Politics and the Cave

As I continue to follow news reports and articles about the goings on in Belarus, I am noticing two distinct strains of thought by the reporters and in the editorials. Either:
1. The writer supports the opposition and decries the travesty of the beatings by police and the jailing of the protesters… IOW, they want a regime change
2. The writer decries the Western media for distorting the truth to reach their own ends, and support the election results as being accurate and the will of the people… IOW, they don’t think the people want a regime change

This is puzzling to me because the two perspectives are not polar opposite. No one in Category 2 says they support 100% the reigning President. The blame for the opposition’s activity resides with the West, not the government or authorities. Everyone in Category 1 speaks about the problems of their nation as evidence and reasons for why there needs to be a regime change. Category 2 folks don’t even address their concerns.

Here is what I find is missing: no one is actually evaluating the psyche of the entire population of that nation in how they are deciding whether there is or is not a need for a change.

Category 1 people have their eyes focused on the cause they believe in, irregardless of what others may think or say. Even if their nation is against them, as the opposition, 99 to 1, they will still fight. Now, Category 2 people have their eyes focused on their own lives and wanting them to return to their peaceful normalcy, spurning the opposition and blaming the West for creating chaos. Even if the opposition has a reasonable cause to oppose, they will still ignore their reason. OK, so what are the motivating factors here? Category 1 people see problems and they want change. They see oppression and they want freedom. Category 2 people see prosperity and stability and do not want change. They see safety and do not want chaos. There is a clear difference in perspective.

The few individuals who would rather have freedom (than stability and prosperity) pursue it at the cost of those who do not wish it. (I acknowledge stability is not the antithesis of freedom; however, to achieve the freedom there unfortunately is an almost guaranteed instability, albeit for a little while… and in some cases, a long while…) For these individuals, the will of the majority is null when freedom is at stake. Their cause is not even a democratic one, it is a moral one. A second reason their cause is a moral one is the fact that the will of the majority may not be a valid will, if the will is forced to choose one path over another. The majority, if they are ignorant of any alternative, has a void will. They have the guise of having an active will but in reality they have a passive will, choosing the only path available… If I blindfold you and ask you to tell me what you see, you say nothing. But on the other side of the blindfold, there may be a world unrealized, that is, objectively true, absolutely real, though relatively non-existent. But I willed you to say you could see nothing, because I gave you no alternative by putting the blindfold on you. My analogy is not stellar, but think of it this way, fellow philosophers: Category 1 have emerged from the cave… anyone not in Category 1 (Category 2 people and everyone else remaining silent on the issue, who we will call Category 3 people) is still staring at shadows on the wall. (Shouldn’t the Category 1 folks feel that it is [divinely] imperative to bring the rest out of the cave’s darkness?)

Let me come full circle here, back to the political talk. What is neglected by Category 2 and 3 folks is their approach to or perspective of the problems that the opposition party is discussing. Either, a) the majority does not consider the so-called problems as being problems, b) the majority does not know there are problems, or c) the majority accepts the problems for the sake of X (insert: prosperity, stability, etc.)

If (a), then the majority has a different definition of right and wrong, good and evil. I may say that repressing freedom of speech is wrong. But the majority may say that repressing freedom of speech is not wrong (i.e. serving some good, higher purpose) – in this case, the higher purpose is the will of the government authority.
If (b), then the majority is unwittingly, unknowingly ignorant of the problems as existing, or in other words, they cannot be blamed for thinking the way they do… they know of no other alternative (back to the cave analogy)
If (c), then the majority cares for themselves and neither the collective nor the individuals… They ultimately care solely for themselves. It doesn’t matter if their neighbor cannot speak freely; there is no love for neighbor as they would love themselves.

(A) is an intellectual issue, one that will require dialogue to find the common ground of what is good and bad. Relativism is the problem
(B) is a political issue, one that will require the exposure of the misinformation the majority receives. Propaganda is the problem
(C) is a spiritual issue, one that will require a change of heart to love and care for one’s neighbor, willing to fight the good fight for justice, truth, goodness. Apathy, Indifference, and antagonism to God are the problems

I think I’m done now.

*update: A girl in her 20s who I met last fall was released last night at 3am from a Minsk prison... AND the Afghan Christian was released as well, even while some were chanting "Death to Christians!" in protest. (Which isn't shocking, but saddening.)
Glory to God; the prayers of many have prevailed!