Our course this semester, covering thelast 500 years or world history, helped me understand the major dynamic of theworld over that period: the individual versus the collective. In fact, thisdynamic is still in place today, and will likely be for the next halfmillennium. Around the globe, individuals seek freedom and a future of theirown construction, while the collective seeks a society wherein all are equallyimportant. The individual speaks of personal freedoms and rights; thecollective speaks of personal sacrifice for the whole. Turkey displays thisstruggle well. The Muslim citizens of this secular nation are debating the possibleelection of a Muslim president. The majority of Turks do not want an Islamicstate. Another example is the women of Saudi Arabia, who have virtually norights but serve the purpose of bearing more children for the men and theentire nation. In the United States, globalization is forcing citizens todecide whether to support their own jobs in the U.S. or an overseas companythat does not pay its workers a living wage but gives us cheap prices. In many formsaround the globe, people are facing a centuries-old battle between the havesand have-nots, the upper and lower classes, the religious and the secular, thelanded and the landless, the individual and the collective.
          The Russian revolution of 1917represents one of the best attempts to turn the individual into the collective.Vladimir Lenin tried to make individuals equal and free (in theory at least) byworking together so that “the state…ceases to exist.”[1]Of course, Lenin’s method for such cohesion was Communism, wherein the“dictatorship of the proletariat (workers) imposes a series of restrictions…tofree humanity from wage slavery.”[2]Lenin was tired of a “democracy for the minority” in which the poor, who workedslavishly for the wealthy, were pushed aside and treated unequally. Hiscommunism later morphed into socialism under Joseph Stalin after World War II. However,Stalin only pushed the individual aside once again.
          In the years since the breakup of theSoviet Union, the individual has seen some opportunity to express himselfsocially and politically. However, democracy in Russia today runs much like theformer Soviet Union. The government quiets many political parties, which do notget television time to reach a mass audience. Some opponents to President Putinand his policies are arrested and jailed. In this sense, both the individualand the collective lose. The individuals do not have real democracy and thecollective loses the respect of the individual.
          Iranian women also representindividuals who lost rights to the collective. Under the Pahlavi rulers of Iranwomen were able to obtain an education, wear western-style clothing, andabandon the headscarf most Muslim women are obliged to wear. After deposing theShah in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini took over and reinstated Islamist principles. Forwomen this meant a return to headscarves and a backseat to men. Individualfreedoms were suppressed in favor of the community and its religion.[3]
          There are also examples of acollective being returned to individuals. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela cameout of prison to lead the majority blacks to power after a century of whitesupremacist rule. Mandela not only helped bring blacks out of their enslavementto whites, but also gave everyone the opportunity of freedom. He held hisbelief of social harmony his entire life, and demonstrated it clearly duringhis trial for treason in 1963, “I have cherished the ideal of a democratic andfree society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equalopportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But ifneeds be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”[4]
          Another example of gaining individualfreedom is found in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Although not signed by all nations, this document helped create a global shifttoward assuring rights for all people. Article 1 of the declaration states, “Allhuman beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowedwith reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit ofbrotherhood.”[5]The final article in the declaration forbids any state, group, or person fromviolating or destroying any of the rights outlined. However, the real issuewith this declaration is that some nations do not always hold the vision of theUnited Nations with high regard, and so choose to look the other way whenconvenient.
          In no place is the disregard of the UNdeclaration more evident than in Israel. In a country where the land is sharedby two vastly different cultures, the governing body of both groups seek thecapitulation of the other for their self-proclaimed right to their land. Thegroups are Jews and Muslims. The land is divided in such a way as to give theappearance of the upper hand to the Jews, while making the Arab Muslims feellike foreigners in their own country. Of course, Israel, as it is today, wascreated in 1948, not won through the spoils of war.[6]
          Thomas L. Friedman, a New York Timescolumnist, wrote about a Jewish reporter who went undercover as an Arab inIsrael to get a feel for how Israelis treat Arabs. The reporter described hisdaily life as follows, “The passersby stare at me like at a walking bomb.” Healso said he realized his place on the social ladder was at the bottom withouteven talking to people. The man even had to pretend to be a “guest from Jordan”to get into a nightclub. What Friedman brings to light is that fact that thereis no trust in Israel between the Israelis and the Arabs. In Israel, theindividual loses rights and freedoms to the collective government actions takenby the opposing group.[7]
          At the other end of theequality spectrum lies Turkey, a country that at once has a Muslim majority, asecular government, and a desire for inclusion in a community of westerngovernments. This seemingly unusual combination got its start in the 1920’swhen Mustafa Kemal, known as Ataturk, became president of the republic afterreceiving recognition of statehood by the Allied powers in the Treaty ofLausanne. Ataturk “instituted an ambitious program of modernization thatemphasized economic development and secularism.” This policy of secularism“dictated the complete separation between the existing Muslim religiousestablishment and the state.”[8]Women, previously held in a slave-like servitude to men, were now emancipatedand able to vote. Western-style clothes were allowed, as was the use of theRoman alphabet and Hindu-Arabic numerals.
          The Turkish secular nationhas survived, although tenuously at times, up to today. The current Turkishgovernment, led by Prime Minister Erdogan, is proposing a new candidate forpresident who is Muslim. The office of President would be the strongestpolitical office for Muslims to hold and would bring the potential for a changefrom being a secular country to an Islamist state. The majority of Turks preferto be secular, according to recent polls, and see the return to Islamistgovernment as a step back.
          Sabrina Tavernise,reporting for the New York Times, says, “One of the problems for thesecularists is that the elite never fully redefined the legacy of Mustafa KemalAttaturk.” Tavernise continues, “The main secular political party, the RepublicPeople’s Party, lacks agile leaders who can articulate a unifying vision forthe diverse secular groups.”[9]Secularists worry that a move toward a Muslim state could be a move towardradicalism. However, many devout Muslims own businesses and are better off nowthan they were before. Now they value stability in society, in addition totheir religious concerns.[10]The debate is still open, but for now, Turkey is a good example of retainingindividual rights while the collective grows more meaningful in a dynamic andincreasingly modern state. Perhaps the European Union could learn from Turkeyafter admitting them to the union.