Connect with us

Features

Investment and accelerated progress during crises?

Published

on

Women in Sri Lankan State Universities – III

An adapted version of the keynote
delivered by Prof. Dinesha Samararatne
at the International Women’s Day celebration
organised by the Centre for Gender Equity and Equality for the University Grants Commission,
15 March, 2024.

(The second part this article appeared on 27 March, 2024)


Substantive equality means equality of opportunity, not only equality of access. In our context, having access to higher education is equality of access and being able to make informed and free choices based on your university education about your life and being able to enjoy the opportunities that come with such qualifications, would be substantive equality. I would like to make 3 specific points about substantive equality here. They relate to inclusion and progress for women within university, beyond university and in relation to our different disciplines.

On substantive representation within universities, consider the participation of women in student union activities in different faculties. I do not have the overall data for this but common experience suggests that this is an area that tends to be dominated by male undergraduates at the leadership level. At my own Faculty, men are approximately 10-12% in the student body but are more than 90% in the student union and it has been this way for more than two decades.

On substantive representation beyond university CHART 9 reminds us of the notable gap not just between men and women in the labour force, but how the data seems to change overall when we compare the number of women within university with women in the labour force. As we know, if we look at women in politics, the problem is much more serious. In my own field, law, this issue is quite pressing.

Women far outnumber men as law students but are rare to find in positions of leadership in the profession or in the judiciary. The data on enrolment to the legal profession in CHART 10n show that women enter in much greater numbers. However, research has shown that women become less and less visible in positions of leadership and authority.

On having a substantive impact within a discipline, let me draw examples from my own discipline. One of the notable gains made in the last few years is that the Sri Lankan Supreme Court has recognised that sexual harassment in the workplace violates a woman’s right to equality (Manohari Pelaketiya v Secretary, Ministry of Education SC/FR 76/2012, SC Minutes 28 Sept 2016 and Corea v Sri Lankan Airlines SC Appeal No 91/2017, SC Minutes 2 Feb 2024).

It is interesting to note that even though Sri Lanka accepted CEDAW in 1981, it is only in 2016 that our Supreme Court relied on CEDAW to interpret our right to be free from discrimination. In contrast, academic research, policy intervention and state appointed committees have, for a while, revealed the need to reform Sri Lanka’s personal laws, vagrancy laws and other aspects of criminal law, public law, land law and family law to ensure that the law protects women’s substantive equality. However, that research and evidence-based call has not yet resulted in substantive law reform. Although proposals have been made for over two decades, to date, we do not have an enabling law to give effect to CEDAW in our domestic law.

The reasons for some these gaps are not unknown. Surveys and studies have shown that perceptions about gendered expectations in the family is a key factor that influences women to stay away from certain types of work or to stay away from work altogether. But what are the factors that prevent women from enjoying substantive equality within university and how can we advance the opportunities to advance substantive equality within our disciplines? It is time that these questions concern all of us and we work towards addressing the problem in a more systematic way.

If we take the view that respect for human dignity is essential and that society must be committed to advancing human flourishing, we have to respect the right of all persons to enjoy substantive equality and ensure that higher education in Sri Lanka offers substantive equality in terms of opportunity. Of course, such commitment must be accompanied with the openness to critically reflect and question these concepts. It is only when we engage with the question of substantive opportunity in this way, that we can consider the question of substantive equality of outcomes.

The commitment to realising substantive equality is essential for thinking about investment and accelerated progress for women in higher education. Today we concern ourselves with women, but this obligation extends to any person or group that is being left behind, is excluded or is being discriminated against, intentionally or unintentionally.

Let me turn finally to what we can do to address this grand puzzle. I would like to suggest that if we are to think about Investment and Accelerated Progress during Crises for women in Sri Lankan universities, we cannot but prioritise the substantive inclusion of women in higher education. I will speak to four areas that could concern us.

These four areas require the adoption of an orientation of respect for human dignity, commitment to human flourishing and therefore to the substantive inclusion of women. You may note here that cultivating this dispensation is not a question about allocation or availability of funds, but rather about the value commitments that we chose to make as a community.

Administrators can review and revise their day-to-day practices and policies on this basis so that decisions, whether they relate to student admission, infrastructure development or policies on workplace conduct, will be undertaken on the basis of this commitment. Here, I think it is time to systematically review the policy on admission of undergraduates with disabilities to our streams of study. As per the UGC Handbook students with disabilities are admitted to state universities to study Arts, Commerce, Biological Science and Physical Science under special provisions.

