The other side of Brutus
Friday, 28 August 2009
Nizam Ahmad
Based on facts, Julius Caesar is the famous literary work, a tragedy, by Shakespeare written around 1599 during the times of England's absolute monarch, Queen Elizabeth I. The play magnifies friendship, loyalty, betrayal, and treachery. However, there are other facts that the play does not consider - the facts which had led to the slaying of Caesar by his friend Brutus. Was it a mere betrayal, a treacherous act by a trusted friend or something beyond that, Shakespeare did not enact?
Caesar's conquest of Gaul, the present-day France and Belgium, had territorially extended the Roman world. But, Caesar did little to address the real issues then facing Rome. His chief concern was the increase of his personal power. He became arrogant and high-handed in dealing with his peers. He had a sycophantic senate and with many military successes, Julius, the military genius, turned into a dictator. Rome was a Republic but Caesar made it an Empire.
Marcus Junius Brutus with Cato and other nobles that included disaffected members of Caesar's own party, conspired to assassinate Caesar. On 15 March 44 BC, the conspirators at a meeting of the Senate stabbed Julius Caesar, the dictator for life, twenty-three times to death. The conspirators, or liberators as some historians label them, did not aim to take over power or to become emperors. The reason for that violent overthrow of Caesar was to end dictatorship in Rome.
On March 17, 44 BC, the Senate declared an amnesty for the 'liberators'. But, the Roman people loved Caesar despite many disappointing acts including turning Rome into a dictatorship. When the people saw the mutilated body of Caesar at the funeral, and when they read his Will, the people burst into rioting. The 'liberators' fled the country.
For Shakespeare, Brutus' stabbing of Caesar was the 'unkindest cut of all' but a cut that was necessary to save Rome from one-man rule. The assassination, however, did not succeed in its objectives. A civil war began, and autocracy became well established in ancient Rome.
Commonly, we view the act of felling Caesar by his friend Brutus as an act of treachery but in the political context, it is not disloyalty but a righteous act. Brutus was not confused in what he did as he said, 'not that he loved Caesar less, but that he loved Rome more'. Absolute power offers no room for peaceful transfer of power, to oppose power, or even to contest for power openly. When political power is absolute and binding on others it is inevitable that force and conspiracies will uproot it.
Only if Shakespeare had highlighted this element about the concentration of power and its grave consequences, medieval England and the developing world of today might have been more democratic for the benefit of the humanity.
However, violence to uproot absolute authority is resolutely justified by philosopher John Locke [1632 -1704] who also lived under an absolute monarchy in England. For Locke, Shakespeare's qualms about betrayal and treachery had no significance in a dictatorial political system. The thoughts of Locke inspired the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England that limited the powers of the monarch vis-à-vis the parliament. Philosopher John Locke was a fearless anti-authoritarian.
In his Two Treatises of Government, he writes that, 'I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction'. In Locke's view, 'nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy, or take away, the life or property of another'. To Locke, personal freedom, reason, and the search for truth are absolute. He will not accept the will of authorities obediently. According to him, the usurpation of a government is justified when a government does not stick to public good or subverts the ends for which people installed it. To Locke, an overthrow by revolution is not only a right but also an obligation.
He maintains that "ruling body if it offends against natural law must be deposed." This was the philosophical basis of both the rebellions of the American colonialists in 1775 and of the French in 1789. Americans are largely adherents of Locke believing in individualism - in the power and capacity of the individual to build one's life for which personal freedom and natural rights are essential. In contrast, the French are collectivists and looks up to their big State to deliver. Americans are clearly more enterprising, productive, and creative than the French in general.
The world has long passed the times of Julius Caesar, and the times of Queen Elizabeth's absolute monarchy during the epoch of Shakespeare but despite John Locke's anti-authoritarianism, undemocratic governments thrive in most parts of the world. Out of almost 160 countries, less than 30 have proper democratic processes. Imperfections in genuine democratic systems do remain but individual citizens are, in general, substantially free from arbitrary rule or coercion by their governments. They do not fear powerful people or their sycophants, and none can lock them up in jails or destroy their properties unless the law, not violating the natural rights, says so. Bangladesh is not free from arbitrary rule despite some 38 years of statehood. We have had popular rulers, powerful generals, dictatorial governments, interim administrations, and elected ones, but none of them respects or respected the natural rights of the individual.
