Let’s go back to Babylon.

I notice that some young people refer to certain countries as Babylon. Google comments as follows:

“Modern songs sometimes use the metaphor of Babylon to comment on America. This comparison often critiques aspects of American society, such as how it is perceived in terms of materialism, moral decay, and political power. The lyrics employ symbolism, drawing parallels between contemporary America and the biblical Babylon, a city often associated with excess and corruption. This critique may address social issues and question the current situation. The analysis of this metaphor can be complex, requiring an understanding of both the historical context of Babylon and the specific societal name in view.

The interesting thing about the Biblical Babylon was the King of Babylon, and the fact that the King was a. the Lawgiver and b. the lawgiver was above the law and did not have to obey the law, though everyone else did. What does that remind you of? The following empire, after the fall of Babylon, that of the Medes and Persians, one notes the oft-quoted phrase, “the laws of the Medes and Persians, which don’t change, and the fact that the ruler was also subject to the law.” So, we are not going back there, but one step further back, one where rulers do not have to be subject to the law.

Babylon was rich, at least for some people, but one wonders how much the riches were created by slavery.

Interesting too is that the “Third Reich’s” main economy was a slavery-based economy.

The whole difficulty, for me, is the way in which we can undermine our humanity. So, we start to refer to groups of people in other ways, “blood poisoners”, aliens, or, if you like, humans are non-humans. We see this kind of rhetoric in war, where it’s not “dead people”, it's “collateral damage”. In the Belfast troubles, it always troubled me that people were not killing people. The one side were killing “Prods,” and the other side were killing “Papists”. These are not humanoid words. It makes it possible to see people as “non-humans.” At the very least, less than me, or at the very least, not nice people.

That is why I really object to the new Reform elected person saying, “Let’s put asylum seekers in tents.” It's a slippery slope to put one kind of person into a more deserving position than another. There is always someone at the bottom of the pile who is presented as a sort of “less than a human being.”

I am reminded of that famous quote by German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller:

“Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.”

So, I hope many will speak about Dame Andrea Jenkyns's nasty “tent” quote and let us hope that there are more sensible people around who will not vote to take us back to Babylon.

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

w. 527

07 08 25

An Exploration of Decision-Making Processes

Power, Exclusion, and Ethics

Recently, the world has witnessed a series of international negotiations and peace talks, such as those involving the United States and Russia. These discussions often exclude the most crucial party: Ukraine. This exclusion raises essential questions about the nature of power dynamics, insecurity, pride, and the ethical implications of such decisions. Is it power at play, the insecurity of the decision-makers, pride, or simply plain wrong?

Historical Exclusions: A Recurring Pattern

This pattern of exclusion is not new. In "The Mystery in Being a Gypsy," Gentylia Lee documents numerous instances where governmental meetings are held to decide the fate of the Gypsy community, often excluding the very people most affected by these decisions. The powerful conduct these meetings behind closed doors, leaving the Gypsies uninformed and without a voice in matters that directly impact their lives. This persistent exclusion prompts us to question whether it is power, pride, insecurity, or merely a grievous error in judgment.

Modern-Day Exclusions

Another contemporary example can be found in the fostering community, where foster carers are responsible for the care of children 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Despite fostering children for ten years, social work professionals often convene meetings to decide the children's futures, excluding both the children and the foster carers from the process. Again, this raises the question: is it pride, insecurity, stupidity, or just plain wrong?

Power Dynamics

One might argue that these exclusions are deeply rooted in power dynamics. Those who hold power may feel the need to assert their dominance by keeping decision-making processes exclusive. This ensures that they maintain control over the outcomes and the narrative. In the case of international negotiations, the powerful nations may exclude smaller or directly affected nations to preserve their strategic interests and geopolitical influence.

Insecurity Among Decision-Makers

Insecurity among decision-makers could also play a significant role. Decision-makers may fear that including the affected parties could challenge their authority, expose their vulnerabilities, or lead to outcomes that are less favourable to their agendas. This fear can drive them to exclude those who are most impacted, believing that their own positions are better protected in a closed setting.

The Role of Pride

Pride can be another contributing factor. Decision-makers may feel a sense of superiority and believe that they are best equipped to make decisions, even without the input of those who are directly affected. This hubris can lead to a dismissive attitude towards the voices that truly matter, resulting in decisions that are disconnected from the realities on the ground.

Ethical Implications

The ethical implications of such exclusions are profound. Excluding the most affected parties from decision-making processes can lead to decisions that are not only unjust but also detrimental to the well-being of those communities. It undermines the principles of democracy, fairness, and transparency, resulting in a loss of trust in the institutions that are supposed to protect and serve the people.

Case Studies in Exclusion

To further understand the impact of exclusion in decision-making, it is essential to examine specific case studies that highlight the consequences of such practices.

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which aimed to establish the terms of peace after World War I, is a historical example of exclusion in decision-making. The conference was dominated by the Allied powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The defeated Central Powers, including Germany, were excluded from the negotiations. This exclusion led to the imposition of harsh terms on Germany, contributing to economic hardship and political instability, which eventually paved the way for World War II.

The Camp David Accords

The Camp David Accords of 1978, which facilitated a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, also illustrate the consequences of exclusion. The negotiations were primarily conducted between the leaders of Egypt, Israel, and the United States, with little input from the Palestinian representatives. This exclusion has been criticized for failing to address the broader issues affecting the Palestinian people, leading to ongoing conflict and unrest in the region.

Exclusion in Environmental Decision-Making

Environmental decision-making processes often exclude indigenous communities and local populations who are directly impacted by environmental policies and projects. For example, the construction of large dams and pipelines frequently moves forward without adequate consultation with the affected communities. This exclusion not only leads to environmental degradation but also displaces communities and disrupts their way of life.

Addressing the Issue of Exclusion

To address the issue of exclusion in decision-making, several measures can be implemented:

Inclusive Dialogue

Creating platforms for inclusive dialogue ensures that all voices, especially those of the affected parties, are heard and considered. This can lead to more equitable and sustainable outcomes.

Transparent Processes

Transparency in decision-making processes is crucial. Decision-makers should provide clear and accessible information about the proceedings and invite participation from diverse stakeholders. This transparency fosters trust and accountability.

Empowering Marginalised Groups

Empowering marginalized groups through education, capacity-building, and representation in decision-making bodies can help address power imbalances. Providing them with the tools and opportunities to participate meaningfully can lead to more just and informed decisions.

Ethical Leadership

Promoting ethical leadership that values inclusivity, empathy, and fairness is essential. Leaders should prioritize the well-being of all stakeholders and make decisions that reflect the principles of justice and equity.

Conclusion

The exploration of decision-making processes reveals the complex interplay of power, insecurity, pride, and ethical considerations. The recurring pattern of exclusion in various contexts highlights the need for a more inclusive and ethical approach to decision-making. By addressing the root causes of exclusion and implementing measures to promote inclusivity, transparency, and empowerment, we can move towards a future where decisions are made with the voices and interests of all stakeholders in mind.

W, 970