The number of students admitted under this scheme 2010 to 2022 is provided in CHART 11. But for streams such as Law, Medicine or Engineering students with disabilities are required to compete along with everyone else for admission. I cannot go into this today but I do think there is a strong link between ensuring inclusion for persons with disabilities to these Faculties on a special basis and about ensuring representation of the lived experience and needs of persons with disabilities in these fields.

We know that even ensuring physical access for persons with disabilities to built environments in Sri Lanka has been a serious challenge. But when we remind ourselves that students with disabilities are not present in places where we study engineering or architecture, we perhaps begin to see why this is such a challenge.

Therefore, I do think that it is past time we revisit this policy and engage in a robust review, taking all views and needs into consideration along with Sri Lanka’s responsibilities to respect the dignity and rights of persons with disabilities. Let me note here that Sri Lanka has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and that our Supreme Court, in 2011 and in 2019 strongly affirmed the obligation on state actors to ensure respect for the rights of persons with disabilities.

Sexual harassment in higher education whether in the classroom, canteen or in the staff common room is another area in which we have made some progress, but where we still have a long way to go. Our energies should focus both on prevention of sexual harassment and on offering meaningful remedies and closure for victims of sexual harassment among us.

Academics can reflect their commitment to investment and accelerated progress for women in several ways. If we agree with the approach to investment and accelerated progress that I laid out today, it should affect our disciplinary engagements. How will the way we teach plant science or forensic medicine or history or Artificial Intelligence change if we consider women and women’s lived experiences as substantive and significant? In my own field, taking account of lived experiences of women led to significant changes in the law.

One example is the recognition of a battered woman’s syndrome in criminal law and another is the compulsory legal provision of maternity leave. However, there is much more work to be done at the normative, doctrinal levels and at the level of practice in advancing substantive equality for women in my own discipline. In my view, respect for human dignity, commitment to human flourishing are substantive concerns and should not be seen as limited to ‘soft skills’ or confined to the diversity and inclusion push that we see in many parts of the world today.

Academics and administrators should further utilise engagement as means for advancing the university’s commitment to investment and accelerated progress for women. Over the years and across the disciplines we have had inspiring examples of robust engagement by academics with communities including with communities of practice. In the legal field, Emeritus Prof Savitri Goonesekere easily comes to mind as a law academic who was able to bring together legal norms and doctrine in conversation with lived experiences of women to routinely offer robust critiques of the law – nationally but also at the international level.

Emeritus Prof Kumari Jayawardena is a similar example from Political Science. Her academic work is steeped in practice and lived experience all the while paying close attention to the politics of positionality and the academic disciplinary demands of objectivity. Dr Rajini Thiranagama is an example of an academic who paid the highest prize for living the life of a public intellectual, fearlessly critiquing those who abused power.

There are many other similar examples. It is through this synthesis of firm commitment to one’s discipline that is matched with openness to and engagement with different communities within and outside the university, that we can meaningfully think about investment and accelerated progress, particularly in a society where crises are normalised. I think we should avoid the trap of limiting engagement to partnerships and collaborations with other institutions, private sector, professional bodies etc and think more broadly about the university as an open space for engagement across the spectrum of society – from the CEO to the farmer to the unemployed and the homeless.

Time does not permit me to go into detail about the general conditions that are necessary for the approach that I have advocated thus far. If we are to meaningfully consider investment and accelerated progress for women in higher education, I think respect for academic freedom and institutional autonomy is a prerequisite. The right to dissent must be respected in the classroom and all levels of decision making in higher education. A journey towards the truth cannot be made, if we cannot question the status quo, whether it be in relation to teaching, research, administration or engagement.

Let me conclude by revisiting the individual stories I shared with you at the beginning. How would the lives of these women have changed if they could benefit from the kind of vision that I have suggested for investment and accelerated growth? Recall that in each of those stories, the women had access to higher education and completed their studies. Let me suggest some alternative outcomes for them, if they had the opportunity to enjoy substantive equality. Geetha who had an illegal abortion, would have had access to health care services in a society which did not criminalize abortion.

Sarala who was born with a physical disability and acquired more disabilities due to the war would have thrived at university because it was an accessible environment and she would have found suitable employment beyond university. Savitri who left academia in Sri Lanka – may have remained and persevered because she felt supported by institutional policies and governance.

