World Record: 1,281 Markkus

Markku-named Finnish men, my dad among them, made history today. 1,281 of them gathered at the Senate Square downtown in Helsinki. Doing so, they broke the Mohammeds' record (1,091) in Dubai. All Markkus had to show their identification card (passport, driver's license etc.) to be admitted on to the Square. The event was a blast and the celebrations noisy, the Helsingin Sanomat reported.

Political Theory - Q#2: Origin of Change--Law or Conscience?

Political theory #1: Matter vs. Spirit
Political theory #2: Origin of Change--Law or Conscience?
Political theory #3: Christian Politician's Dilemma

It is no secret that democracies don't always work by majority vote and are no secure defense against error or wickedness. As regards the first, influential lobbyists and the "court of public opinion" can so affect government that its laws and decisions do not, as they ought to, faithfully reflect the thoughts and beliefs of the people. As regards the latter, even when the first danger has been avoided, in other words even when the outcome of a vote is a true depiction of the people's will, it may still be blatantly erroneous or downright evil. Slavery was legal in the U.S. over the period of several consecutive presidencies, Hitler rose to power by majority vote, and so on. Examples of both vacuous prohibitions and wicked liberties are easy to come by even in today's societies.

This does not mean that democracy is not a good form of government. It does mean that it has its own hangups and defects. One (neutral) difference is that the responsibility of serious blunders is more evenly distributed than in, say, dictatorial monarchies. This is because more people exercise freedom and take part in the decision making.

One could argue, based on what has been said, that to improve a democracy is to minimize the risk of these two problems: (1) the misrepresentation of collective beliefs, and (2) the sanctioning of misguided (evil) collective beliefs.

The second of the three political dilemmas that bother me relates to (2) above. How does one contribute to the defense of truth in a democratic society? What role does law, private/public conscience, and their interplay have in this?

These are huge questions, and an exhaustive answer is beyond my powers. I take it for granted that, as the building blocks of society are individual human persons, change must begin there - here, within ourselves. It has become a platitude (at least among Christians) to say that the quickest and surest way to better the world is to better oneself. But surely this is the case. To live by virtue (whether this takes a conscious religious dimension or not), to raise one's children to recognize truth, beauty, and goodness, and to live a life that requires an answer -- i.e. inspires onlookers to think, "I want what s/he has." Over time, many would catch this "good infection" and goodness would permeate human life collectively as well.

Now, when private beliefs change, public belief changes - and when public belief/opinion changes, a pressure builds to bring legislation on par with the new situation. Initiatives are made, individuals rally and speak in unison, and once all the appropriate procedures (bureaucracy or revolution) is dealt with new laws are passed and reinforced. They must be reinforced because, as we remember, a minority - perhaps a considerable number - voted against it.

But then something happens. Often, over time, the critical voices disappear one by one. Public opinion changed and changed the law, but now a changed law changes public opinion. For unreflective people, the mere fact that something is officially illegal is enough to convince them that that's how it should be. Many Finns, for instance, think a 3-month-old fetus is not a human person because the law says it is not. Or consider the law prohibiting the physical discipline of your children. This has been illegal only a few years, yet the number of people who think this is an excellent law has grown considerably since it was passed. When a moral obligation or what is considered a fact is expressed, defended, and reinforced publicly, public opinion tends to conform.

In a nutshell, both - public opinion and legislation - affect the other.

What more can be said of this interplay? How far can we elaborate? What can be learned from it? How ought it affect the thought and work of a politician, Christian or not? For example, if there is danger of a bad law being passed, should the "wiser" politician use all means necessary, even overriding public opinion (see (1) obove), to defend reason and goodness, while trusting that eventually public opinion will catch up, as it were? Etc.

Political Theory - Q#1: Matter vs. Spirit

(or Externality vs. Internality)

Political theory #1: Matter vs. Spirit
Political theory #2: Origin of Change--Law or Conscience?
Political theory #3: Christian Politician's Dilemma

My thoughts are still very muddled, but I thought I'd anyways give it a go and try to communicate the first of the three theoretical problems in politics as I see them. I'm hoping that even a semi-successful formulation of the issue will help me proceed a few steps towards its solution.

The dilemma arises out of two truths that, taken separately, seem intuitively quite solid but that, taken together, seem contradictory. If it's a real contradiction one of the truths is a fallacy. If it's only an apparent contradiction - that is to say, a paradox - my anxiety is lessened but I'd still very much like to get to depths of it.

The first truth is this. A perfect society shall never come about by simply making some adjustments, rearranging society here and there, or fixing other external factors. The other side of this truth is that the problems of society can never be reduced to (explained by) simply societal maladjustments, disorganization, or some other superficial factors. The belief that they can is a key fallacy of all secular world-views, be they Marxist or western democratic utopias that stem from Enlightenment ideas.

