A democratic election recently took place in the USA, where the majority of citizens chose a new president.
Is it, therefore, justifiable for protesters to oppose the will of the populace? – Let’s delve into this through the lens of democracy.
Women took to the streets to express their dissent regarding the election outcome. Their claims centered around the notion that the newly elected president was accused of actions that many women found unacceptable. The importance of women in society is undeniable. They are intelligent individuals who garner respect and admiration for their leadership in reshaping contemporary perspectives on crucial societal issues.
Democracy, as represented by voting, reflects the majority’s will. Now, we must ponder whether women were denied the vote for a specific reason, and if they comprehended that a majority vote can indeed be contested, even if overturned by just a segment of the community.
Women appear to be distinct in their rejection of the majority’s will. One might argue that women constitute the group called “the people.” They may harbor doubts about the election’s outcome and the individual selected as president. At times, preconceived notions suggest that women approach democracy with a more personal perspective. If women protest the character of the winner, the outcome may need to be reconsidered.
Would you contend that the winner was demonized through an ongoing media campaign, affecting how women view their new president? Did the criticisms from prominent actors and actresses, who wield significant influence due to their fame in film and television, lead women to believe such media portrayals? Should these celebrities, who live in luxury and comfort, exercise influence over workers in society?
Portrayals on screen can mislead and judge the more than four million voters who supported the new president. The protests against the elected president occurring in Washington and across the USA allow citizens to express their opinions. However, why should women from England and Australia protest against an American whom they did not and could not elect?
This brings us back to the Greeks – was it prescient to withhold the democratic vote from women? The capabilities of women are irrefutable. They often possess more wisdom than the majority of men, and when paired with intelligence, they are more than equipped to govern the world.
But do they recognize when to accept the majority’s will, and are they influenced by charismatic figures instead of hard facts?
Do they genuinely think that actors, by using their acceptance speeches as a platform to criticize an elected official, can make a difference?
Is it their belief that one march in January can change the landscape? It is more likely that such actions may divide a nation and potentially incite violence, as some may resort to taking matters into their own hands.
The Greeks, as the Oracle foretold, were not spared from murders, assassinations, and conflicts. Yet, the long wait of nearly two millennia to extend voting rights to nearly everyone might serve as a warning regarding future protests.
Personally, I believe that women rightfully deserve voting rights in all democracies, although they may be easily swayed by their emotions. Conversely, men, having endured years of political discourse, become apathetic – lacking the emotional drive to shift focus from sports to the often monotonous promises made by politicians that are rarely fulfilled.
In time, the marchers will likely gain clarity and turn to watching sports… unless they indeed create significant change.
by TOG
