The Generation War

Originally published in the Informanté newspaper on Thursday, 30 June, 2016.

“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”

Does this sound familiar? These days it’s quite often that you see similar sentiments from the older generation, but the quote above is not recent. Although frequently attributed to Socrates, it stems from the Cambridge dissertation of Kenneth John Freeman, and although not quite as dated as Socrates, he published it in 1907. 

And yet it still seems appropriate today. When we look at the news, it seems that ‘Youth Activism’ is blamed for everything from the decline of morals and for the riots and demonstrations that seek to upend the status quo. The Youth, they say, has no respect for the proper order of things, and only ‘want, want, want.’

It seems that those making the claims are rather stunningly not recognizing the self-made indictment against their own parenting abilities – after all, the youth did not raise themselves. These same individuals who now decry this in the youth are the same people who taught them that they can be anything – movie stars, rock stars, anything they want to be – and are now confused as to why a generation taught that they’re ‘special’ are now quite disgruntled when they enter the world and find out that when everyone’s special, no one is. 

After all, when you’ve raised your kids to aim high, they’re bound to be disgruntled pumping gas and waiting tables. And perhaps the older generation sees the past with rose-tinted glasses – after all they claim they were always respectful to their elders, etc. And yet in the United States, these same Baby Boomers were the hippie generation – the epitome of counter-culture!

In Namibia, the contrast is even more stark. The older generation were the Revolutionary Generation! They fought against the status quo, in armed conflict, to secure Namibia’s independence. What are the odds that they never instilled these revolutionary values in their own children? How can they thus be surprised that they now, too, rebel against the status quo?

Worldwide, it seems this trend is rising. In the Brexit referendum, the youth voted overwhelmingly to remain, while the older generation was the ones who voted to leave. In the United States presidential primaries, it seems the youth were quite attracted to Bernie Sanders, while the older voters tended to skew towards Donald Trump. 

Over the last decade, it seems that a fundamental shift occurred in the world, and that an intergenerational rivalry arose. While it might seem almost unthinkable, when you dig into the data, you can see why this shift in attitudes occurred. After all, as medical science has advanced, so too has the average life expectancy. And as quality of life has increased for the older members of society, so too has their prospect of working well beyond what used to be the normal retirement age. 

Medical science also reduced infant and maternal mortality, which reduced the size of families. As the cost of childcare has increased, so too has the population growth rate decreased. And that has resulted in a demographic first for the world – the proportion of the old in the population is growing, and soon will exceed the number of children in society. 

In the developed economies, this is already occurring. The victory of the Leave campaign in Britain already shows this. As time goes by, the rest of the world will age as well – even Africa. And while it is not in Africa’s immediate future, we will have to deal with the rest of the world struggling with their own aging problem. In Japan, currently, every ten working age individuals now have to support 4.3 old people, and by 2050, every 10 working age individuals will have to support 7.1 retirees. In the US, every 10 workers now have to support 2.2 retirees, and that will double to 3.7 retirees by 2050.

For the first time in history, demographics is turning the democratic vote from one controlled by the young to one dominated by the old. Upward employment mobility is stagnating due to the retirement age shifting outward. And for a youth who were promised the world, is it any wonder that they feel frustrated? After all, when voting on far-reaching policies such as climate change, you can understand that those who still have 60 years to live on this planet feel disillusioned when their say is overridden by those with only 20 years left to live.  

In a way, this intergenerational war has been fuelled by the mistaken belief that life is fair. The older generation believe that the young must be struggling because they’re not behaving correctly and not working hard enough – after all, in a fair world, upstanding hard workers won’t suffer. They fail to see that their own actions caused the youth’s hardships. The youth, believing as well that their hard work and upstanding nature should have brought them success, still find that they’re struggling, and assume that it must be unfairness from those in power that’s keeping them down, not realising that it’s not the older generation that’s causing their struggle, but rather that the world has changed. As Marcus Cole said, “I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life *were* fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.”

Luckily, here in Namibia, we seem to be blessed with a post-revolutionary government that has reaped the benefits of peace and stability, and learns from the mistakes in the rest of the world. The Harambee Prosperity Plan seems quite prescient in this regard, as the old revolutionaries have seen what happens in other African countries if poverty is not addressed. With they themselves aging, they’ve realised that it is the next generation that needs to provide for them, and set up a plan that will enable the youth to grow prosperous enough to carry the nation going forward. All that is required now, is for the youth to take this olive branch of prosperity and peace that has been handed to them, and grow the country they will inhabit for the next 60 years, lest we suffer the same fate as the rest of the world.