T. S. Eliot expressed it this way: "Some dream of a such a perfect society, that it is no longer necessary for us to be good." Herein lies the wisdom that counterbalances secular thinking's folly. The problems of life are not ultimately technical, they are moral. They stem from the heart of man, the disorder from within, not the disorder from without. Christian tradition calls it the Original Sin. No matter how great the structure, no matter how educated, wealthy or cultured the society, everything comes tumbling down eventually. And the corrupt people make it to the top, or the top corrupts the people that make it there, whichever way it is.

The second truth is this. Taken the fact that the ultimate source of human misery, both on the individual and collective level, is a fundamental flaw in us, it is yet true that in some societies it is easier to be a "good person" than in others. Some have expressed it this way: a good society is a society in which the good man finds it easy to be good, and a bad society is a society in which the good man finds it difficult to be good.

Take, for instance, a country where a given vice is prohibited. I would suspect that in this country it is easier to avoid the vice and practice the virtue opposite to it. Or take a wealthy country - chances are that there is less social unrest or war in that country than in its poor neighboring country. Poverty is a cause of other social problems. Take away poverty and various blessings will follow. All this, however, seems to suggest that there is an element of truth in Marxist etc. ideas.

Now, at first the first truth - that perfecting society on the structural level won't erase wickedness from life - seems to present the legislator or politician (or any good willed person, for that matter) a problem. If it won't work, what's the point in trying to perfect society then? I have explained here why I think we ought to do our best to work for a better society and why a certain form of "perfect society" does, in fact, exist logically and potentially in practice too. But this is not the point I'm trying to make here.

The first truth - perfecting society won't erase wickedness - seems to be in contradiction with the second truth - perfecting society will lessen wickedness (make it easier to be good).

What's up with this? Is one mistaken? If not, can their interplay be explained more satisfactorily? What constitutes the apparent contradiction? Is there a level to this paradox that simply must be accepted by faith, or can we by making qualifications weaken the aura of mystery? What effect (if any) ought it have on the politician's thinking and acting?

I find this whole question very difficult. I'm not even sure that I nailed it. Hopefully I'll do a better job with the two other dilemmas to which I'll return later.

Political Theory

In theory, if I were to venture into the world of politics one day, say in twenty years or so, some questions concerning politics would have to be clear by then. In addition to the one hundred and one questions I have concerning specific concrete legislations, there are some theoretical - that is to say, more profound and urgent - questions to be answered first. Three general questions (or dilemmas), to be precise. I could not even contemplate a role in politics before I had settled them.

And as it will become clear in the following posts, there are some high ranking politicians whom not only do not have an answer to the questions - they haven't even asked the questions in the first place. To me that's mind-boggling. It's like sailing without a map when the destiny of so many people depend on your seamanship.

Political theory #1: Matter vs. Spirit
Political theory #2: Origin of Change--Law or Conscience?
Political theory #3: Christian Politician's Dilemma

I will try to formulate my thoughts and write separate posts on each. The first is blank because I find it difficult to even formulate a topic that would capture the heart of the subtle problem. Working on it. Posts forthcoming.

Edit: Title added to first.

Little Lily

Lily Lagus is my little adorable god-daughter. I've known her father, Julius, since fifth grade, and her mother, Emi, since I was 16. Emi and Julius have studied in the Medical School of Tartu, Estonia, for the past five years. In three months or so they'll graduate, and settle back in Finland. I will probably get to train much more with Julius then (BJJ), and see a lot more of Lily. The feeling of love is mutual. Lily and I even have this game *cough* where we try to strike similar poses.

“Shit, camera...”

“...chest out,” thought Julius to himself as a reflecting lens betrayed the paparazzi's location.

Raseborg Ruins

In addition to Olavinlinna's war castle, this summer I've visited another medieval sight - the Ruins of Raseborg or Raseborg Ruins. Though smaller and more modest than the Olavinlinna castle, Raseborg's castle is even older (built in the late 13th hundreds). It is very near Helsinki, in Tammisaari, the city that holds the Brigade in which I completed my military training in 1999. It took me and my friend Saila not even an hour to drive there. As you can see, the weather was optimal for a road trip to a historical location. (Unlike this week, this gray and rainy week. But in one way I'm fortunate: the weather is keeping me busy indoors translating.) We are actually pretty high above ground here.

Tired Boys

It's understandable. Not having to do anything, not having to drive or keep a watch on the traffic, can be very exhausting. Emil, his brother Alex, and Jan are sleeping on our way home from our road trip to Savonlinna to see the majestic Olavinlinna war castle. I wrote about it earlier, and it appears that Emil has as well but to his credit he added great pictures too.