium and dynamics is the study of evolution which is a slow and steady process. This slow and steady process can only occur during the phase in which the society is in equilibrium and not disequilibrium or critical phase. Despite the fact that it seemed desirable for methodological and heuristic purposes to separate the study of statics and dynamics, in empirical reality they were correlative.

Auguste Comte refuses to place individuals as the base of the society. It is erroneous to derive man’s social tendencies out of his utilitarian considerations as it makes the existence of social state impossible. He places family at the base of society and allows resizing it if necessary to a couple. Family curbs the egoistic nature of a person to make him adaptable to the society this makes it the base of a social feeling causing stability. According to his thought of collective organism he places families at the level of an element, classes and caste of a tissue and cities and towns of an organ. Aware of the limitations of such analogy Comte concluded them by stating language, religion and division of labour as the unifying or binding forces of society.

He finds language, religion and division of labour as the three key factors for the stability of the body social. Firstly, language is the “easiest and common way of communication”, making it an essential tool for binding people closely to each other in a community. Language is a common mode of communication between generations. It helps impart the future generations with the knowledge and skills of the older generation, providing it with a base to progress on. Secondly, religion compensates the weaknesses of language by binding the society on the basis of a few common beliefs, acting as a “positive guide”. It ties the society by morality not letting it fall apart because of the disparities among people. Finally, division of labour binds the society together on basis of “similarity of classes” but is feared of distancing men from a larger mass as they are more driven towards their personal interests over the societies. Men in this stage become more conscious of their personal needs and feebly relate them to the needs of society.

Yet he hoped that both temporal and spiritual powers will come together in the future for unifying the society.

What should we protest for actually?

Rightly said by Dhiyanesh that the bill can focus on being pro-people and protect the victims of corruption instead of adding further burden on the economy of India by creating an independent body for investigation of corruption which does not provide enough for being corruption free itself later on. Mr. Anna Hazare should seriously consider his protest for Lokpal which might not solve the problem it focuses on instead would add to it. Considering that the body he intends to establish becomes corrupt it would end up adding burden upon the common man as he would be paying little higher than regular to keep the person added to the chain satisfied as well.

In order to eradicate corruption it is essential to protest against such cases and support people who do so. This would be easily feasible also is self-corrective in nature as any false case can be penalized. Social active people and those with high urge against corruption can come together to set up small bodies in each state to find such people who are in need of help and bring the issue to light. Youth of this country can do the same as they are seen to be really active regarding this issue.

Passing of such bills will only add to the length of our constitution and not be purposeful. No matter how much of transparency is promised, in our nation, eventually bodies end up becoming corrupt and none of us would want to set up body powerful enough of rocking the whole country by its head in hope that it would never fall into wrong hands.

For an effective LOKPAL

The term ‘Lokpal’ is getting highly contentious day by day.  There is an urgent call for a comprehensive review of the draft bill and for incorporating some fundamental working modalities. Other than the prevalent issues like the inclusion of PM, Judiciary under the Lokpal’s ambit, its power and conflict of interest, etc., there are few other  aspects that gets least attention. For instance, take the issue of low-level corruption involving every-day bribes for acquiring driving licences, birth certificates, community certificates, patta for land ownership, etc. Specific cases of corruption of this kind are taken up for formal investigation when the harassed victims come up as complainants. However, the primary desire of the victims will be to get their grievances redressed without delay. Prosecution and punishment of the corrupt functionary have a lower priority in their perception. They would be happy if their grievances are redressed, and would willingly let the matter rest there.

It is therefore most necessary to build into the Lokpal set up an effective mechanism for grievance redress on par to punishments and prosecutions. Justice Ramanujam Committee set up by the government of Tamil Nadu had recommended in 1997 a detailed working scheme for this purpose. Unfortunately the state government shelved action on this important recommendation, merely noting that it may await central legislation on Lokpal!

The draft Lokpal Bill by the government apparently revolves around the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PoCA) in most of the aspects. Instead, it can go along the lines of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 so that it will be pro-people, focusing more on victims.

In terms of independency of Ombudsman bodies, much is debated about its freedom from political and managerial influences, which is apparent in early anti-corruption agencies. Beyond this, these bodies must have their constabulary, necessary powers for arrests and prosecution and their own cadre of prosecutors to handle cases in courts and must not depend on any other departments for their processes. Their dependency hampers their speedy and effective investigation.

The states should not be empowered to legislate their state ombudsman bodies (Lokayuktas) on their own. They should be firmly anchored by a uniform central legislation on national interest.