Jeya, who regrets not being able to ensure accountability for the sexual harassment she experienced would have been able to seek remedies for the same and had closure. Jayani would have flourished in her work as a cleaner at university and enjoyed dignity of labour. Rani would feel supported at university to continue her studies and not feel guilt about not conforming to gender stereotypes about motherhood.

The alternative life outcomes I have suggested reminds us that for meaningful investment choices and for planning for inclusive accelerated progress for women in Sri Lanka’s universities, there is a fair amount of work yet to be done.

I acknowledge feedback I received from some of my colleagues on a draft of this talk and thank Ishan Kuruwita Arachchi for assistance in collating the data. The charts were developed for the limited purpose of presenting overall trends. The views expressed are solely of the author.

Dinesha Samararatne, Professor, Department of Public & International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.



Features

Buddhist Approach to Human Challenges

Published

on

Life, by its very nature, invariably presents a myriad of challenges that are fundamental to the human experience. The various social ills that afflict humanity cannot be understood without recognizing the profound human dynamics at play. Navigating these challenges according to Buddhism involves shifting from attempting to control external circumstances to mastering one’s internal responses. Central to these challenges are certain detrimental drives stemming from pernicious distortions in the functioning of the human mind.

According to Buddhism, human suffering—both on a personal and societal level—arises from three unwholesome roots: greed, hatred, and ignorance or delusion. These roots manifest primarily as the unbridled proliferation of these negative states, serving as the foundation for our conduct. The Buddhist perspective offers profound insights for confronting these difficulties by emphasizing the nature of suffering, known as dukkha. Buddhism teaches that suffering (dukkha) is an inevitable part of life and is fueled by greed, hatred, and ignorance or delusion. This approach promotes mental transformation through mindfulness, ethical living, and the cultivation of wisdom, empowering individuals to confront their struggles with clarity and resilience.

Furthermore, accepting that suffering and difficulty are inherent parts of the human experience—while expecting life to be free of challenges—is, in itself, a cause of suffering. It is also important to recognize that all situations, whether good or bad, are temporary. This understanding helps reduce anxiety when facing difficult times, as these will eventually pass, and it prevents possessiveness during happy moments. Cultivating mindfulness (sati) and living in the present moment without dwelling on the past or worrying about the future is essential.

Understanding that all things—emotions, situations, relationships, and physical bodies—are constantly changing and in a state of flux helps reduce the fear of loss and provides comfort during difficult times, ensuring that we know pain will pass. Moreover, recognizing that the self, or ego, is not a fixed entity minimizes selfish grasping, arrogance, and the tendency to perceive challenges as personal attacks.

At the core of many human challenges lie the three unwholesome mental qualities identified by Buddhism: greed (raga), hatred (dovesa), and ignorance or delusion (avijja or moha). These states of mind serve as obstacles to spiritual progress and underlie a spectrum of harmful thoughts and actions. The Buddha employed powerful metaphors to illustrate these forces, referring to them as the three poisons or fires that ignite suffering and trap beings in the cycle of samsara.

Greed leads to insatiable desires that obscure our awareness of others’ needs, creating a cycle of frustration. Greed encompasses all forms of appetite, such as desire, lust, craving, and longing, manifesting in both physical and mental forms. It embodies the concept of grasping, leading to clinging and an inability to let go. As an unwholesome mental state, greed can become insatiable and inexhaustible. People are often drawn to pleasant things, and no amount of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or mental objects can satisfy their desires. In their intense thirst for possession or gratification of desire, individuals may become trapped in the wheel of samsara, overlooking the needs of marginalized groups based on religion and ethnicity (as noted by Piyadassi Thera). Those who overcome greed realize that all mundane pleasures are fleeting and transient. In a society driven by consumerism, people may find themselves endlessly chasing after things of little value, becoming enslaved by them.

Hatred is another unwholesome mental state that fosters division and conflict, distancing us from genuine relationships. It encompasses unwholesome mental states such as ill will, enmity, hostility, and prejudice. Hatred can be subtle, lying dormant in a person’s mind until it finds expression in unexpected moments. This destructive emotion can degenerate into mass-scale violence and bloodshed within society. Today, hatred and hostility against minorities based on religion and ethnicity are prevalent in many countries. People are often targeted by bigotry and hate, leading to a rise in antagonistic and derogatory behavior toward certain religious and ethnic groups. Hatred, enmity, and retaliation do not foster spiritual well-being; rather, they vitiate our own minds. Buddhists are encouraged to cultivate metta (loving-kindness). Greed and hatred, coupled with ignorance, are the chief causes of the evils that pervade this deluded world. As noted by Narada, “The enemy of the whole world is lust (greed), through which all evils come to living beings. This lust, when obstructed by some cause, transforms into wrath.”

