The ?Value? of Stability

I often think of my relationship to politics in the following way: I have radical (perhaps revolutionary) ideals about what successful human interaction actually is. Like a good socialist, I think that everyone should have equal access to resources and maintain relatively equal shares of power. When the few control the resources (wealth) and the many exert themselves desperately and disparately--grasping for a pittance--the structures of power have clearly become imbalanced. And they must be either changed, or destroyed. Like a good libertarian, I think that individuals must choose how to organize themselves as part of a group. Taxation, laws governing social behavior (promoted or punishable), as well as pro-war (and other types of sectarian) propaganda look a lot like coercion. A centralized group-think about who is right/wrong, who deserves to be killed or locked up, and what causes are un(worthy) of support, by threatening the integrity of human will/volition, ultimately engenders (rather than squelches) the revolutionary spirit--which may (seem to) have no alternative to violence in its eruption. What real solidarity we have with one another must be freely chosen. That is, each person must choose to see it in order to choose what to do about it. But in the light we can see shadows.

We in the US experience a more/less stable political environment, despite the shifts between our two major parties and between the ideals that those parties espouse. In Nepal, city-wide and country-wide protests freeze commerce and eliminate the possibility of safely traveling from place to place. Elected officials exert relatively limited control over social institutions and lack sufficient resources to address basic infrastructure requirements. Two different armies (the Nationalist army and the Maoist army) maintain posts in larger cities and along major roads. Thankfully, (at least for now) they have stopped fighting one another. On one hand, the Nepali democracy, with the energy of youth, bubbles with possibilities. Perhaps the people have a chance to create their own future, to make it distinctly Nepali--diverse and welcoming and beautiful. On the other hand, for many (if not most) citizens, political instability appears to inhibit rather than empower them in their daily lives, to limit what is possible rather than expanding its horizons.

Even in times of purported change, the US political system evolves slowly and often in a circular fashion. This relative stability provides a level of comfort for many US citizens, while simultaneously fostering a sense of hope in those citizens whose lives are not comfortable or whose interests are not represented by the centralized power. Knowing that change does happen, that new opportunities do arise, that creativity and ingenuity do actually generate tangible results from time to time channels individuals with revolutionary leanings into roles as activists, intellectuals, or artists. So, the revolution may have a non-violent outlet after all...or so we think, for better or for worse.