A Face, but No Body

A country is not just its leader.

America is not just Barrack Obama.
France is not just Nicolas Sarkozy.
Libya is not just Muammar el-Quaddafi.

The leader may be the face of the country, but he or she is not the country. The leader is one facet of the country, one person in power, one person to listen to, but not the country. In each of these countries, there are also the people, the businesses, and the children. All of these people benefit or suffer because of how the world labels the people in a country based on their ruler. As Arwa Alasama, a woman from Libya, says in an interview with New York Times, a developing country needs the help of foreign companies to help create jobs for the youth to better themselves. To do this, the masses of the world need to get over that face, the leader, of the country and help create those jobs. They need to stop judging the people by their ruler's actions.

An example of this is when Deng Xiaoping, in his campaign of the "Four Modernizations" after Mao's death, allowed foreign capitalists to open factories in southern China and encouraged wealthy Chinese businessmen that worked overseas to come back home. Despite China being Communist and the bad blood created during the Cold War, foreigners and the overseas Chinese businessmen did indeed come back to China and create new jobs. This greatly helped the Chinese economy grow, with per capita income doubling from 1978 to 1987. While Deng did other things to help the economy improve, such as bringing modernization to the countryside and allow small private businesses to be created, these things created fewer jobs on average than the factories of the imported businessmen.

While the leader of a country makes important decisions that effects the rest of their country, it is important not to judge a book by its cover or a people by their ruler. If we do, it can be detrimental to a peoples' economic health and as a result, a peoples' well being.

Floating Face Picture

The Relativity of Truth

When someone asks: Who is the most influential non-violent leader of the last two hundred years, the answer tends to be Gandhi. One of the main influences on Gandhi’s point of view was a Jainist story about six blind men and an elephant. In this story, six blind men, who have never seen an elephant, decide to go to the elephant anyway to feel the elephant. All of these men happen to feel a different part of the elephant and thus think the elephant is a different thing than the other men. For example, the man touching the trunk calls an elephant a thick branch, while the man that feels the elephant’s ears thinks an elephant is like a big hand fan. These men start to quarrel thinking only their version of the elephant is right. It is only when a wise man comes and fills them in do they realize they are all right. This story teaches that each person’s version of the truth can be different because of their point of view without being wrong. Truth is relative. For a full version of the story, go here. Interestingly, this story also shows up in Buddhism, Hinduism and Sufi Muslim.

The question is, does this apply to fanatical political parties as well?

Are the communists’ “truth” any less true than the capitalists’ “truth”?
Are the Republican’s “true way of doing things” any more true than the Democrat’s?

In the American political party system, each party describes their extreme left or right point-of-view as the only possible way to go. Anyone moderate tends to get screened out of the political game in the ugliest ways possible. In this way, “communist” and “socialist” have become almost dirty words. However, to say that the values, if not the historical actions, of those two ideological groups are any less than a version of the truth is not only to denounce millions of people who believe in those ideologies but also to become narrow minded like the blind men were originally.

There are so many political parties that say that their way is the only way. For example, America spreads democracy as the only good way to run a country. America is instigating democracy in countries, such as Afghanistan, by force that either don’t want democracy, don’t want democracy forced upon them or don’t believe democracy is right for them. Why would a system that works in America with the American culture necessarily work for a completely different culture and different point of view? While democracy may be one truth, like the blind men in the story, it may not be the complete truth.

Gandhi would have said that the moral of this Jainist tale can be applied to political parties. While Gandhi still worked as a lawyer, most of his cases were solved by people just talking it out and ended without a court getting involved. When using a non-cooperation campaign against the British, Gandhi would announce his plans to the British beforehand. Such a respect for the opposition has to derive from a tolerance for them. If nothing else, the Jainist story teaches tolerance.

In the end, the story’s moral of tolerance may still apply to political parties, just the larger political parties are harder to not judge intolerantly.