Freedom to Listen

Originally published in the Informanté newspaper on Thursday, 23 June, 2016.

The past month has been quite a tumultuous one for the Namibian public. We’ve had mass demonstrations that rallied hundreds, even thousands of citizens, and we’ve had social outcry over the vicious attack and murder on some of our citizens. It is heartening to see that the freedom of speech and expression is alive and well in Namibia, as guaranteed in Article 21 of our constitution.

But as with all freedoms, it is sometimes misunderstood. Especially when this freedom is expressed via heated, and sometimes emotional, language and arguments that are so close to the person concerned, they seem to believe that the freedom of speech and expression entitles them to a certain level of protection that is not in any way included in that freedom. It does not guarantee you the right to an audience…

Article 21 of the constitution points out some of these limitations, stating in Sub-Article (2), “The fundamental freedoms referred to in Sub-Article (1) hereof shall be exercised subject to the law of Namibia, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights and freedoms conferred by the said Sub-Article, which are necessary in a democratic society and are required in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of Namibia, national security, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”

But what is implicit here, as with all constitutions, is that it defines the role of government in these freedoms. Freedom of speech is thus the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. And even that is allowed as per Sub-Article (2), for certain forms of speech. It is thus quite permissible for a private organisation to censor speech by taking private, non-government, action against you.

Thus, when a newspaper or social media site does not publish your letter to the editor, or your post to their page, they are not practising censorship – they are in fact practising their own freedom of speech and expression – it is after all, their platform that they speak from. Forcing them into speech they do not wish to make is the antithesis of freedom of speech. You are, after all, still free to publish your own newspaper, and host your own website, and start your own page on Facebook, or even your own version of Facebook. Your rights have not been infringed at all.

After all, you have the right to freedom of speech and expression, not the right to an audience. Those you speak to also have a freedom to listen, or not, to your speech. Some people go even further, and believe that freedom of speech imparts their words with a mystical and truthful colour that cannot be opposed.  They believe that anyone who criticises something they’ve said, are trying to ‘censor’ them.

This is an old problem. Even Winston Churchill commented on this, claiming “Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Truth be told, by claiming no one may respond to your speech is in fact infringing on their right to free speech. The right not to be criticized has never existed, no matter how much someone might have wanted it. 

Freedom of speech, even without its additional imaginary rights, is quite a powerful freedom. It is fundamental to any functioning democracy, as only an informed electorate that has access to the free flow of information and ideas can make an informed vote.  But as I have hinted above, implicit in the freedom of speech is another freedom. According to John Milton, the freedom of speech and expression has four distinct aspects. It is not only the right to express information and ideas, but also the right to seek information and ideas, the right to receive them, and the right to impart them.

The freedom of speech, thus, also contains within it the freedom to listen. And just like any freedom confers upon its user a certain level of responsibility, so too does this one. The freedom to speak has outlined how it should be responsibly used in Sub-Article (2), but the freedom to listen? Those responsibilities are perhaps even more important, as they shape how we as a society consume the speech produced by others. But those have not been quite so clearly delineated.

An informed citizen must not just listen and accept everything as true, for on that road surely lies madness. The simply incongruence between sources that might be either deceitful, delusional, biased or simply propaganda that distorts facts, should surely convince people that there must be a better way. They’d be right. Listening requires assessing information, and over the years a set of standard techniques have been developed that allows one to assess and evaluate ideas. Drawing heavily from the Scientific Method, this has become known as critical thinking skills.

For those who apply critical thought to the information they receive, the information becomes much more valuable. They are able to determine whether the information is in fact relevant to the matter at hand, and differentiate between rational and emotional claims. They’re able to separate fact from opinion, and can spot holes in an argument and ferret out deception. Separating fact from simple opinion, they can recognize logical flaws in arguments.

But more than that. Based on these skills, they’re able to connect different sources of data and information, and pick the strongest set of supporting information. They are able to tolerate information that differs from their views, and evaluate whether it’s not their own views that must change.  From this, they can showcase their own, personal analysis of said data, and present their argument and its context, and correctly use the evidence to defend their argument. But most importantly, it enables them to recognize that a problem may have to single answer, or even a clear answer.

