A pastor once said that “our vertical relation (relationship with God) directly affects our horizontal relation.”
This jargon of the pastor, even if we take it in general aspects, stresses loud and clear on relationships. When we extrapolate this expression to peoples’ movements, the relevance of it cannot be simply ignored.
In peoples’ movements, one’s responses to the circumstances and surroundings are as good (or bad) as the strength (or weakness) of the person’s relationship with the aspiration.
A weak relationship with one’s aspiration will open up to political chicanery, while tipping the truth with vested interests. Such is also the situation where one conforms to the mood of the moment or momentary interests, and not beyond. This is how competing oligarchies become protagonists of the scene. One will see such plethora of situations occurred in many parts of the world if one is willing to recall about those movements which projected certain people and organizations larger than their very aspirations.
Coming to this stage of discussion, we need to make relevant the speech of Aung San Suu Kyi ‘for us’, which was delivered during the National Day of Burma on December 3, 1988.
“If you ask whether we shall achieve democracy, whether there will be general elections, here is what I shall say: Don’t think about whether or not these things will happen. Just continue to do what you believe is right. Later on the fruits of what you do will become apparent on their own. One’s responsibility is to do the right thing.”
Unless one has ‘organic’ relationship with ‘aspirations’, peoples’ movements will fail because oligarchies will continue to take “decision on conveniences”. This is also where how people jump to fit in the situations and circumstances rather than addressing them. Such a trend produces more ‘soloists’ rather than making a peoples’ moment a ‘symphony’.
As such, the calls for ‘unity,’ ‘healing’ and ‘reconciliation,’ unless there are required ‘materials’ to support them (such as organic relationships), will fail to permeate and nudge the people. Getting connected to the core reason or purpose of the ‘discourse’ and allegiance to the ‘peoples’ journeys’ are required ‘fervours,’ without which, this grotesque situation will find it difficult to absorb the calls for ‘unity’, ‘healing’ and ‘reconciliation.’
The argument is also to say that there may not be more absurd a situation than the demand for the products when the very process to bring about the products is channelised to skew away.
The whole discussion is an attempt to say that a healthy relationship between the people and the aspiration will inspire the people themselves to be selfless and also shun the use of subterfuge.
Given this tedious and monotonous thought just discussed, with a nerve of urgency we need to locate the chord that can help us re-connect to our aspiration.