The most profound of these afflictions, ignorance (avijja) or delusion (moha), clouds our judgment and obscures our capacity for understanding, causing us to harm ourselves and others through misguided actions. Addressing bhikkhus, the Buddha declared, ” I do not perceive any single hindrance other than the hindrance of ignorance by which mankind is obstructed, and for so long as in samsara, it is indeed through the hindrance of ignorance that humankind is obstructed and for a long time runs on, wanders in samsara. No other single thing exists like the hindrance of ignorance or delusion, which obstructs humankind and make wander forever. This unwholesome mindset generates negative speech, actions, and thoughts, perpetuating our own suffering. As stated in the Dhammapada, “All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; if one speaks or acts with an evil mind, suffering follows.”

Buddhism urges us to go beyond merely addressing the symptoms of our problems. Instead, it invites us to explore the roots of our suffering and examine how greed, hatred, and ignorance manifest in our lives. By uncovering these sources of distress, we can cultivate essential qualities such as compassion, loving-kindness (metta), and acceptance. These virtues are crucial for ethical engagement with significant societal issues, including environmental challenges and social inequality.

In a world marked by material prosperity and emotional chaos, many individuals may feel lost or overwhelmed. The teachings of the Buddha remain relevant today, reminding us that the origins of our struggles often reside within our own minds. By practising ethical self-discipline and steering clear of destructive emotions like jealousy, anger, and arrogance, we can transform our experiences and relationships.

Buddhism teaches that cultivating wholesome mental qualities is essential for spiritual advancement. The positive counterparts to the three unwholesome states are non-greed (alobha), non-hatred (adosa), and non-delusion (amoha). These virtues represent not merely the absence of negativity but also the active presence of beneficial qualities such as generosity (dana), loving kindness (metta), and wisdom (panna). Each of these six mental states serves as a foundation for both personal growth and societal harmony.

Human beings are often tempted by moral transgressions rooted in unwholesome qualities. Actions driven by greed, hatred and ignorance require wisdom and mindful awareness to overcome them, allowing us to see the interconnectedness of all beings and act accordingly.

As we strive to abandon these unwholesome states of mind and cultivate awareness, we contribute positively to our lives and the broader world. By embracing Buddhist teachings, we learn that transforming our minds can significantly impact our experiences and the lives of those around us. Through this mindful practice, we can aspire to create a more compassionate, harmonious existence, transcending the limitations of unwholesome mental states and fostering a deeper connection with ourselves and others.

by Dr. Chandradasa Nanayakkara

 

Continue Reading

Features

How does the Buddha differ?

Published

on

Buddhism, perhaps, is not a religion if the definition of religion is strictly applied. However, by an extension of that definition, as well as by consensus, Buddhism is considered a religion and is the fourth largest religion with about half a billion followers worldwide. Of the four great religions in the world, Christianity is still way ahead with 2.6 billion adherents, followed by Islam with 1.9 billion and Hinduism with 1.2 billion followers. In most Western Christian countries church attendances are on the decline whilst the numbers following Islam are increasing with Islamic youth displaying signs of increasing religious ardour. There are recent reports that Buddhism has also joined the ranks of shrinking religions. Is this cause for concern? Is this happening by the very nature of Buddhism?

Hinduism, the world’s oldest living religion rooted in the Indus Valley Civilization and dating back at least four millennia, is considered to have evolved from ancient cultural and religious practices than being founded by a single individual, unlike the other three religions. The Buddha differs from Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammed in many ways, the most important being that there is no higher power involved in what the Buddha discovered.

Jesus Christ is considered the ‘Son of God’ and Christianity is built on the life, resurrection and teachings of Christ with emphasis on the belief in one God expressed through the Trinity: God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is no room for questioning the words of the Almighty passed through the Son.

Islam, with its Five Pillars of faith, frequent daily prayers, charity, fasting during Ramadan and pilgrimage to Mecca, is founded on revelations made by Almighty God, Allah, to Mohammed, the last of his Prophets, which are recorded in verse in the Holy Book, Quran. Muslims consider the Quran to be verbatim words of God and the unaltered, final revelation. This leaves even less room for questioning.

