![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One person can make a difference.
Oct. 30th, 2009 09:13 pmIR 710 -- Political Systems was one of the prerequisites for the MA I didn't quite get. (One question on the comprehensive was not answered in the preferred format, which kept me from passing the comprehensive. Having said that, no one had told me there was a preferred format.)
In the first class, the professor asked us whether we thought one person could make a difference to the entire world. We were then asked whether one country could make a difference without attempting some type of domination. Finally, we were asked whether the system itself could make a difference.
The correct answer was yes to the third one. I was the only person in the class who answered yes to all three, and I became something of a whipping boy for the professor because, when asked to name one person who'd made a lasting difference to the political fortunes of the entire world, I said King John. He'd never said the person had to be good or strong. John's weakness at Runnymede allowed a codification of historic rights that had a profound resonance throughout history.
I've found a modern example thanks to Masterpiece Contemporary. I was clearing space on my DVR by watching last weeks drama, Endgame, about the ANC talks with the Afrikaaners. These were the talks about talking. At the end of them, after the period shown in the program, they sat down and spent four years publicly discussing a constitution.
Michael Young. He worked for Consolidated Gold Fields and, as their Director of Communications, he and the head of the company were of the opinion that an orderly transition away from apartheid was the the right way to go. So he approached Tambo (in the show it's Mbeki for economic -- actor salary and transportation -- reasons) and put together a series of meetings over a couple of years between Mbeki (for real, this time) and an unofficial representative of the South African Government, Willie Esterhuys.
It worked. It took years, but it worked. Young's minutes are the official record.
Still, according to my professor, that's not enough. Michael Young only changed one country. It was inevitable apartheid would end; either peacefully or violently the end would come eventually.
It ended peacefully with both sides retaining some dignity, and apartheid ended relatively quickly once the negotiations started.
Here's the beautiful part: when the IRA decided to negotiate with Britain, they asked the ANC's advice on how to do it peacefully. My father lost one friend directly to IRA violence; my family and I have had close calls with IRA violence. Belfast is no longer an armed city, and Londonderry has tours of the city with both Protestant and Catholic tour guides who provide perspective on the Troubles.
Now, Hamas has asked the IRA and the ANC for advice on how to negotiate.
Yes, there is definitely a systemic component. These violent conflicts will always come to an end, even if it's only when there's no one left to bury the bodies.
I think it's fair to say that Michael Young is still a good example of the difference one person can make on the international system.
In the first class, the professor asked us whether we thought one person could make a difference to the entire world. We were then asked whether one country could make a difference without attempting some type of domination. Finally, we were asked whether the system itself could make a difference.
The correct answer was yes to the third one. I was the only person in the class who answered yes to all three, and I became something of a whipping boy for the professor because, when asked to name one person who'd made a lasting difference to the political fortunes of the entire world, I said King John. He'd never said the person had to be good or strong. John's weakness at Runnymede allowed a codification of historic rights that had a profound resonance throughout history.
I've found a modern example thanks to Masterpiece Contemporary. I was clearing space on my DVR by watching last weeks drama, Endgame, about the ANC talks with the Afrikaaners. These were the talks about talking. At the end of them, after the period shown in the program, they sat down and spent four years publicly discussing a constitution.
Michael Young. He worked for Consolidated Gold Fields and, as their Director of Communications, he and the head of the company were of the opinion that an orderly transition away from apartheid was the the right way to go. So he approached Tambo (in the show it's Mbeki for economic -- actor salary and transportation -- reasons) and put together a series of meetings over a couple of years between Mbeki (for real, this time) and an unofficial representative of the South African Government, Willie Esterhuys.
It worked. It took years, but it worked. Young's minutes are the official record.
Still, according to my professor, that's not enough. Michael Young only changed one country. It was inevitable apartheid would end; either peacefully or violently the end would come eventually.
It ended peacefully with both sides retaining some dignity, and apartheid ended relatively quickly once the negotiations started.
Here's the beautiful part: when the IRA decided to negotiate with Britain, they asked the ANC's advice on how to do it peacefully. My father lost one friend directly to IRA violence; my family and I have had close calls with IRA violence. Belfast is no longer an armed city, and Londonderry has tours of the city with both Protestant and Catholic tour guides who provide perspective on the Troubles.
Now, Hamas has asked the IRA and the ANC for advice on how to negotiate.
Yes, there is definitely a systemic component. These violent conflicts will always come to an end, even if it's only when there's no one left to bury the bodies.
I think it's fair to say that Michael Young is still a good example of the difference one person can make on the international system.
