A Parable For Our Times
Imagine we live in a country that is perhaps emerging out of colonialism. It is not yet a fully-fledged nation, it has yet to develop a national system of government, let alone a constitution.

In this country, elected representatives of each of the component colonies get together to work out what is best for the country as a whole. They meet regularly with leaders of industry, wealthy individuals and experts to hammer out the country’s economic future. They firmly believe that these issues are best decided in this way. National government seems to be only a distant possibility, and the general consensus among the leaders of government and business tends to be that these matters are better left out of the vagaries of the political process altogether.

A protest movement emerges which challenges this arrangement and seeks to raise the priority of a number of important issues apparently ignored or marginalised by these meetings. The protest movement’s protagonists have begun agitating for more accountability from those planning the country’s future and for a more democratic and transparent decision-making process on a national level. Some of the boldest among the protestors even dream of the formation of a national government which shall be elected and accountable directly to a national constituency.

For various reasons, this movement is perceived as a threat by those inside the meetings. True, some of those attending these meetings believe that what is being demanded outside has some merit, but they cannot help thinking that for the time being it is better left in their safe and experienced hands. Others at the meetings believe that no such possibility should ever be considered, that the current system obviously works well and that allowing for democracy in this arena might jeopardize everything that has thus far been achieved.

The protestors are disappointed in not being taken seriously in their demands and they take the fateful step of blockading a meeting of the country’s leaders on the basis that it is undemocratic and unrepresentative. Those inside the meeting are generally outraged. They organize for the local police in the city in which they are meeting to quash the blockade by force and conspire to make statements to the local press regarding the illegal action of the protestors in denying them free access to meet and discuss the country’s vital economic interests. Whether instigated by the police or by those in the protest movement inclined toward using force, violence erupts and a number of people (mainly protestors) are injured and there are numerous arrests.

All the country’s newspapers are filled with columns denouncing the radical ideas of the protestors and the necessity of permitting the meetings to proceed as normal. Throughout the land, people read the sensational headlines and peruse the editorials. Many scratch their heads and find it hard to understand what all the fuss is about and having more pressing needs think no more of it. Others, taking the editorials at their word, start thinking that these people really are a bunch of lunatic extremists seeking to destroy the economic viability of their country, or at the very least, resent these upstarts for daring to question a system which has thus far worked so well. Then there are those who actually do understand what is at stake but for fear of being ridiculed, or for fear of the unknown, decide to fall in with everybody else and condemn the protest movement, or simply remain silent.

This leaves a small minority who actually understand the issues at stake and have the courage to support what the protests are all about. But these people constitute only a small minority, and they can hardly be heard. Considering how small the numbers of those in support are it seems as if nothing will come of the ideas expressed by the protest movement and the current arrangements will stay in place, at least for now.