‘Bogus Potus’ - Part II
The ‘polis’ of ‘politics’ is the original root word deployed for Athenian ideals and ideas about rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. The same ideal is called democracy today.
Athenian democracy developed around the fifth century BC in the Greek city-state (which was known as a polis) of Athens, comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, and is the first known democracy in the world.
Therefore, politics, policies, and policing are all three words which carry the same root and related meanings of our modern appreciation of democratic states and their inherent processes. Politics includes all processes for the acquisition of legitimate power to rule; and the consequent opportunity to govern the entire geography.Trump now rules.
Policies are the guiding philosophies, whether documented and non-documented, which become guiding parameters but usually set the direction for the governance by the leadership.
Policing is the executive authority deployed to ensure the direction set is therefore adhered to. Most distinctly, criminal conduct (against the state) in any democracy is closely monitored and policed through a singular authority with specific provisions to ensure compliance through prosecution and punishment.
Most democratic polities establish a policing force and capability but my important question is: can/should this include ‘moral policing’ or should/must it only be restricted to criminal policing? What then is the difference between a criminal offence and a moral offence in any modern society?
Can or should there be in any modern democratic nation-state which subsumes and redefines personal or private violations as they are offences against the nation-state?
Policing private social space
I have often asked the question, if the air we breathe can be repainted any other colour at our whim or fancy? For example, under Abdul Hadi Awang’s Act 355 amendments which define Muslim-specific criminal conduct, there is an attempt to overlap and override with Federal Criminal codes. Is that a good intention?
How is that any different than ‘policing as practised by the Israeli state?’ How is that any different than the former compulsory one-child policy of the Chinese state? Or is that not what Donald Trump is doing vide his ‘so-called Muslim ban’; of Muslims from the seven countries identified?
Is not the root question then, at which point in one’s thinking, or heart-felt concern, does it become wrong to consider or ponder thoughts that are different than those of the state? Is that also not the same issue or concern with Trump’s so-called Muslim ban?
He genuinely believes and thinks he can “order away” hate and bitterness that radical Muslims feel about some in the West who hold an entirely different worldview and philosophy of life. My suggestion to him is rather that he should start by looking at himself in the mirror.
Bigotry is always an inherent worldview that demeans or makes false assumptions about someone else as a lesser human being simply because they are different from one. If there are radical Muslims out there in Syria and the six other countries; it is fairly safe to assume that these same ‘extremists’ will also exist in all other congregations within the US. One cannot dictate morality.
Keep Malaysiakini independent!
Malaysiakini will be 18 this year. That we’ve survived this long is because of you.
Your support matters. A lot. Especially those who pay RM150 annually, RM288 biennially or RM388 triennially to keep Malaysiakini independent from government/opposition influence and corporate interests. Advertising alone will not keep Malaysiakini afloat.
Together, we’ve gone far. We’ve covered three prime ministers, four general elections, five Bersih rallies, and countless scandals. But the journey continues.
Help us deliver news and views that matter to Malaysians. Help us make a difference for Malaysia.