Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821), the European philosopher, writer and lawyer, wrote "Every country has the government it deserves." Colours are often associated with political parties. We know of the red and blue states in the US and, for almost 30 years, TT’s electoral map had two dominant colours –red and yellow.
Among election speeches have been accusations of people and governments being bad, corrupt, evil or wicked. Many of us sometimes often ask questions such as – what constitutes good and evil and who should judge our actions as being positive or negative? What manner of people would belong in the categories of moral and immoral? Some would use subjective ethics in attempting to distinguish between "good" and "evil."
Someone or an institution has to be accountable for a dysfunctional society. Maybe we can blame the government for the cause of the problems. But can we also blame the citizens? We can argue that both citizens and the government share joint responsibility for the efficiency of the economy and the success of the nation-state. It is for the individual to decide and is an ongoing debate for political theorists.
Regarding crime – should the security forces (police and army) and the ruling government be considered evil because they did not provide sufficient protection for citizens? Often, many citizens, who voted for an uncaring government, remain quiet and ignore social problems such as poverty or unemployment. These citizens probably do not want to embarrass the politicians they support. Or maybe these citizens had become complacent and grown accustomed to the existence of social ills as a crime.
There is an obvious dichotomy as we view life in a binary world. Many do not acknowledge or are oblivious to the duplicity and the many colours of good and evil.
How can we separate the public from the private? Could a government be able to determine what could be deemed safe in the public and private spheres? Should the State (government) decide what is right and wrong or should each citizen make that decision? Likewise, would a secular government possess the authority to eradicate or change religious practices or customs? If the moral choice of an individual conflicts with that of the government, what should be the option or penalty? The individual’s freedom is important in a democracy and a democratically-elected government has a vital role in protecting freedom.
Boundaries are amorphous and lucid. And, the boundary separating evil and good often appear thin and is frequently blurred. For instance, a government might be considered good and appear efficient if it provides housing and food to some citizens in need. But, the question arises – is it evil or unfair if some and not all needy citizens receive housing and food aid from a government they support? Probably there were limited resources or the government wanted to keep a certain segment of the population in a dependency state to ensure future electoral support.
Someone commits murder or the government enforces capital punishment. It
