Mr Nordam, You are raising some very salient thought-provoking questions, that is tempting to respond to. The exercise, however, would be one enmeshed in my idealist notions. It may not necessarily smack of the radicalism that would be the logical response to some of these queries. I tend to believe in the creation of an ideal, and then develop the means and the method to make that ideal practical. The ideal is always the good, the noble, the sacred, and the desirable. The reality could be the opposite. What makes the reality not to conform with the ideal, is basically the characteristic nature of the people who shape the reality. Thus reality is the product of the contradictions, inherent or otherwise, that creates social phenomena: the social, economic and political circumstances that govern the lives of people. And, since contracdictions are inherently natural, and create the basis upon which we perpetuate our value systems, beliefs, ideologies etc, the way we appreciate reality or even impact it is also different. Most often it is motivated by interest, which has become a part of the rationalization process to be uniquely identified with a phenomenon. Thus we have different interests, that is made more complicated, once people surrender their rights and freedoms, to the establishment of a legal authority empowered to rule over them. You asked whether leaders are the "product" of their societies. Leaders are the product of their societies, as much as societies are the product of their leaders. This is so, because the society can influence the leader in as much as the leader can influence the society. What makes the difference is the nature of the influence or the positive or negative bearing that it has on either the leader or the society. Thus the influence that Hitler had on German society, should not make you to "wonder how a generally educated people like the Germans could turn out to become such a barbaric state." Likewise, the notion that the Germans developed after the first world war, that they were "second-ranked in Europe" created the basis for the emergence of the Nazi party and Hitler. Once in control of the state apparatus of government, Hitler made his influence felt with the German people. A society is like a peice of art that could be moulded. What emerges as the finished product is the ingredients that has been used to shape it, define it, and give it relevance and worth. A society needs orientation to give it direction, to develop its value systems, to conform to the fundamental precepts of decency, honesty, humanism, and mostly importantly a conscience. There are people who try to influence society and give it such an orientation; there are also people who try to influence society doing the very opposite of these norms. Such people could either be leaders or individuals within the society. What is obvious, however, is that a leader who is ingrained in the fundamental precepts of decency, honesty, humanism and have a conscience, can undoubtedly positively impact the society; moreover, if the state apparatus of government can be used towards these ends. From the argument above, you can see the influence the society can have on the individual, as well as the influence the individual can have on the society. The dynamics of the relationship between the individual and society vice versa, is the same dynamics that extend to the more complicated process of assuming or retaining political power to realize whatever goal is desired. Either to perpetuate the realization of an ideal, or to satiate in one's ulterior designs and personal aggrandizement. Tyrants, despots, oppressors, and dictators relished in the latter, while humanist, patriots, and conscientious beings cherished the former. The next argument we can make is about the nature of power, its characteristics, and who owns and should control it. The ideal is that power belongs to the people. This notion is the foundation of all democratic entities, or any other nation for that matter, where sovereignty lies with the people in that they elect and empower the people who rule over them. Even in despotic countries like Serbia, they do recognize the power of the people which is embodied in the constitution, hence the need to change the constitution to be in line with their selfish motivations. It is the only legitimate basis for their power. Thus, they can manipulate it, corrupt it, and amend it to suit their needs. The question, therefore, is how to change a system or leadership that has consolidated itself in power, and has all the state apparatus of government, to ruthlessly and mercilessly eliminate any opposition that seek to change the status quo? From my idealist standpoint, power should not be consolidated or allowed to be consolidated in the first place. It requires a mature democracy for this to happen. Since this has not been the case, our attention then is focused on how to change such a state of affairs. This is the debate on the table. My position in this respect, I believe has been articulated, through the humble contributions I have made. Mr Nordam, I recognize that I may not be sufficiently orientated to deal with these issues, but nonetheless attempted to give it a try. I hope you will understand these deliberations in that spirit. Rene ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------