Government entities are entitled to uphold their principles of governing; democratic nations are obligated to hold elections, whereas totalitarian domains are expected to suppress them. To what extent, however, should a government be allowed to control the human masses? Of course government should seek involvement in a rebellious group who wishes to harm Hindu-Americans. On the same note, however, should big government put a stop to a mass to whom they see as potentially threatening to their political powers? Where do you draw the line?
When we look at the Communist Party, we generally see a small group of head party leaders who preach to the majority of the people that they work for the benefit of all, and that their country is superior to others. Alterior to the party's motive, we often see the Communist Party as an oppressing evil, whose goal is to control every aspect of human life. The party seems to rely greatly on instilling fear within its regime to control its people, and is often found to be threatened by even the slightest communal gathering. As an outsider looking in, we see only these things; we fail to recognize the objective of the party's initial platform.
Falun Dafa is a widely practiced spiritual cleansing, originating from China. Falun Dafa, or Falun Gong is not a religion; it’s a peaceful way of life that centers itself on truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance. In 1999, however, the CCP or Chinese Communist Party, began to arrest and persecute members of the group. Although Falun Dafa is not a political party, its rapid growth in members stirred uneasiness in the Communist Party. Opposition quickly arose against Falun Dafa members, and many have been arrested and beaten since July of 1999 (1).
Examining this violation of human rights as people of a democratic and free nation, we are initially shocked and outraged, followed by a desire to stand against the Chinese government. If we consider, however, the party’s platform, such a reaction from the Chinese government should seem only natural. In order for the Chinese Communist Party to exist in the form that it does, suppression is necessary.
Is the persecution of peaceful Falun Dafa followers beyond repercussions and forgiveness? Absolutely. No persons should have to endure such an obliterating lifestyle. From a literal standpoint though, the Chinese Communist Party is within its rights to stifle anything that may seem threatening to its regime. It would not be sufficient to diplomatically ask the Chinese government to stop the persecution of the Falun Dafa members. Instead, the only way to end the violations of human rights, would be to put an end to the Communist regime itself.
References:
1. Jacobs Andrews, China Still Presses Crusade Against Falun Gong. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/world/asia/28china.html?_r=1. 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No it is not Okay for governments to violate human rights in order to maintain party platforms. As an American, I believe that all of mankind has certain unalienable Rights as defined in the Declaration of Independance. Additionally I believe that no ammendment in the constitution is as important to the persuit of peace than the first ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
ReplyDeleteHowever, aside from my deep seeded belief in the American system of government, I can look objectively at The Chinese method of preserving their own government system. By the Nature of humans, group gatherings bring about ideas that are shared amongst the members of the group. Any group that does not speciffically promote the Chinese Ideals, promotes against them. Therefore to preserve those ideals, individualism and groups outside of the party teachings, even if they do not speciffically speak out against the Chinese government, has the threat of undermining it.
....cont
ReplyDeleteIt is then incumbent upon the Chinese government to abolish such group meetings to preserve the government platform and a form of peace in the Chinese country.
"Of course government should seek involvement in a rebellious group who wishes to harm Hindu-Americans"
ReplyDeleteIs an unclear example are you relating to a specific event?
I Agree, The CCP's reliance on fear is a shining example on the fragile platform they stand on.
However, the CCP's response to the growth of Falun Gong was sparked by a rational realization that if the group turned political they could over throw the CCP. How they responded to the rational fear is, completely irrational.
I think you have a very strong argument here however, it could be significantly strengthened with better phrasing.
ReplyDelete"Government entities are entitled to uphold their principles of governing; democratic nations are obligated to hold elections, whereas totalitarian domains are expected to suppress them."
First, if you're referring to America (and most voting countries) you should say republic not democracy and emphasize on what kind of elections. Elections by the oligarchy, elections by the white property owning males, elections by only the educated? I think this will help tie in why you connect that to human rights. It may seem obvious to you, and most people reading your essay but it will make the comparison more vibrant. Secondly, totalitarian governments aren't expected to suppress elections because elections aren't even part of the system. I would then propose that what you should be comparing is how Republics gain their power, from the people, where totalitarian's do not need the consent of the governed because it comes from a Higher Power.
With all this being said, I think you can change the initial wording as well to say instead of, "Government entities are entitled to uphold their principles", to mention that their principles come from what gives them power. A government's main function is to protect its own power, so that it can continue to exist.
I think your argument is very strong, as what rational government would willingly accept or support anything that threatens to weaken its power?
Your last sentence seems extraordinary ignorant. Removing China's government would achieve nothing but chaos and instability. A country of 1 billion people (mostly uneducated), nuclear weapons and no government, geeze that sounds pleasant. Causing a coup in any country never achieved decent results as seen in all of the African and South American nations. If that doesn't prove my point than research into the imperialistic period when the Europeans were smart enough to leave the horrifically corrupted and vastly more "evil" monarchy in place just to preserve stability and open markets.
ReplyDeleteGosh anonymous, a wee harsh? I dont think The author was advocating the removal of the Chinese government.
ReplyDeleteI was not advocating the demise of China's government; I was stating that for the end of the persecution of Falun Gong, the Communist Party would have to be dissolved.
ReplyDelete