The freedom to listen is perhaps even more important than the freedom to speak, as when it is properly applied, your fellow citizens together make you a better, more informed person. In Namibia, we now have the freedom of speech mastered. Perhaps for us as a nation to ascend to a better democracy, we should now try exercising the freedom to listen. After all, tolerance cannot come without a measure of understanding. And if you’re not even willing to listen, how will you ever understand?

Fear and Loathing

Originally published in the Informanté newspaper on Thursday, 16 June, 2016.

“Fear leads to anger. Angers leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” And while it might have been Yoda from Star Wars who said these words, over this weekend, we were treated to the horrific aftermath that it implies. With 50 dead, and 53 injured, it was the worst terrorist attack in the United States since the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001.

When it was revealed that the attacker was of the Islamic faith, once again fearful cries were heard about how this could happen when Islam is supposedly a “religion of peace.” And yet Islam is not the only religion who has had its atrocities. In 1939, a man who wrote in his book Mein Kampf, “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord,“ initiated his own Final Solution. And the Crusades certainly need no introduction either.

All religions claim to be religions of peace, and condemns killing, from the famous line of the Torah, in Exodus 20:13 – “Thou shalt not kill,” to the words of Jesus, in Matthew 5:21-22 – “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire,” and the Qur'an 5:32 – “If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”

Even those atheists who subscribe to a set life stance, such as Humanism, agree that people should live and make their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals. But not all those who do not believe subscribe to the same ethical principles – after all, atheism is simply a statement of what one does not believe, not what one does. And the non-religious also have their atrocities – under the rule of Mao Zedong, an atheist, he managed to cause the death of an estimated 78 million Chinese. 

Religion, it seems, is simply but an excuse that is used to justify killing. And mankind has killed one another for quite a long time indeed, as I elaborated upon in last year’s Theory of Interest, “War Never Changes.” But except for isolated instances, mankind does not wantonly kill each other. When we do, it usually starts with fear. Fear of those different, who do things differently from what we do. Fear of the unknown, and the other. And it is usually coupled with a sense of moral certainty and pride in ourselves and our ways, whether that is centred on the personal, the nation, or the religious faith.

And it is through those avenues that humanity finds a way to kill its fellow humans – by dehumanizing them. “They are different, and therefore less than us.” The fear leads to anger. “Why should those less than us have privileges we deserve?” Which leads to hate. “They should be cleansed from this Earth to make our society pure again!” And that leads to untold suffering. 

HL Mencken said, “Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. […] The truly civilized man is always sceptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on ‘I am not too sure.’” Science has always been based on the assumption that discoveries can only be accepted as true as long as no evidence against it has been found. As soon as such evidence is found and verified, science no longer considers it true. It is why, after all the evidence in favour of it, the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution are still just theories. 

In the end, when you think about it, all you can really be sure of is your existence. “I think, therefore I am.” I think I’m sitting at my desk, typing, but for all I know I could be in a padded cell, yelling at the wall “Why can’t we all just get along?!?” So whenever you consider a certain fact or action wrong or right with absolute certainty, beware. You are exhibiting the same signs that could be used to ‘radicalize’ you. You are exhibiting signs that could lead you down untold suffering.

Try instead to develop a tolerance for those different from you. As per UNESCO’s declaration, tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace. Tolerance is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values.

Which bring us back to the terrible events that occurred in the United States over the weekend. It reflected a moral certainty that those of a different religion and of a different sexual orientation were not to be tolerated, and were justifiably allowed to be killed. Namibia, I felt assured, would not foster that kind of culture. After all, in the preamble to our constitution, we claim “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is indispensable for freedom, justice and peace,” and that these rights include “the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, religion, creed or social or economic status.” And then I saw the map indicating countries with laws intolerant of sexual orientation.

Why have we, a country that has “finally emerged victorious in our struggle against colonialism, racism and apartheid,” and has a desire to “promote amongst all of us the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Namibian nation,” by striving “to achieve national reconciliation and to foster peace, unity and a common loyalty,” decided that we will institute a new apartheid against some of our citizens? Why have we decided to strip them of their protection against discrimination by removing sexual orientation as a ground for non-discrimination from the 2007 Labour Act? Why, when so many of our citizens still remember the discrimination they suffered prior to Independence?

We, too, are sowing the seeds of discontent in our nation. Maybe it is time we take the lessons learned in blood by the world at large to heart, and start trying to make sure we become the country that wants to secure for “all our citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.”