Kapok: Ethics?

Max Weber’s famous 1918 lecture entitled “Politics as a vocation” is usually remembered for the very performative definition it gives of the modern state as being “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Physical force here means the capacity to maintain law and order, thus protecting the citizens who have willingly renounced the use of force to exercise justice on their own. The legitimate bit has to do with the legality as well as acceptance by society, meaning that the use of force is prescribed and henceforth limited by law, so as to make sure that the state has the means to protect its citizens while making sure that it does not abuse its power.

In the recent debate surrounding the possible passing of a Civil Protection Basic Law that would put civil protection regulations on steroids, most of the attention has focused on the extensive powers the authorities would be given to “ensure efficient dissemination of important information by the authorities” and “prevent the spread of false rumors in society” in times of crisis.

The worry is thus that the Macao government could easily become a plain and simple “police state” in which only government-sanctioned information would be allowed and any alternative source could be characterized (preventively) as dangerous for law and order.

Because it conflicts with at least two core values enshrined in the Basic Law — “freedom of speech and of the press” on the one hand and “protection of privacy” on the other — this is seen as opening the gates wide for repetitive and unsanctioned abuse of power. In simple terms, the use of force could easily become illegitimate. And here, I am sparing you the additional concern we could have regarding the “given territory” as Mr Wong Sio Chak, the Secretary for Security, appears to have a few difficulties in fixing the right physical “boundaries”.

Weber’s text is also enlightening when the sociologist starts exploring the source of power from which politicians derived their authority. He identifies three, as legitimizing the citizens’ obedience: “tradition”, “charisma” and “legality” — none existing as pure types in reality.

Traditional domination is exercised by patriarchs, what Weber also calls the “patrimonial” princes. In Macao, if you think Ho, Choi and Ma, you soon realize that we have not really left the burden of tradition.

Charismatic domination, meaning “the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace”, we have had little in our SAR: some for sure under Edmund Ho’s first term, and for certain none in Chui’s two terms put together. Yet, too charismatic a leader can easily turn into a demagogue, so maybe we should not complain after all!

In the end, what we have had mostly has been a domination by virtue of “legality”, legitimized by legal statute and supposedly “functional competence based on rationally created rules”. Twisted legality (elections without choice illustrates the twisted part), we have had plenty, and regarding competence, we have remained forever hopeful, even after December 2014.

Finally, the text suggests that professional politicians should cultivate two sets of ethical virtues: the ethic of conviction on the one hand and the ethic of responsibility on the other. I was recently reminded of that distinction when France’s very charismatic Minister of Ecological Transition and long-time green activist Nicolas Hulot resigned abruptly at the end of August during a radio show, to denounce the lack of paradigm change in the overall perspective presiding over public policy design, the overpowering influence of the lobbies and the fact that small measures taken in the past year would be in vain if the whole mindset did not change. He did not want to be a cosmetic alibi anymore. Did he do it because his policies conflicted with his core beliefs or because he could no longer assume full responsibility for his acts as a sitting-minister?

When I see Cheong U roaming the world as a light- hearted tourist, then I ask myself: do these values even make sense in Macao?

Published in Macau Daily Times on September 7, 2018

Kapok: Living together

Being in France just a few days after the horrendous truck attack that took place in the Southern French city of Nice on Bastille Day, claiming the life of 84 people, including many children, compels me to reflect on what makes a society hold together. Confronted with this form of indiscriminate terror and such a feeling of powerlessness, both on the side of society and the public authorities, how can we make sure that this kind of dreadful occurrence will be much less likely to happen in the future, close and distant, bearing in mind that zero risk does not exist? Is the call to unity a requirement or a promise, and in that case what will be its grammar? Will we unite because we need to or because we want to? Do we unite because now is not the time to divide ourselves or because we recognise in each and every member of our community, a “brother” or “sister” who is “equal” in status and in exercising his or her “freedom”? “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”, the three cardinal values of the French Republic.
What is eminently disturbing is the very fact that terrorists, are, somehow and in effect, winning, because these very values are being trampled over.
First, because in a political environment in which emotions rather than reason prevail, the first and foremost reaction is to resort to a blame game. Of a religious or at least communautarian nature, as if Islam at large was conducive to such violence and we were witnessing some form of holy and civilisational war, disregarding the very fact that a third of the 84 victims were themselves Muslims. Of a strictly politicking nature, when local authorities of a certain political orientation (more conservative and security prone) take aim at the national government of another political inclination (roughly speaking, more concerned with individual and civic rights) for failing to anticipate the highly improbable — a heavy vehicle attack is a first in France, and the only equivalent can be found in attacks perpetrated in Jerusalem over light rail stations back in 2014.
Second, because what is for now visible in terms of public policies regarding the prevention of terrorism is almost exclusively related to security. Everybody wants to feel reassured and safe, and safety is for many the very justification of the existence of a state — and we have known that since Thomas Hobbes. But then, the failures of twentieth century revolutionary ideologies have also taught us that “order without life” is tantamount to the “tranquility of the graveyard”, to quote Czech philosopher Jan Patočka, one of the signatories of Charter 77. This is why the Euro Cup organised by France had to take place, even though some strict protective measures were taken, including the now famous but at the time much reviled “fan zones”. And then, now that numerous cultural events are being cancelled on the Riviera — Rihanna’s concert is only one of them — what are the mid- and long-term horizons of security measures? Are we bound, just like it is now happening in Belgium, to not carry bags and not drive our cars to celebrate our National day? Now, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow?
Some voices, more insistent on the meaning of the “islamisation of radicalism”, to use Olivier Roy’s formula, are pointing to the fact that the ideology of Daesh — in whose name all the recent terrorist attacks in France have been conducted — constitutes some form of new transnational utopia, one that offers to “suburban youth a sacralisation of the hatred of society, a hatred resulting from a feeling of social and economic exclusion, injustice and humiliation; and to middle-class youth, an answer to the vacuum of authority, the distaste for oneself or another form of anomia” (Farhad Khosrokhavar).
Education and social economic inclusion will thus be of utmost importance, as rightly emphasised by the European Parliament’s Report on the prevention of radicalisation. Beyond the centres for de-radicalisation that are yet to open in France, nations and communities of people will thus have to rediscover what binds them together, all of them.

Published in Macau Daily Times, July 22nd 2016