The Tyranny of Majority

I frequently find myself wondering how could the case of Freeport happen, or Newmont, or why do we often be afraid of being excluded from the web of international relations hence we did not make a bravery acts? I later discovered that there are actually leaders who are brave enough to say no to foreign interventions, defending the rights of their people on top of everything, being hated by almost all main actors in this billiard table, but then I see that their bravery has brought their people's life on stake, risking everything they have to be taken for the sake of humanitarian intervention. Their failure in guranteeing the welfare of their people, in an instants, is labeled as a violence of human right.

And finally I've come to fathom that we can never give a strict limitation to the superpower states who would kindly invest in our lovely homeland if we are merely a subordinate part of this international system. Our existence depends on how well we abide the demands and requirements of what the superpower wanted. Hence we establish a democratic state, with a democracy as a mean to uphold the basic rights of human being, assuring a freedom to take a role in politic, with the people posses an absolute right to control and criticise the government. And so we open ourselves by allowing abundant of investors coming all the way to exploit our abundance natural resources in which we could not utilise that efficient in a blink of an eye, yielding a million dollar of profit in every minute. We have become a modern state the world told us to be. As in modern in their interpretation. 

And so I wonder, if we now call the absolute monarchy governance as a traditional government which is no longer relevant with nowadays demands, what would your answer be if you are about to be faced with the victory and prosperous life our ancestors have in their past life, led by those traditional monarchy? Perhaps we would most likely answer that those people have not come to think about what does it mean to live, or have we achieved our personal definition of happiness, and all the arguments John Locke, Montesqeui, and their friends had arrived to conclude. But my answer would be,

We are nothing but a product of a millenium era, which were intended to think alike, abiding what has been put to the table, and if we would like to speak up we have to first shape ourselves into something which would give influence to a certain number of people. or even nation to overwhelm. What I would like to say is that humans were created differently, even if almost all of us have a same body organs, or the fact that we are united in international language namely english, we are shaped through various events which most likely won't happen twice. We grow up in a different background, having a certain belief, and how could we simply conclude that all of us, need one and only governance named democracy? Don't get me wrong, I am not against democracy, but I have this belief that everybody proceed to achieve their prosperity through their own way. Hence I still believe that there are some nation-state which, up until now, find no trouble to be governed by the monarchy regime, or authoritarian one. Because it is where they find themselves comfortable, without us meddling and judging that they are not satisfied or even being oppressed. 

What would I say, exactly?

I am brought to my final exam day, an Introduction to IR subject. I was given a question I could not answer, mainly because I did not study that serious, yes indeed I deserve it. The question was

Mention three concepts of liberalism which derivation contradicts each other!

 And then I babbled, anything that popped out on my mind, I mention almost all rights I knew, until I said, Gak tahu Bu, hehe.  So she answered, the right to posses and capitalism. I just nodded and get out from the room, laughing my lungs out and bought a bottle of nu green tea (yes I really should write this part). I did not grasp the answer, or even the question, until I sat on the travel and contemplated, indeed. The liberalist established a concept of human rights, claiming that each human being should have a right to posses, but then they came to discover a concept of capitalism, in which we are limited to the point where capital is the main factor which determines how much could we posses.

No I am no conservative person. Lately I found myself very peculiar that I challenge almost every things I have been taught over years. What I am trying to depict is that, what you believe might be true, for yourself, and you do have  a right to convince others to also believe what you do, but up after that point you should quit.You do not have a right to force others. You go bragging about the idea of liberty yet you oppress those who are not in line with you. You go bragging that each human being were inherently given human rights, raised in a various background, yet you force them to wear the same uniform, to conform in one unison.

This might not be relevant, but from the beginning of the paragraph until the previous one is the reason why I voted for number one. No I do not regret my decision, neither do I deny the result. I am fully open minded and will accept what most of us have come to agree.And upon that point of tyranny do I hate the most from democracy,

It demands you to conform with the majority, neglecting the very fact that the rest do posses their right to be heard, contradict the point that democracy has to uphold the people's voice with no exception, with no discrimination upon their backgrounds.

But fortunately, it offers us a solution; that we do possess a right to control the government.