Remember Game of Thrones? Jon Snow, 1 of the main characters of the show, had an different talent for annoying everyone with his simplicity. In 1 of the last episodes, he drives even his own allies crazy, refusing to make a false promise to Cersei Lannister. He would make life easier for everyone if he lied, but his sense of honor does not let it.
I remember this scene due to the fact that it is 1 of the fewer moments erstwhile Jon Snow loses his temper, and he gives a kind of philosophical sentence: “When adequate many people make false promises, words cease to mean anything.”
Snow is, of course, right. A promise as a social institution only matters erstwhile it is kept.
The same applies to all kinds of rights. We like to talk with patos about Constitution, about global law, human rights and akin issues. But what are they? Social consensus. The promise that governments will comply with jointly agreed rules and enforce them from state institutions, private entities and citizens.
If individual breaks the constitution, the earth will not part, the lightning will not hit him. The only consequence is the reaction of another people who believe that a violation of the rules cannot stay unanswered.
It is so so dangerous to make exceptions to fundamental issues, specified as human rights or civilian rights, and to turn a blind eye erstwhile these rights are broken. due to the fact that if individual says, “Right, but in this case we will circumvent it”, individual else will ask, “Why not go around it and here?”
I compose these words the minute the Polish Sejm votes suspension of the right to asylum. Only Left (including Together) and a fistful of KO and PiS MPs voted against the bill. The Sejm considered that certain elements of the constitution and global law are valid, and others are only “you know, you understand” – a wink.
Members who supported this task consider themselves pragmatic. Especially the Citizen Coalition. specified times, there is no choice – we know this rhetoric. And I wonder if we just took another step towards a planet where words cease to mean anything.
For each exception
The champion of selective treatment of rights and obligations is, of course, Donald Trump. He started, as he did 8 years ago, with the resignation of the Paris climate agreement, but this time he besides undermines the obligations under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. Anne Applebaum is right, writingthat "the Trump administration is just finishing the postwar era".
It must be added, however, that Western governments and elites themselves prepared the ground for Trump.
On paper, the Western planet after planet War II created a strategy to prevent chaos. global treaties have been created, specified as the United Nations, NATO, the European Union. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its conventions on the ban on torture, exile rights and so on – for example the 1949 Geneva Convention. Democratic procedures and restrictions were created so that even if power was taken over by individual incompetent or hostile democracy, the strategy could halt it.
But the reality was different.
As part of the fight against terrorism, the US government began to usage torture – first quietly, in distant countries specified as Poland and then almost openly, in the majesty of law – it became clear that global law is simply a collection of loose indications alternatively than a guarantor of a fresh humanitarian order.
The Convention on the Prohibition of Torture did not supply for exceptions, but abruptly it was said that in certain situations they could be justified. It has been argued that the threat is unprecedented and terrorists do not follow any standards, so we cannot afford it either. This rhetoric became amazingly easy, and exceptions, which were to be rare, began to become the norm.
It wasn't an isolated case. erstwhile Europe faced the exile crisis in 2015, advanced declarations of asylum rights collided with political reality. Borders began to close and countries specified as Hungary openly ignored their commitments. EU countries utilized double standards: they officially declared solidarity with refugees, and in practice built walls and fences.
The latest example is of course Palestine. Although many institutions and states tried to comply with global law, the US and their allies had a clear problem with this. Israel bombed schools and hospitals, cut off access to food for Gazans. Human rights organisations no doubt:
"Israeli authorities have led to mass, deliberate forced displacement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip since October 2023 and are liable for war crimes and crimes against humanity" — wrote Human Rights Watch.
The U.S. remained intact.
Who's the realist?
Similar examples can be found in all democratic society.
In Poland, just look at the destiny of the Constitution. erstwhile the Law and Justice began to violate the basic principles, as the tripartition of power, opposition and media thundered about the scandal. There were protests – erstwhile larger, erstwhile smaller – but never led to political solstice.
Perhaps it would be easier to scope the public with a message of breaking the constitution if politicians and the media had taken it seriously in its entirety. After all, the Polish constitution contains records of social policy, which for years have besides been ignored.
Take Article 75: "Public authorities have policies to meet citizens' housing needs, to combat homelessness, to support social housing." Over the years was treated as an empty declaration. Then yet came a politician who felt that another records could besides be treated with discretion.
Supporters of selective treatment will say that political realities must be taken into account. The Polish State was incapable to meet all social promises. The migration crisis required action, or the utmost right would come to power – and so on.
Consent that giving meaning to the words contained in legal acts is never easy. There are always circumstances that complicate things. We should not treat politicians like Hollywood villains – well, at least not all – who harm people for their satisfaction. Politicians usually find any reason for crossing a border which would otherwise be impossible for them.
However, speaking of political realities, the question arises: can politicians act like Nietzscheans once, for whom the planet comes down to strength and conflict for their own interests, and another times like moralists, calling for the defence of the highest values? Isn't this attitude yet conducive to the top cynics?
The same applies to the media. They should not turn a blind eye erstwhile politicians do not number on basic promises in terms of human rights and civilian liberties. The media like to say they just describe political reality, but things are more complicated.
Several decades ago, philosopher John Austin noted that language has not only a descriptive but besides a performance function – I mean, language not only describes, but additionally co-shape reality. erstwhile a book was published based on notes from his lectures, it was given a meaningful title: How to usage Words.
Maybe nowhere is this designation more real than politics. erstwhile the media uncritically repeats the political message, they not only describe their actions, but add their own brick to make this communication turn into a social consensus.
Mechanical saw-making policy
British writer George Monbiot is right erstwhile warnsthat we cannot just let go of human rights and basic principles of global order:
"It is on these rights that our humanity is based. If we succumb to cynicism, if we are discouraged by the hypocrisy of the powerful, if we halt believing in a better planet – we will accept the rule that the stronger is always right.”
One of the most striking features of Trump and Muska's tandem regulation is their ostentatious shamelessness. Not only do they act violently, for example, by putting thousands of civilian servants on the street and stopping humanitarian aid, but they besides boast about it in this brutality. They seem to get sadistic joy as shortly as they hit somebody.
A fewer days ago American billionaire He ran happy around the scene with a mechanical saw, bragging that the government had never been so “fun”. It would be funny, if not for the “fun” of the richest individual in the world, there are thousands of mediocre and middle-income people he has just dug up.
Any politician who feels the temptation to one more time in the name of “political realities” to break any promise in our laws and conventions should see this performance by Musk. And see what the point of this kind of policy looks like.
