The European Court of Human Rights
In the last decades we have seen how indecisive the Western democracy is dealing with immigration. Just a few years ago EU and other countries of democratic block emphasized our common values, and politicians expressed their goal to strengthen citizens’ trust to decision makers by keeping up values acknowledged by everyone. Despite the large number of immigrants, who have integrated into our societies and the mixing of cultures, western countries have been quite homogeneous by their populations, values and organization of society.
Due to uncontrolled immigration the population has transformed to quite heterogeneous. Not only from perspective of ethnicity and genotype, but also from perspective of civics, personal capabilities, goals and values. Western countries are forced to face problems of developing countries on a daily basis.
It is topsy-turvy that in the same time as decision makers are emphasizing the importance of diversity and tolerance, they rule people, as if they were homogeneous crowd. It is clear that one must familiarize with people’s backgrounds, capabilities and personal tastes, when one wants to help them. But it seems that decision makers are ready to barter our common democratic values, on which the success of western democracies are based upon.
Civil rights are restricted and in minds of decision makers freedom of speech has changed to “hate speech” as the expressions may hurt someone’s feelings. In my opinion no one with a healthy self-esteem will get hurt from opinions of other people.
I think that the reason, why so many become offended by opinions of other people is due to their own low self-esteem. They have not grown as humans to full independence, to take responsibility of themselves and others. They are a threat to us all, because every person’s democratic rights depend on freedom to express our true selves. The best social order for this kind of people would be civilized dictatorship.
When we speak about dictatorship we have become accustomed to think that it as an authoritarian power structure, in which the leading elite lays down strict rules and orders, and dictates to vast population how to live, what is allowed and what is not allowed. We have got used to think that in dictatorship all individualism is forbidden and people are not even allowed to think by themselves.
But civilized dictatorship is completely different from oppressing, authoritarian dictatorship. At the same time it is a pluralistic democracy, and actually every responsible parent in the Western world uses it, while raising up their children to become independent members of a democratic society. Civilized dictatorship belongs to the daily life of families with children so seamlessly that people do not even consider it as dictatorship.
We all know “Supernanny” Jo Frost, who has brought “law and order” to many dysfunctional families. Her educational methods are the purest form of a civilized dictatorship. The purpose is not to smother individuality of people, but to safeguard a good operational environment for all, and thus every ones rights, so that people can work constructively in collaboration with each other.
Civilized Dictatorship as a Governing Policy
Although dictatorship is an essential part of western daily life, people oppose dictatorship exercised by governments with all their might. However we are the state, its citizens and our government’s purpose is to safeguard a good operational environment for all, and thus every ones rights, so that people can work constructively in collaboration with each other. In this relation the function of a government is no different from the function of parents.
China was accused 25 years ago for using methods of dictatorship and repression of population after it extinguished demonstrations at Tiananmen. During this time China has shown that accusations of the Western World about systematic repression of people are unfounded.
China has grown to a leading economic power of the world and its growth is not only economic, scientific and technological. In 1949 when the Peoples’ Republic of China was founded, the country did not have a legal system required by a modern, organized society, and there was only about 1000 lawyers in the whole country. From this perspective the rise of China is without a parallel.
The government of China has led its heterogeneous population of over billion people with determination. It has adopted from the Western World only things, which it has considered beneficial and progressive for the population. Despite the extreme differences on personal level among the population, the government of China has succeeded to keep things more or less in balance so that the development of the country benefits all people.
Deng Xiaoping has been considered as the chief architect for economical reformation and modernization of society in China. Unlike Mao Zedong and other hard line communists, who turned down all western influences, Deng Xiaoping had a very practical perspective in this regard. He said: “It does not matter, whether a cat is black or white. If it catches mice it is a good cat.”
One country, two systems
Personally Deng Xiaoping thought that the goals of Mao Zedong were principally good. Although China often exercises stronger capitalism than many western countries, China kept about 70% of its communistic legacy with purpose to create “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, which probably means socialism that responds to the requirements of the nation. Deng emphasized that socialism is not shared poverty.
Successful economic reformation and modernization of society in China has been accelerated by Special Economic Zones, which have enabled experimenting with policies in a limited area. Similar model has recently been proposed to solve the problem of uncontrolled immigration.
The chief economist of the World Bank Paul Romer suggests that Sweden could approach the problems of immigration by creating free zones, where immigrants could live and earn their living without being a burden to Swedish tax payers.
The idea is good. However, these zones should be planned so, that the rights of all inhabitants are secured by strengthened safety measures. Everybody’s efforts to educate themselves in order to integrate into the society should be under state protection. Otherwise these zones would become just another no-go-zones. No religious or cultural practices and traditions should rise above universal human rights.
First of all western countries should apply one-child – policy concerning asylum seekers. On the one hand it would ease the integration efforts. On the other hand it would stop the uncontrolled breeding of Muslim immigrants at the expense of the original population.
The fact that Westerners do not have so many children as Muslim immigrants is not an indication that God has put a curse on them, like people in many occasions seem to think. It is simply, because the Westerners have assimilated the idea that parents pay themselves the costs of their children. This is the primary practice also in the Nordic welfare states, although the social benefits provided by the government are higher than in many other countries.
People who understand the meaning of democracy and freedom for sustainable development should recognize their responsibility and approach human rights from their obligations and responsibilities. Because in the end we all want every nation to prosper so that people can thrive. Sustainable development demands this.
Videos:Barbara O’Neill: The Laws of the Mind Supernanny Jo Frost: The Chapman Family
Supernanny Jo Frost: The Tafoya Family
Supernanny Jo Frost: The Amouri Family