The people in real democratic countries have their freedom of choice, to complain, to criticise, to dissent, of free expression, personal liberty, property rights, and personal security. Locke's 'social contract' means that no government will seize or restrict such natural rights unlike Rousseau's, where the citizens first surrender their rights to the State and the State decides which rights the people will have. Locke spells out individualism and limited government. Rousseau fancies the opposite - collectivism and unlimited State or a state of utopia.
The government of Bangladesh wasted an excellent opportunity to utilise the Upazilla system. Decentralisation and the empowering of the upazillas could have established multiple local governments in competition with one another, instead of one big administration centralised in Dhaka. Political power benefits people best when dispersed and local. Indeed, our politics must be localised but economy globalised.
Decentralisation can bring a healthy political environment in the country. Furthermore, a new class of investors and traders could grow to energise the whole economy. It is possible that a few upazillas would be authoritative but also is possible that many could emerge as true democratic institutions. The centre could always monitor and act constitutionally to discipline any bad upazilla ruler. With decentralisation, each upazilla would try to reform its political and economic systems and to outperform other upazillas. But we are all in a state of despair as though popular leaders promise liberal democracy and reforms, the signs are quite the opposite.
Centralised power makes it easy for leaders to dish out government favours as licenses for banks, large government contracts, and powerful political positions to a coterie. Such distribution creates and strengthens a support base and perpetuates the unholy system. As in Caesar's time, now too politicians act to enhance their personal power, to centralise power, and to empower their dynasties. Where are the noble ideals? Why cannot we assert our natural rights? Perhaps a political education based on Locke's philosophy could help turn things around in Bangladesh.
The writer is the Director, Liberal Bangla UK
Based on facts, Julius Caesar is the famous literary work, a tragedy, by Shakespeare written around 1599 during the times of England's absolute monarch, Queen Elizabeth I. The play magnifies friendship, loyalty, betrayal, and treachery. However, there are other facts that the play does not consider - the facts which had led to the slaying of Caesar by his friend Brutus. Was it a mere betrayal, a treacherous act by a trusted friend or something beyond that, Shakespeare did not enact?
Caesar's conquest of Gaul, the present-day France and Belgium, had territorially extended the Roman world. But, Caesar did little to address the real issues then facing Rome. His chief concern was the increase of his personal power. He became arrogant and high-handed in dealing with his peers. He had a sycophantic senate and with many military successes, Julius, the military genius, turned into a dictator. Rome was a Republic but Caesar made it an Empire.
Marcus Junius Brutus with Cato and other nobles that included disaffected members of Caesar's own party, conspired to assassinate Caesar. On 15 March 44 BC, the conspirators at a meeting of the Senate stabbed Julius Caesar, the dictator for life, twenty-three times to death. The conspirators, or liberators as some historians label them, did not aim to take over power or to become emperors. The reason for that violent overthrow of Caesar was to end dictatorship in Rome.
On March 17, 44 BC, the Senate declared an amnesty for the 'liberators'. But, the Roman people loved Caesar despite many disappointing acts including turning Rome into a dictatorship. When the people saw the mutilated body of Caesar at the funeral, and when they read his Will, the people burst into rioting. The 'liberators' fled the country.
For Shakespeare, Brutus' stabbing of Caesar was the 'unkindest cut of all' but a cut that was necessary to save Rome from one-man rule. The assassination, however, did not succeed in its objectives. A civil war began, and autocracy became well established in ancient Rome.
