Lakshmi Manasa Maddi: Week 15 - Authoritative Control
Lakshmi Manasa Maddi - Week 15: Authoritative Control
Have you ever imagined how you your life would be if you were forced to follow a certain set of guidelines that were enforced on you by the government and political officials surrounding you? We often hear the word authoritative have connotations of meaning having a centralized arena of power or the “opposition of liberal politics” where ones freedom of speech and expression are limited to the government’s control. However, this sense of control that politicians have over citizens is dependent on acts they decide to impose on others (Sud).
For instance, the Prime Minister of India, enacted the formation of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, a time period at which cities and villages were to be cleaned out of dirt and litter in the hopes of preventing the problem of ‘open defecation’ from becoming a larger problem in the nation (Sud). This particular doing alertly positively impacts the country since it was a result of the leader of the country wanting to decrease the growth of ‘blackened economy’ which consists of currency that is left undeclared and ones who avoid paying tax (Sud). Such examples demonstrate that with a degree of control over the citizens, the Prime Minister of the country is able to effectuate a feeling of responsibility within adults and children on the societal problems that we are facing, thus educating them on issues that must be addressed (Sud).
This distinctly opposes to times when specific races or religious groups are being targeted and associated with problems simply for their background (Sud). Through the Citizenship Amendment Act, and the way it was particularly implemented within the country of India, aimed to not allow the Muslim-minority groups from applying to their Indian Citizenship (Sud). Although this Amendment secures the protection for Sikhs, Jains, Hindus and other religions found in this nation, the government is reluctant to extend this privilege over to this minority group simply due to internal discrepancies that have raised as a part of the oppressive states (Sud).
Punishments, repression and ferocity in terms of brutality in the way they are treated are all apart of demonstrating that every country has some aspects that it has that it can fix in itself such as misusing their citizenship in the political community.
Image Source: https://www.bishophouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/authority-boss-red-man.jpg
Hi Manasa, I thought your blog was really interesting and stimulated a nuanced discussion on the idea of authoritative control. Typically, we associate this phrase with a violation of one's rights and overall as a negative thing. However, having authority control can simply mean being a firm leader and being able to gain the support of your people, something that is certainly inherently positive. The polices you mentioned that tried to solve problems of open defecation and blackened economy are certainly positive improvements to society; even though these bills are authoritative and sometimes even take away from people’s freedom. Conversely, we view these discriminatory policies in a much harsher light, because they are based on negative stereotypes. I think that this debate on authoritative control really comes back to the age old debate between individual freedom and collective security. How much of our freedom are we willing to sacrifice for the nation’s security or collective wellbeing?
ReplyDeleteHi Manasa, I like how you find a distinction between two types of authoritative control. On one hand, "authoritative control" is nothing more than taking responsibility for the problems that the country is facing and solving the problem. However, on the other hand, "authoritative control" could be controlling the society in a way that imposes harm on the citizens. Also, something that I just thought about is that the leaders who are imposing this harsh rule might also be confused between good authoritative rule and bad authoritative rule. They think that what they are doing is good for the place that they are ruling.
ReplyDeleteHi Manasa! To an extent, I would consider any laws or basic government regulations to be guidelines that control the way we live our lives. Although, I do understand your point about how in the world's less democratic institutions some of these laws are overly intrusive into our personal lives. I suppose the bigger issue is defining the line between which laws are considered just and which laws are considered to be a violation of basic rights. The more repressive and prejudiced ones such as discrimination against a religious or ethnic group are certainly uncalled for. However, it's far more difficult to determine the extent to which the government can monitor us and disregard our privacy. Although, maybe the best indicator of whether or not a government is overly-controlling is the popular opinion of those it presides over.
ReplyDeleteHi Manasa! I don't usually like getting political , so before reading your post, my only knowledge about authoritative control was that it was "the one Californians don't really seem to like" since it was more to the right and almost everyone I know is leftist. So basically, I don't have the best opinion on it, and I never even considered that authoritative control could be good if executed properly. As an APES student, I think its nice that the Prime Minister of India is incentivizing the creation of a better living environment for his people and trying to fix the problems with his country. This kind of reminds me of Machiavelli where a leader must debate being loved by the people or ruling by fear.
ReplyDeleteHey Manasa, I find that the facets of government are often very nuanced and can shift from being very strict and overbearing to being very loose and less authoritative. While I'd say all forms of laws and legislation tend to enact a certain way of living onto its people, I see how some governments have significant more restrictive and discriminatory policies, as you mention later in your blog post. Thomas Hobbes, I believe, indicated that government was a code or contract between the government and its people, which people were to give all of their rights to and follow as the "Leviathan" of government will regulate and control people, as Hobbes indicates that we are all inherently evil and thus require laws. While I'd agree with the sentiment that a form of conduct or contract is necessary to our structured society, I'd disagree with the sentiment that it needs to controlled our innately evil selves, instead I'd argue that Locke's philosophy of enacting legislation beneficial to life and liberty. While government is necessary to an extent, I'm glad the distinction is regularly made between authoritative and overwhelming forms of government.
ReplyDeleteAn authoritative country is something that many of my friends have lived under. China has been what I consider an authoritative country for several decades, and while I have never actually spent more than one year in China, my parents have spent decades there. They lived under a regime that rationed goods like it was World War Two, a regime that basically locked down the country away from any outside influence. When Deng Xiaoping opened up China to the wider world, the people of China were literally shell-shocked. The authoritative country is something that can never succeed, but only last for several decades. China experienced massive growth after opening, and for all authoritative countries, serves as a reminder.
ReplyDelete