From Apathy To Revolution

Even though February is the shortest month of the year, I observed within its short span the face of apathy and the power of the people. Several unrelated events caused me to reflect on the dynamics of how, why and when forbearance and passivity turn into action and revolt.

First, a personal vignette. The health club I belonged to closed suddenly and without warning. No notice was given. Nothing was said. The doors were just locked one day. It was the third time this has happened to me, and I have heard of numerous similar occurrences.

I purposely returned to the facility on several occasions to observe the demeanor of members who discovered the lockout for the first time as they arrived for a workout. Eavesdropping, I heard member after member say that they had several years coming to them on their membership, and some said they had paid renewal fees as recently as several days earlier.

The apathy with which the members received the news astonished me: as if they expected nothing better and were accustomed to duplicity. At best the owners of the health club were guilty of misrepresentation and, more likely, of outright fraud in accepting membership money at a time they already knew they would close the facility. Our system of free enterprise (even at its worst) was never intended to provide a safe haven for brigands.

Mostly, I was struck by the absence of any visible emotion and the calm with which the hapless members responded to their betrayal.

Have people become so inured to injustice as to submit to the role of helpless victims with such stoical forbearance? Or is this the manner in which they keep their feelings in check and act "civilized?" Why wouldn't a few of those cheated members kick at the door in frustration (as I did), or hurl imprecations at the scoundrels? Anything to show the anger they must have felt.

This minor example of resignation and apathy was followed in the news during the month by the overthrow of both President-for-Life Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti and President Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Both Duvalier and Marcos had ruled corruptly and despotically for many years with seeming little organized opposition. The two February revolutions were unrelated, but both were marked by their suddenness and the absence of bloodshed with which the two entrenched tyrants were ousted.

I couldn't help wondering where the populace of those countries had been all the prior years. The people seemed spiritless, submissive and resigned to their fate until galvanized into action. I comprehended fully for the first time that ancient proclamation: "The King is dead; long live the King." It was all too obvious from the unrestrained joy of the people that they truly relished throwing the rascals out and welcoming in a new regime.

While the recent events in both Haiti and the Philippines proved how effective the power of the people can be, I had to wonder why it took so long. Is it because people are desensitized and inured to the wrongs around them? Have they been subjected to injustice for so long that they have lost the ability to be shocked?

Or does it take a determined leader like Cory Aquino to organize and lead a revolution? Unquestionably, she supplied a figure that people could rally around. She was not exactly a charismatic or imposing woman and she entered the political scene only after the assassination of her husband, Benigno, but her dogged resolve to oust Marcos by peaceful means supplied the needed impetus to topple the impregnable Marcos. Let's now move close to home in an examination of a revolution.

In our country, whether we realize it or not, a revolution (albeit an un-warlike one) is taking place. Under Ronald Reagan the nature of government is changing profoundly. By dint of slanted tax policy, appointment of conservative judges, the dismantling of certain governmental agencies and the refusal of other federal regulatory bodies actively to perform their functions, a radical and far-reaching, if subtle, change is unfolding.

The President has adroitly orchestrated a federal policy whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and has sold it to the majority of Americans. Are we really that devoid of moral sensitivity?

While not a great admirer of Mr. Reagan, I view with awe his success as an effective political leader. Reagan combines the qualities of a consummate practical politician and a zealot, and the mixture makes him doubly effective. Who would have thought it of a former movie actor? Or is it his historionic training that is the key?

His avuncular manner exudes goodwill and deflects any personal criticism no matter what the provocation. All of the issues he espouses are simply couched in terms of black and white (in foreign policy — "They are Communists desirous of ruling the world by force" and by extension "we are the good guys"; in domestic policy — "If you are for family, freedom and lower taxes, then support my programs"), and quite irresistible if elections and polls are to be believed.

Whatever one may think of him or his policies, no one can deny that Ronald Reagan is a leader.

These unrelated events made me realize that there is only a thin line between apathy and revolution. The facade of long-standing resignation often masks an angry rebel prepared to effect change if only the way be shown.

Leadership, above all, seems to be the prime requisite for revolution of all kinds. Even a thoroughly disgruntled people needs a leader to catalyze their discontent.

We will soon once again be reading the Passover Haggadah in which is retold the story of the liberation of the children of Israel from Egypt. After more than 400 years of unrelieved slavery, it took a Moses to lead the way.