Commonly, we view the act of felling Caesar by his friend Brutus as an act of treachery but in the political context, it is not disloyalty but a righteous act. Brutus was not confused in what he did as he said, 'not that he loved Caesar less, but that he loved Rome more'. Absolute power offers no room for peaceful transfer of power, to oppose power, or even to contest for power openly. When political power is absolute and binding on others it is inevitable that force and conspiracies will uproot it.
Only if Shakespeare had highlighted this element about the concentration of power and its grave consequences, medieval England and the developing world of today might have been more democratic for the benefit of the humanity.
However, violence to uproot absolute authority is resolutely justified by philosopher John Locke [1632 -1704] who also lived under an absolute monarchy in England. For Locke, Shakespeare's qualms about betrayal and treachery had no significance in a dictatorial political system. The thoughts of Locke inspired the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England that limited the powers of the monarch vis-à-vis the parliament. Philosopher John Locke was a fearless anti-authoritarian.
In his Two Treatises of Government, he writes that, 'I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction'. In Locke's view, 'nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy, or take away, the life or property of another'. To Locke, personal freedom, reason, and the search for truth are absolute. He will not accept the will of authorities obediently. According to him, the usurpation of a government is justified when a government does not stick to public good or subverts the ends for which people installed it. To Locke, an overthrow by revolution is not only a right but also an obligation.
He maintains that "ruling body if it offends against natural law must be deposed." This was the philosophical basis of both the rebellions of the American colonialists in 1775 and of the French in 1789. Americans are largely adherents of Locke believing in individualism - in the power and capacity of the individual to build one's life for which personal freedom and natural rights are essential. In contrast, the French are collectivists and looks up to their big State to deliver. Americans are clearly more enterprising, productive, and creative than the French in general.
The world has long passed the times of Julius Caesar, and the times of Queen Elizabeth's absolute monarchy during the epoch of Shakespeare but despite John Locke's anti-authoritarianism, undemocratic governments thrive in most parts of the world. Out of almost 160 countries, less than 30 have proper democratic processes. Imperfections in genuine democratic systems do remain but individual citizens are, in general, substantially free from arbitrary rule or coercion by their governments. They do not fear powerful people or their sycophants, and none can lock them up in jails or destroy their properties unless the law, not violating the natural rights, says so. Bangladesh is not free from arbitrary rule despite some 38 years of statehood. We have had popular rulers, powerful generals, dictatorial governments, interim administrations, and elected ones, but none of them respects or respected the natural rights of the individual.
The people in real democratic countries have their freedom of choice, to complain, to criticise, to dissent, of free expression, personal liberty, property rights, and personal security. Locke's 'social contract' means that no government will seize or restrict such natural rights unlike Rousseau's, where the citizens first surrender their rights to the State and the State decides which rights the people will have. Locke spells out individualism and limited government. Rousseau fancies the opposite - collectivism and unlimited State or a state of utopia.
The government of Bangladesh wasted an excellent opportunity to utilise the Upazilla system. Decentralisation and the empowering of the upazillas could have established multiple local governments in competition with one another, instead of one big administration centralised in Dhaka. Political power benefits people best when dispersed and local. Indeed, our politics must be localised but economy globalised.
Decentralisation can bring a healthy political environment in the country. Furthermore, a new class of investors and traders could grow to energise the whole economy. It is possible that a few upazillas would be authoritative but also is possible that many could emerge as true democratic institutions. The centre could always monitor and act constitutionally to discipline any bad upazilla ruler. With decentralisation, each upazilla would try to reform its political and economic systems and to outperform other upazillas. But we are all in a state of despair as though popular leaders promise liberal democracy and reforms, the signs are quite the opposite.
Centralised power makes it easy for leaders to dish out government favours as licenses for banks, large government contracts, and powerful political positions to a coterie. Such distribution creates and strengthens a support base and perpetuates the unholy system. As in Caesar's time, now too politicians act to enhance their personal power, to centralise power, and to empower their dynasties. Where are the noble ideals? Why cannot we assert our natural rights? Perhaps a political education based on Locke's philosophy could help turn things around in Bangladesh.
The writer is the Director, Liberal Bangla UK