In contrast, the Buddha achieved everything by himself with no help from any higher source. Rebelling against some of the practices in the religion to which he was born and seeking a solution to the ever-pervading sense of dissatisfaction, Prince Siddhartha embarked on a journey of discovery that culminated in Enlightenment, under the Bodhi tree on the full moon day of the month of Vesak.

Hinduism, or Sanatana Dharma as traditionally referred to by followers, encompasses the concepts of Karma, Samsara, Moksha and Dharma with a creator Brahma, preserver Vishnu and destroyer Shiva. In addition, there are multitudes of gods serving various functions and there are ritual practices of Puja (worship), Bhakti (devotion), Yajna (sacrificial rites) in addition to meditation and Yoga. The one thing that has blighted Hinduism, on top of sacrifices, is the caste system. The uncompromising attitude of Brahmins led to the formation Sikhism as well, long after the establishment of Buddhism.

Prince Siddhartha studied under eminent teachers of the day, of which there were many, but realised the limitations of their knowledge. Having already given up the extreme of luxury, he went to the other extreme of self-deprivation which after a search for six years, he realised also was not the solution to the problem. Exploring through his mind he realised the truth and came up with the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. He shunned extremes and proposed the Middle Path which seems to hold sway in many spheres of life, even today.

Buddha’s greatest achievement was the analysis of the mind and scientists are only now establishing the accuracy of the concepts the Buddha elucidated, not with the help of supernatural powers or sophisticated machinery at the disposal of modern-day scientists but by the exploration of the mind by turning the searchlight inwards.

Having discovered the cause of universal dissatisfaction and the path to overcome it, the Buddha walked across vast swathes of India, most likely barefoot, preaching to many, in terms they could understand, as evidenced by the different suttas illustrating the same fact in different ways; to the intelligent it was a short explanation but for others it was a more detailed discussion.

In sharp contrast to all other religious leaders, the Buddha encouraged discussion and challenge before acceptance. What the Buddha stated in the Kalama Sutta, acceptance only after conviction, laid the foundation for scientific thinking.

The Buddha, being a human not supernatural, never claimed infallibility as evidenced by his agreement with his father King Suddhodana that ordaining his son Rahula without permission was a mistake and took steps to ensure that this did not happen again. In fact, the entire Vinaya Pitaka is not an arbitrary rule book laid down by the Buddha, but are the rules the Buddha laid down for the Sangha, based on errant actions by Bhikkhus. Long before the legal concept of retroactive justice was established, the Buddha implemented it in the Vinaya Pitaka.

In an interesting video on YouTube titled “Nature of Buddhism”, Bhante Dhammika of Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8WfGJq2FI) discusses some unique aspects of Buddhism. Some religions are ‘high demand’ religions where the followers are required to strictly adhere to certain rules which is not the case in Buddhism and he opines that this has led to the gentleness of Buddhists, at times leading to even being lackadaisical! Interestingly, as a widely travelled person, he describes his personal experience of the change of people’s attitudes on going from places with Buddhist influence to others. Speaking of Sri Lanka, where he spent many years, he commends the traditional hospitality as well as lack of cruelty to animals. He refers to “Law based religions” where some things are compulsory whereas in Buddhism there is no compulsion. Buddha was not a lawgiver but recommended good behaviour, giving reasons why and encouraged thinking. Some religions are exclusivist, claiming that there is nothing in other religions. Buddhism is not and Bhante Dhammika refers to an incident where the Buddha encouraged a disciple who converted from Jainism to continue to give alms to his former Jain colleagues.

Have all these strengths of Buddhism become its weakness and the reason for the shrinking number of followers? Had Buddhism demanded more from followers would it have flourished better? Is the numbers game that important? These are interesting questions to ponder over and I am sure, in time, researchers would write theses on these.

Whilst total numbers may diminish in traditional Buddhist areas, more people in the West are recognising the value of the philosophy of Buddhism. Mindfulness, a concept the Buddha introduced is gaining wide acceptance and is increasingly applied in many spheres of modern life. Perhaps, what is important is not the numbers that practise Buddhism as a religion but the lasting influence of the Buddha’s concepts and foundations he laid for modern scientific thinking and analysis of the mind!

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Continue Reading

Features

Political violence stalking Trump administration

Published

on

A scene that unfolded during the shooting incident at the recent White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington. (BBC)

It would not be particularly revelatory to say that the US is plagued by ‘gun violence’. It is a deeply entrenched and widespread malaise that has come in tandem with the relative ease with which firearms could be acquired and owned by sections of the US public, besides other causes.

