Witoubou Newmai
Almost all happenings generate reactions, supports, oppositions, debates and immense difficulties. They may be considered as natural. But somewhere in a faint corner, there is something to be asked about the immense difficulties—why so?
This is not to revile anyone or any other society, but rather for the sole purpose to contribute by saying that, what one needs to study closely are the circumstances in which many societies have attained the present positions and situations.
By way of exploring the question, we would like to put it that a society is bounded mainly by either of (or both) the two factors: (A) “the sense of a common opposition or evil” and (B) the commitment to a common aspiration. When this is the case, everyone will take account of all sensibilities of each other within a given society. In other words, everyone will “respect differences” and promote the ‘commonality.’
However, what happens when a society is knitted more by the factor (A), while the factor (B) is not at all considered? It all depends on how much a society understands the factor (A). The degree of one’s understanding of the factor (A) will be also corresponding to one’s degree of commitment to the ‘commonality’ or common aspiration of a given society. In essence, there is a simple correspondence between understanding and commitment.
Political chicanery thrives due to lack of understanding of the factor (A). In other words, competing oligarchies overwhelm a given situation due to lack of allegiance to the ‘commonality.’
We may not waste this precious limited space stating this obvious. However, our honest endeavour is to see this obvious with a fresh nerve of purpose.
Another obvious about how one commits to the ‘commonality’ or aspiration is about the admission that differences are unavoidable because uniformity is impossible. Since the reality is this, and if we are to continue as a society, we must be clear about the line between consensus and contention, and about each one manifests.
Coming to our society, we have been, for so long, bearing the burden of the proliferation process of “groups,” even as another process called the “peace process” continues. We have become too familiar with this trend. It is time we see this familiarity from an unfamiliar angle.
Finally, how committed we are to the ‘commonality’ or aspiration or how much we understand things will bring us an inverse relationship between the magnitude of our burden and relief. The security of any society depends on how one seeks to expand this sensibility.
