- In any thriving, vivacious, and vibrant democracy, the opportunity to express oneself freely, irrespective of ideological differences, should not only be encouraged as per the constitutional provisions but also upheld by the entity tasked to ensure the rights guaranteed are not trampled, fearing opposition. Mind you, democracy is chaotic at best, but with an underlying comprehension that the real stakeholders in the process, we the people, are heard with intent by the elected representatives/appointed authorities, even if the ruling dispensation may not subscribe to the opposing viewpoints. Yes, differences are bound to pop up in any democratic nation. Nonetheless, trampling the voices of opposition by adopting violent means is simply unacceptable.
PC: CBS News
- It could be the voices of the people or, for that matter, leaders representing diverse/disparate political ideologies. Unfortunately, history is replete with innumerable violent occurrences, as well as political assassinations, leading to an extremely unpleasant situation for all concerned. Thus, political violence, unchecked, can upend governance. The recent killing of Charlie Kirk in the USA is troubling at two levels. There’s the private tragedy of a young life cut short and a bereaved family. The killing is bound to affect all decent people, even those who disagreed with Kirk. Then there’s the public tragedy of a political assassination, which shows we haven’t changed much in the 3,849 years since a prince of Thuringia in Germany was knifed to death by an unknown man.
PC: DW
- It’s the earliest known assassination, but by no means the first. Compared with pharaohs, emperors, samrats, and sultans, contemporary premiers seem almost immune to assassins, but this is an illusion. Records show publicly reported assassination attempts on national leaders in the 129 years from 1875 to 2004, of which 59 succeeded. One of these started WW-1. Another attempt – Hitler, 1939, failed because he left early to catch a train – could have prevented WW-2. Consider yourself complicit if you agree with the previous sentence. Because, while the would-be assassins of Hitler and, say, Jacques Chirac may be poles apart ideologically, their actions are indistinguishable under the lens of philosophy.
PC: ABC News
- Killing an individual to oppose their ideas and actions is a mark of intolerance, despotism, cowardice, and hopelessness. As such, Thomas Crooks, who took a shot at candidate Trump last year, and Tyler Robinson, who killed Kirk last week, were perhaps acting on their convictions, but with the belief that all counterviews need to be silenced. It’s an end-justify-means approach to politics that any sane individual opposes. Tolerance is a quality acquired with great civilizational effort. There should be no place for bullets when bullet points suffice. Sadly, in a polarized US, attempts to kill Trump and several other opinion makers over the past years signal trouble. It’s a country with an institutionalized gun culture, so a few more vigilantes may herald Wild West days.