However, a third apparent attempt on the life of US President Donald Trump in around two and a half years is both thought-provoking and unsettling for the defenders of democracy. After all, whatever its short comings the US remains the world’s most vibrant democracy and in fact the ‘mightiest’ one. And the US must remain a foremost democracy for the purpose of balancing and offsetting the growing power of authoritarian states in the global power system, who are no friends of genuine representational governance.

Therefore, the recent breaching of the security cordon surrounding the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington at which President Trump and his inner Cabinet were present, by an apparently ‘Lone Wolf’ gunman, besides raising issues relating to the reliability of the security measures deployed for the President, indicates a notable spike in anti-VVIP political violence in particular in the US. It is a pointer to a strong and widespread emergence of anti-democratic forces which seem to be gaining in virulence and destructiveness.

The issues raised by the attack are in the main for the US’ political Right and its supporters. They have smugly and complacently stood by while the extremists in their midst have taken centre stage and begun to dictate the course of Right wing politics. It is the political culture bred by them that leads to ‘Lone Wolf’ gunmen, for instance, who see themselves as being repressed or victimized, taking the law into their own hands, so to speak, and perpetrating ‘revenge attacks’ on the state and society.

A disproportionate degree of attention has been paid particularly internationally to Donald Trump’s personality and his eccentricities but such political persons cannot be divorced from the political culture in which they originate and have their being. That is, “structural” questions matter. Put simply, Donald Trump is a ‘true son’ of the Far Right, his principal support base. The issues raised are therefore for the President as well as his supporters of the Right.

We are obliged to respect the choices of the voting public but in the case of Trump’s election to the highest public position in the US, this columnist is inclined to see in those sections that voted for Trump blind followers of the latter who cared not for their candidate’s suitability, in every relevant respect, and therefore acted irrationally. It would seem that the Right in the US wanted their candidate to win by ‘hook or by crook’ and exercise power on their behalf.

By making the above observations this columnist does not intend to imply that voting publics everywhere in the world of democracy cast their vote sensibly. In the case of Sri Lanka, for example, the question could be raised whether the voters of the country used their vote sensibly when voting into office the majority of Executive Presidents and other persons holding high public office. The obvious answer is ‘no’ and this should lead to a wider public discussion on the dire need for thoroughgoing voter education. The issue is a ‘huge’ one that needs to be addressed in the appropriate forums and is beyond the scope of this column.

Looking back it could be said that the actions of Trump and his die-hard support base led to the Rule of Law in the US being undermined as perhaps never before in modern times. A shaming moment in this connection was the protest march, virtually motivated by Trump, of his supporters to the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021, with the aim of scuttling the presidential poll result of that year. Much violence and unruly behaviour, as known, was let loose. This amounted to denigrating the democratic process and encouraging the violent take over of the state.

In a public address, prior to the unruly conduct of his supporters, Trump is on record as blaring forth the following: ‘We won this election and we won by a landslide’, ‘We will stop the steal’, ‘We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen’, ‘If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.’

It is plain to see that such inflammatory utterances could lead impressionable minds in particular to revolt violently. Besides, they should have led the more rationally inclined to wonder whether their candidate was the most suitable person to hold the office of President.

Unfortunately, the latter process was not to be and the question could be raised whether the US is in the ‘safest pair of hands’. Needless to say, as events have revealed, Donald Trump is proving to be one of the most erratic heads of state the US has ever had.

However, the latest attempt on the life of President Trump suggests that considerable damage has been done to the democratic integrity of the US and none other than the President himself has to take on himself a considerable proportion of the blame for such degeneration, besides the US’ Far Right. They could be said to be ‘reaping the whirlwind.’

It is a time for soul-searching by the US Right. The political Right has the right to exist, so the speak, in a functional democracy but it needs to take cognizance of how its political culture is affecting the democratic integrity or health of the US. Ironically, the repressive and chauvinistic politics advocated by it is having the effect of activating counter-violence of the most murderous kind, as was witnessed at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Continued repressive politics could only produce more such incidents that could be self-defeating for the US.

Some past US Presidents were assassinated but the present political violence in the country brings into focus as perhaps never before the role that an anti-democratic political culture could play in unraveling the gains that the US has made over the decades. A duty is cast on pro-democracy forces to work collectively towards protecting the democratic integrity and strength of the US.

Continue Reading

Trending