Why do open societies need Occupy Movements?
Update 10/9/2018: Started writing this blog several years back during the peak of Occupy movements but could not complete. But several events in the last couple of months prompted me to start modifying the content and work towards completing this...
For people across countries and societies freedom to exercise rights and contribute towards the betterment of the society is not at the same level.
We have witnessed several occupy movements across the world over the past several years. Some peaceful, some violent, some deadly & beyond control and some are still in progress and don’t have an end in sight. Each of them began with a reason that is personal to the people living in those societies. I cannot even fathom or pretend that I completely understand the problems and/or reasons. It will be an insult to those people and societies if someone outside thinks otherwise. And most of these occupy movements happened in developing or underdeveloped countries.
Suddenly things began to change and we saw a couple of these movements spread into “open" and "developed" countries. At this point, I would consider the #metoo movement an occupy movement. That begs the question why do open societies protected by the law of their land need occupy movements?
Are the protections, processes, and all the legal entities that are supposed to protect and act upon not working? Is there a need for these Democratic countries and institutions that support the basic fabric of these societies need a makeover?
We are living in a day and age where we hear the phrase “Change is constant”. What if that change is not helping those that need the most in the first place? Can we stop the process of this “change" or make the "change" take a different course? Do open societies have mechanisms to achieve it?
I wrote a blog post on Leadership sometime back. Lot of leadership articles I go thru miss one basic trait and the most important one. It is “Integrity”. And the basic question of this post will be partly answered by looking back at that leadership principle.
In an ideal world, no society would need an “Occupy Movement” or a #metoo movement if the leadership at various levels of a society does their Job with Integrity.
A leader is a servant of the institution and the people he/she is leading. Several definitions of what integrity means...
"the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.”
"the state of being whole and undivided.'
"the condition of being unified, unimpaired, or sound in construction”
So does it not fall on the people living in these open societies to hold their leaders accountable? And what if it has to be the other way around where the leader has to fix the society? Will the people living in such a society accept a leader that asks them to change?
If neither of those happens the folks in the minority usually have two choices. 1) is to accept the reality and go thru the pain 2) Champion for change leading to occupy movements, #metoo movements, protests and other forms of showing their support for the cause.
In so many ways a good leader can help shape the direction of an institution they are leading in a positive way and the impact of that can last very long. The opposite of it is true too when a leader is not leading with integrity and value the people and their cause. The impact of such a leader can last even longer and could damage the entire fabric of a society.
For people across countries and societies freedom to exercise rights and contribute towards the betterment of the society is not at the same level.
We have witnessed several occupy movements across the world over the past several years. Some peaceful, some violent, some deadly & beyond control and some are still in progress and don’t have an end in sight. Each of them began with a reason that is personal to the people living in those societies. I cannot even fathom or pretend that I completely understand the problems and/or reasons. It will be an insult to those people and societies if someone outside thinks otherwise. And most of these occupy movements happened in developing or underdeveloped countries.
Suddenly things began to change and we saw a couple of these movements spread into “open" and "developed" countries. At this point, I would consider the #metoo movement an occupy movement. That begs the question why do open societies protected by the law of their land need occupy movements?
Are the protections, processes, and all the legal entities that are supposed to protect and act upon not working? Is there a need for these Democratic countries and institutions that support the basic fabric of these societies need a makeover?
We are living in a day and age where we hear the phrase “Change is constant”. What if that change is not helping those that need the most in the first place? Can we stop the process of this “change" or make the "change" take a different course? Do open societies have mechanisms to achieve it?
I wrote a blog post on Leadership sometime back. Lot of leadership articles I go thru miss one basic trait and the most important one. It is “Integrity”. And the basic question of this post will be partly answered by looking back at that leadership principle.
In an ideal world, no society would need an “Occupy Movement” or a #metoo movement if the leadership at various levels of a society does their Job with Integrity.
A leader is a servant of the institution and the people he/she is leading. Several definitions of what integrity means...
"the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.”
"the state of being whole and undivided.'
"the condition of being unified, unimpaired, or sound in construction”
So does it not fall on the people living in these open societies to hold their leaders accountable? And what if it has to be the other way around where the leader has to fix the society? Will the people living in such a society accept a leader that asks them to change?
If neither of those happens the folks in the minority usually have two choices. 1) is to accept the reality and go thru the pain 2) Champion for change leading to occupy movements, #metoo movements, protests and other forms of showing their support for the cause.
In so many ways a good leader can help shape the direction of an institution they are leading in a positive way and the impact of that can last very long. The opposite of it is true too when a leader is not leading with integrity and value the people and their cause. The impact of such a leader can last even longer and could damage the entire fabric of a society.
Comments