Individuals vs. Institutions

Overthrowing a government can be hard work. This doesn't happen often but history has shown us at various points this can be necessary. For most people though, overthrowing the government isn't the objective. Many are satisfied with a few changes to things. However, many have come into prominence as agents of change only to realize the institution ultimately controls the people rather than the people controlling the institution. Sadly this can alter the actions of a person with even the best intentions. Most observers don't necessarily recognize this though. They see a person and judge them on the final outcome as opposed to the factors that made up that result. People often ignore the institution that serves as the invisible hand controlling things.

We can first look at the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King spent much of his adult life working to tear down the walls of segregation. His early work was based in the South where he saw racism at its brutal and most basic level. He thought by appealing to the nation's best qualities he would be able to right the wrongs of injustice. Dr. King used the media to illuminate the violence and terror experienced by southern Blacks in efforts to rally support of northern Whites. He was largely successful at this. His approach resulted in numerous pieces of legislation that struck down legal segregation. When Dr. King turned his sights to the north he realized a different story. His work in the north convinced him that racism was much larger than simply a few heinous people in the South who did not want to intermingle with Blacks, but rather it was an institutional construct that was steeped in capitalism. King soon fell from grace when he began to make these observations public. Ultimately though, King realized that what he was fighting against was less individuals and their practices but the institutions that facilitated those behaviors.

King is not the only figure to recognize this. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said publicly that there is a need for a Palestinian State. He also said neglect to create one would result in Israel engaging in an apartheid comparable to South Africa's. These are stern words and I am sure that Prime Minister Olmert is well aware of the gravity of his statements. However, what he is also well aware of is how unpopular that idea is in context of the people he represents. What he is then left to do, is try and be as fair as possible while understanding the limits and confines his institution puts on his position. Olmert is not the only world leader to make this recognition. Former United States president Jimmy Carter has been quite vocal on his opposition to some aspects of United States foreign policy. Some of these foreign policies Carter himself had tacitly endorsed as president of the United States. Carter has been regarded as an agent for justice and democracy on the world scene, but it was his administration that secretly funded Afghan fighters that were keeping Soviet Union forces out of Afghanistan.

The conflict in Darfur is one that really magnifies the issue of institutions. Journalist Glen Ford wrote about how much attention is given to Darfur as a world crisis and everyone wants to help. He goes on to say what people often ignore is that the country that does the most to "solve" this problem will more than likely reap the benefits of the oil rich region. In this instance we can see that many who are grassroots activist for ending the terror in Darfur aren't interested in the profits that can gained by oil companies. However a by-product of United States intervention is the economic gains that stand to be made. Ideally we would love to see a humanitarian situation be resolved where the United States doesn't gain anything. However, history suggests that while we hold out hope and continue to be optimistic, we should also be cautious and guarded.

This is not to suggest individuals do not have good hearts. This is not even to say that some people don't go into their jobs with good intentions. This is to magnify the fact that when we look at events that take place on the world stage, be they foreign or domestic, it is important we look at the institution operating behind the scenes. Often times, these institutions make it so that no situation is really just black or white. These institutions have specific interest that need to be examined. Sadly more often than not, history teaches us that this interest is money. Most casual observers can recognize that when money is the interest, morals get perverted. As we examine the way we want to see the world, we should concentrate a good deal on the individuals, but a keen eye must be kept on institutions.