by Daniel Mack, Instituto Sou da Paz
In
order to respond to a history of violent deaths, a small village
congregated its entire population of 193 people – including the known
perpetrators, those who had sold them the weapons, and the families,
friends and acquaintances of the victims.
The
purpose of this congregation: to devise some sort of mechanism to
prevent and hold responsible any villager who sold weapons to known
criminals – or to those who had demonstrated clear malicious or
irresponsible behavior with guns in the past.
Given
its odd political and judicial traditions, the village lacked any way
of punishing the perpetrators themselves, and often lacked the gumption
to even attempt to stop them from their ongoing acts. They surmised,
however, that holding others effectively responsible would constrain
their desire to sell guns to shady characters – somewhat of a tradition
for a large number of its denizens.
However,
in another bizarre twist of this village’s legal traditions, in order
to take any decision, all villagers had to agree on all details of any
said mechanism. As a consequence, very few decisions had ever been made –
and those that had were usually about issues lesser than “life and
death” or were watered-down so much they had very little impact on the
ground.
Unsurprisingly,
when deliberations began after a significant delay, gun dealers and
perpetrators alike protested vehemently at the very notion that their
patently irresponsible, and often criminal, behavior should be
constrained in any manner. To filibuster – the villagers for some reason
only had 19 days to reach an agreement – they often spoke about
entirely unrelated issues, or asked questions they knew the answers to,
often with a smirk in the side of their mouth. Allowed by tradition and
the wise man conducting the deliberations, they spoke repeatedly, often
several times more than any others in the room.
Despite
these obstacles, the families of those who had been killed continued to
demand a minimum mechanism to prevent further irresponsible actions –
early on they had given up hopes of justice, belittled as “ambitious” by
some friends of the victims who, in a another theatrical twist, had
also sold many weapons in their lifetimes.
Though
an overwhelming majority of the village wanted real action to tackle
the problem, discussions were slowed and diluted by those who didn’t –
even though they were only a handful, and weren’t all exactly
law-abiding citizens. In that village, this became known as the “tyranny
of the minority”, and it wasn’t the first time it had happened.
But
that wasn’t the only problem: there were some villagers who, honestly,
were indifferent to the problem, others not interested in the concept as
presented, and some who were too busy focusing on simply making money.
There were others still who never showed up to the discussions, overly
busy with their several jobs. Some just observed quietly, as if their
opinion didn’t matter. Citizens from other villages came to observe the
proceedings and had many strong opinions, but were not allowed to speak.
To
make matters worse, the five most powerful men in the village – though
incredibly different in character and constitution – often agree to
water down deliberations in order to protect the status quo. The
richest and most powerful of them, particularly, somehow counted for
more than dozens and dozens of the other denizens in the village –
nominally a democracy – and often is able to convince them to accept
decisions previously deemed by them “unacceptable”.
When
the last day of discussions was upon the villagers, and the sense of
possibility unexpectedly thickened the air, suddenly the most powerful
villager declared that “more time was needed” to discuss the matter.
Others followed suit, and that was that. It’s unclear how and when these
discussions will be taken up again.
It
is certain, however, that the common good of all villagers was not
served, and the robust prevention mechanism hoped for will remain
elusive for now. Some villagers have begun to wonder whether there isn’t
a better way to do things than to continue to allow a handful of them
to determine the fate of the rest – even when clearly against the
perceived common good of the village as a whole…
