The other day the writer had conversations regarding the suffering of refugees and the rights of homosexuals.. in both cases the other person was insisting rights have to be claimed, protest has to be done, pressure should be applied on the governing structures. The question the writer raises is whether all such violent movements that focus in achieving an outer goal/change make any sense at all. In first sight probably this question looks silly but is it so?
Let’s not focus on the specific, on the refugees or homosexuals issues and rights. Let’s try to see the whole picture.. the question is whether revolt or protest do work at all. So there is this elected structure (politicians) that has the power, the authority to set some rules that will improve the life of anybody that is suffering (refugee, homosexual, homeless etc). Either the carriers of authority are somehow sensitive and act towards this direction (to relieve pain, suffering) or not.. if they are not sensitive at all, the carriers won’t do even the slightest reform unless this is something that meets their personal interest.. so if the pressure is too intense probably they will do something to calm down the whole situation and in first chance they will return back to their cruel stance. Only thing that could actually, radically change how politicians face the several challenges would be an inner transformation, an awakening of their sleeping sensitivity. How is possible such change to happen? Can pressure of protesting make such things happen? Or only the quality of love can show an insensitive man how crucial is the senses to wake up? I think the answer is obvious, isn’t it? Now once a mass of people that are protesting stands against an insensitive, cruel man, is this quality of love existant? Or only violence, anger and conflict?
But someone would say “though the politician won’t change, it wouldn’t harm, on the contrary it would be good, to protest if we would succeed to force him/her take some relieving measures, even for a little”.. my first reaction on this statement was positive but once reinvestigating this question i saw clearly things are not like that.. once there is hope (which is obviously another intellectual creation) that the politician will be forced to reform, we’ve invented (consciously or unconsciously) a very convenient excuse for us to remain inactive.. so we spend all our energy in demanding the politician to act, because we thing if this happens the problem will be solved much more efficiently and we do nothing on our own. So either we protest by means of demonstration or we drink coffee and spend tones of energy to angrily talk about the unacceptable stance of the politicians, how heartless they are and so on. And we don’t bother to do now whatever we are willing to do for them, voluntarily.. we can help the refugees now by giving them a loaf of bread, we can investigate and unhide all our stereotypes regarding the homosexuals which will reveal that there is no division between or relieve a homeless man by offering him/her the chance to have a warm bath in our house. There are so many things to do NOW, rather than fighting, revolting, protesting with the hope that politicians will show the slightest sensitivity.
Which brings this question.. if man doesn’ change inside will an external change ever be enough? And a second one.. if man does change inside won’t external change inevitably happen? You need to find on your own!