Never let it be said that television isn’t good for anything.
Over the last two nights I have seen two extraordinary documentaries that convince me there
are things that can be done to make the world a better place. The trick now is to figure out exactly how to use my talents and skills to be part of that.
My mind is burning as I write this. What can I do as a writer, a thinker, a musician, a lawyer, to contribute to reshaping the world? Are the things I’m doing now making a difference? Are there other things I could do that would make
more of a difference?
Documentary one, spread over a few weeks, was the film “The Corporation”. In large measure it merely reinforced things I already knew/thought, but the combined effect of all the different sources saying the same thing is overwhelming.
It comes down to this: corporations are, under current law,
obligated to
MAXIMISE profit.
They behave accordingly. We then spend a large amount of our time being shocked at their behaviour and creating other laws to try and get them to act against their nature.
So many of the bad aspects of corporations derive from this one basic rule, it’s astounding. I’m convinced of this. I’m also convinced that most of the individual people involved in running corporations are NOT malevolent sociopaths bent on destroying the world, but the whole point of a corporation is that it’s legally a separate person, with one single overriding goal. Whatever individual position holders think, they are restrained from doing anything that will impact the bottom line.
The rationale for this system is that a company is accountable to its shareholders. It’s ridiculous. Through an accident of history,
i'm a shareholder. I have almost no idea of what the company in question is doing. I really don’t have the time or inclination to find out, and I’m sure that applies to most of my fellow shareholders.
Twice a year I receive a dividend cheque. Personally, I don’t care all that much what the amount is, but you know what the one thing would be that would get most shareholders attention? A drop in the dividend. That’s the only thing about the running of the company that affects them. So that’s the only thing about which they will hold the company accountable!
Imagine what would happen if that one basic rule was changed, from being obligated to maximise profit to simply being obligated to try to make a profit for shareholders. Imagine all the different choices that corporate position holders could make if profit was not an
overriding consideration.
I really cannot understand why money should be the number one priority. Some time ago now I saw a brilliant article by an academic from Canada that questioned the fundamental assumption that wealth is an end rather than a means.
What is wealth, money, the economy,
for? It lets you DO things. If the pursuit of wealth, though has a detrimental impact on the quality of life, what’s the point? Wouldn’t it be better to have a little less wealth and in return be able to enjoy your life, your environment, your culture?
I’ve been told several times now I should be aiming for a higher job. Eventually I probably
will want one – I’ll be looking for greater intellectual challenge, improved skills and knowledge, and more responsibility in the chosen field. But right now, I’m still learning a lot at my
current level. As far as I can tell, I’m earning enough to live on, yet people seem to think that I ought to apply for a higher job, with harder work and longer hours, simply
in order to get paid more.
Think about this. Why I’m the one who’s considered slightly odd, I simply do not know.
One side-effect of the idea that wealth is a priority – the basic belief inherent in corporations as they now stand – is the idea that everything can be, and
should be, bought and sold. “The Corporation” had one moment that utterly punctured that idea, and I will now use it every time I come across the argument.
Slavery.
One of the people interviewed in the film pointed out that we, as a society, HAD bought and sold human beings. We then decided that this was inherently wrong.
If we allow one exception, we can allow others – water, air, genes. There are things that are too important for making money (as opposed to recouping costs) to be a consideration.
Documentary number two was called “The Judge and The Fanatic”. It described the extraordinary commitment of a scholar and judge in the Muslim nation of Yemen to changing the views of Islamic fundamentalists so that they renounce violence and terrorism.
The judge, whose name is Hamoud al-Hitar, utilises an ancient Yemeni means of resolving disputes known as ‘dialogue’. He has sat down with some of the most extreme men in Yemeni prisoners and discussed the Muslim faith with them – and proceeded to show them that their previous understanding of the religion he shares with them is false.
In doing this he is answering a call to all religious scholars by Yemen’s President. However, most of them were too afraid to become involved, lest they were seen as collaborators with the West and thus became targets themselves.
But ‘dialogue’
works. According to the documentary, something like 350 men have been through the process, accepted that they were wrong and changed their ways. Some of them have been paroled and are getting on with life in the community (and isn’t that what prison should be about, rehabilitation as well as punishment?).
Hamoud al-Hitar discussed his dialogue with one young man. First, the man asserted that Yemen was not an Islamic country because it was not formally under religious law. Hamoud gave him a copy of Yemen’s constitution and laws, and asked him to find something that contradicted the Koran or the Sunna. He couldn’t. Second, the man asserted that Yemen’s democratic form of government (a fairly new development) was not legitimate. Hamoud asked him to find something in the Koran or the Sunna that backed this view. He couldn’t, and came to acknowledge the President was a legitimate leader. Third, the man asserted that Americans and their allies could legitimately be killed as infidels. Hamoud demonstrated to him that the Koran forbade all killing as a basic principle, and then only allowed it in certain circumstances (which is exactly what Western legal systems do, by the way). Massacring people at random wasn't one of those circumstances.
End result – a raving religious fanatic becomes a normal citizen. One of Osama bin Laden’s former bodyguards is an example. He now understands that people of other faiths are simply different rather than ‘the enemy’.
Imagine the implications of taking this program around the world. Take it to Guantanamo Bay for a start (where there are quite a few Yemenis, never mind everybody
else) and over time we could drastically reduce the number of people locked up because we’re so afraid of what they might do.
We should be
pouring all that money we’re making into Yemen to help them achieve something that would make a difference. Now
there's an end worth pursuing.
Mary said...
