Tag: corruption

Keep an eye out for the Stasi

Posted on by kathiemm

I recently watched the German film “The Lives of Others,” got ready to mail it back to Netflix, but couldn’t let it go. Scenes from the film, elements of the plot, haunted me for two days, so I tore open the Netflix envelope, and watched the film again. I recommend it to all readers of this blog, but only if you can stand an emotional roller coaster and are ready to agonize over what it’s like to live in a national security state.

In the film, situated in Berlin in 1984, the security state is the communist-ruled German Democratic Republic, and their strong arm is the Stasi, the secret police.  The playing out of the major theme of the film—how good men deal, over time, with the corruption and malevolence of a security state—is, successively horrifying, infuriating, anxiety-provoking, and ultimately inspirational. See the New York Times review.

In the United States, the term national security state is associated with the National Security Act of 1947. In In his book “Brave New World Order,” Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argued that characteristics of a national security state include: investing enormous power and influence in the military; viewing true democracy as dangerous; promoting an ideology claiming that freedom and development are possible only when the elite are in control; seeing enemies everywhere and considering any means to destroy them as justifiable; and restricting public debate through intimidation.

We see all of these characteristics in The Lives of Others.  In this day of spy drones and the National Security Administration in the United States, should we be watching for them here?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Violence in Africa

Posted on by kathiemm

First in a series by guest author Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka

Some schools of thought maintain that force or violence can sometimes be an effective means of resolving conflicts. The reality, however, is that violence breeds violence. The perceived enemy whom you beat down today may rise up tomorrow and obliterate you.

African wars and conflicts--map
African wars and conflicts 1980-1996. Image in public domain.

In cases of civil wars and insurgencies, the warring parties may believe that violence is the only way to either maintain the status quo or protect the rights and interests of a perceived marginalized or isolated group.

The bitter truth remains that it is the ordinary men, women, and children who are plunged into unimaginable suffering. Most of these civilians become Internal Displaced Persons (IDPs) or refugees in their own homelands.

Most civil wars or crises happening in Africa today are manifestations of the “greed and grievance theory”—that is, it is the corrupt practices of many government officials that give rise to conditions of poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy. These conditions in turn give rise to feelings of exclusion or marginalization, both of which are recipes for disaster and potentially violent confrontations.

Governments have the bulk of the blame for the under-developed state of most African countries. Therefore, it should be their responsibility to remedy those conditions through dialogue with the aggrieved parties and developmental projects.

Unfortunately, what most African governments do to silence or discourage any form agitation or protest is to engage in indiscriminate killings, unlawful incarceration, and torture. African politicians would rather die in power than take responsibility for their failures and resign. When the government responds with violence to political/economic issues, radical groups, more often than not, equally counter with force.

Thus, the cycle of violence continues until the power elite can become convinced of the benefits of nonviolence.

Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka has a Masters of Science in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State. He is a member of Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators, and works as a paralegal counsel at the Legal Aid Council for the Federal Ministry of Justice in Nigeria.

Dehumanizing or demonizing the other (Moral disengagement, part 7)

Posted on by kathiemm
Photo of antisemitic Nazi propaganda
Antisemitic Nazi Propaganda. (Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany license. From WikiMedia Commons)

Dehumanizing or demonizing the other is a particularly common form of moral disengagement, especially during wartime or other types of conflict.

Another moral disengagement mechanism described by psychologist Albert Bandura, it refers to portraying your enemy as less than human, as some sort of vile creature.

During World War II, all factions in the conflict created posters of the enemy as a subhuman monster. In addition, propaganda and feature films of that era–as well as during the Cold War and the Vietnam War–stereotyped, sub-humanized, dehumanized, and demonized the enemy.

Consider this quote: “…[This nation is] aiming at the exclusive domination of the [world], lost in corruption, [characterized by] deep-rooted hatred towards us, hostile to liberty wherever it endeavors to show its head, and the eternal disturber of the peace of the world.”

Who do you think said that? To what nation was he referring?

The answer to the first question is Thomas Jefferson, in 1815, when he was President. The nation in question was Great Britain. Imagine what might have happened if weapons of mass destruction were available back then. Suppose Jefferson, as President, pushed Congress for a preemptive strike against Great Britain. Would a more peaceful world have been achieved?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.