Introduction
Mitchell (1) explores the importance of human rights in an article titled, “Character Development.” The article is a narration of the ethical and professional conduct of military operations – through the role of the military in upholding human rights. The story’s setting is an interview room where military officers quiz a doctor (Shariba) regarding his role in aiding sectarian violence.
While trying to employ a radical interview strategy, one military officer accidentally shoots the doctor and Mitchell (the author) is encouraged to cover up the incident. Throughout the interview, an exploration of the politics and ethics surrounding human right violations occur because the military officers used excessive force on the interviewee (Mitchell 5).
This paper demonstrates that Mitchell’s article provides an insight into how people may claim the freedom to shape policies by demonstrating the effect of politics on peoples’ families and community well-being. In addition, this paper also shows that ordinary people claim the freedom to shape politics because politics influence human rights, and the violation of human rights in one part of the world affects another.
Similarly, this paper demonstrates that ordinary people fund political processes and therefore, people have the right to influence political decisions. Nonetheless, this paper limits the extent ordinary citizens claim the freedom to influence politics to heroism, public perception, and the development of an understanding regarding political ramifications.
How Ordinary People Claim the Freedom to Shape Politics
Funding
Ordinary people may claim the freedom to shape politics through their ability to influence funding. Taxpayers always fund political processes and by dictating the use of taxes, ordinary people may effectively exercise their freedom to shape politics. According to Mitchell (10), Shariba’s service as a doctor depended on taxpayer funding, regardless of his thoughts regarding the separation of duties between saving lives and aiding militia activities. Indeed, while trying to separate his role and the role of the military, Shariba said, the role of preventing human slaughter was the role of the British military, but his role was constrained to saving lives (Mitchell 19).
Therefore, in his view, he did not see any problem with saving the lives of militiamen. This statement bears some ethical and political undertones but ordinary citizens can assert their views by financing what they believe to be right. For example, if ordinary people support the doctor’s assertion, they should be able to continue funding hospitals – where the doctor practices. Indeed, Toseland said, Shariba should not forget that tax money paid for the hospital where he worked (Mitchell 20). Through this assertion, citizens claim the influence of political processes.
Universal Human Rights
Ordinary people can equally claim the freedom to shape politics because politics affect human rights and human rights are universal (Dursun and Cooper 394). This statement implies that if human right breaches occur in one part of the world, its impact is likely to be felt in other parts of the world as well. For example, Mitchell (21) focused on human rights violations in the British army. Considering the fact that Britain is a leader in human right advancement, smaller armies around the world may also conceal human right breaches the same way the British army does. This way, humanity is under threat. Ordinary people, therefore, stake a claim to shape politics because politics affect their human rights, which are non-negotiable (Dursun and Cooper 394).
Community and Family Well-being
Politics is more than a framework for making decisions because political actions have far-reaching ramifications that equally affect community well-being. Since community well-being is a function of family well-being, it is easy to see the influence of politics on families and the welfare of future generations. Mitchell (22) emphasizes this remark when he highlighted the threats of Shariba’s life and his family.
He reports, “Shariba just asks Bax if he is threatening his family” (Mitchell (22). Later, after Shariba’s killing, Mitchell (30) asks who will feed and take care of Shariba’s family. Comprehensively, these two statements show that ordinary people have a stake in political processes because politics affects their families, and by extension, the well-being of their communities (Dursun and Cooper 399).
Extent Ordinary Citizens Claim the Freedom to Influence Politics
Heroism
One unconventional approach to claim the freedom to influence politics is heroism. Doctor Shariba exercised his right to influence political processes by going against the norm and volunteering his services to save lives, even when he seemed to be aiding the enemy.
Shariba’s action is heroic. Even Mitchell (32), recognized the doctor’s contribution and questioned why the doctor did not stay in Canterbury and play with his children. In fact, he says, “Most of the Western-trained professionals got out before the invasion” (Mitchell 33). Instead, the doctor stayed behind to provide his services to people who needed it. This way, he was able to change and influence the politics of the war (albeit in a small way).
“If that is not heroism, what is?” (Mitchell 33).
Perception
Another way that ordinary citizens can exercise their freedom to influence political processes lies in their power to approve or disapprove political actions. By approving political actions, there is a wide sense of approval by the citizenry regarding political decisions (Dursun and Cooper 399). By disapproving political actions, political processes are bound to take a different turn because it is potentially disastrous to pursue unpopular political decisions. Mitchell acknowledges this issue when he says; the British army receives a good cover-up that conceals human right breaches (Mitchell 33). He makes this reference to the unwarranted killing of the doctor. By creating a positive perception about the role of the military in solving political dilemmas, Mitchell (34) stands the risk of creating a positive perception within the public, which is later bound to solidify human right abuses.
Understanding
Mitchell (34) says military officers often witness many bad experiences on duty. However, civilians do not understand these experiences no matter how well they offer their support to the victims. Mitchell (34) affirms, ‘It is okay, Owen, I understand, and you are not lying, you think you do get it, but No. You do not.” Through this misconception, Mitchell (34) demonstrates the misunderstanding of civilians regarding the experiences of military personnel on the field.
However, by trying to understand the experiences and implications that certain political operations contend, ordinary people may merge their expectations with the reality of the officers. Through this understanding, there will be a more realistic expectation of the activities and conduct of military officers in the field because Mitchell (35) demonstrates that military officers feel misunderstood by the public. Through this understanding, people can claim influence to politics by understanding and supporting instruments of power (such as the military).
Conclusion
Mitchell’s story depicts the real-life situation characterizing human rights violations in today’s society. Albeit unintentional, Mitchell (39) exposes how politics affect ordinary citizens by drawing the link between civilian life and political actions. These similarities manifest through the respect for human rights, the well-being of the society, and the role of the society in funding political programs.
Through these platforms, ordinary citizens claim the freedom to shape politics. This paper however further explains that ordinary citizens may exercise their freedom to influence politics by creating a positive or negative perception about political actions, showing more understanding to political ramifications, and influencing politics (directly) through heroism. These strategies define the extent of citizens’ influence on politics.
Works Cited
Dursun, Peksen and Cooper Drury. “Economic Sanctions and Political Repression: Assessing the Impact of Coercive Diplomacy on Political Freedoms.” Human Rights Review 10.3 (2009): 393-411. Print.
Mitchell, David 2009, Character Development.