Imperfections of World Democracy

Although so far until now I have made no mention on anything regarding to my studies here in Warwick, I have learnt and immersed myself in the sorts of knowledge which I would not have otherwise.

Before arriving in UK, when people questioned the course I would pursue here, I would just give the short answer: Economics. That is not exactly true. Not only am I studying Economics, I decided (with the suggestion from my father) to take Politics and International Studies as well. So, the course name is Economics, Politics and International Studies (thus Economics was a much simpler and shorter answer to people's questions).

As far as I am aware of, Warwick is the only university providing such a course. Thus, I was as clueless as everyone else what EPAIS entails. All I know that I would be studying both Economics and Politics. Up until now, neither have I touched anything regarding International Studies, nor do I know what exactly that means. Is international studies another name for international relations (a specialised branch of politics)? I have no clue.

For this year, I have taken up three Economics modules and two Politics modules. Economics 1 is pretty simple, most of the topics were covered in A-levels, just add a little bit more. Quantitative Techniques is pretty damn hard, especially with a lecturer like Dennis Leech. World Economy just begun to be interesting as we finished the history part last term and this term, we are having a new lecturer, who is going through the theoretical part.

Politics is a much obscure subject. There are theories to be learnt, but none of them hold absolutely true. There's the realism theory, while on the opposite, there's the liberalism theory. To make matters worse, there is constructivism right in the middle. All of them have people going for it and people going against it. There is no absolute right or wrong in Politics, not even human rights!

Next is the reason for writing this post today. In politics seminar (one for each module every week), we are all academics sitting in our comfort chairs, enjoying the heat from the radiator, discussing and debating world issues like we care, like we understand. Do we really? Even after all the researching and reading, do we really understand what is truly happening outside our classroom door?

While we are discussing all the terrors, such as genocide, terrorism, we speak with a sense of detachment. With a sense of security of knowing that whatever we talk about, it would end when we exit the class. And next week, we will do exactly the same thing all over again. We are not those who have to live with it every day and every night. We do not to fear for our lives. We do not directly face the consequences of the terror happening in this world. Who are we to talk, discuss about it and act as if we truly understand?

Reading the news about Aung San Suu Kyi today ("Court to decide on Suu Kyi appeal within a month" January 20, 2010, CNN International http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/20/myanmar.suukyi/), there is a person who decided that sitting in the classroom discussing about the issue was not enough for her. She knows that if she wanted to make a difference, she had to go out there and do something, whatever the consequences.

She has been in house arrested for 14 of the past 20 years. Did she think and fear that before she begun? I am sure what she thought of was more than that (probably more on the lines of death and murder, although how is that worse than being isolated in a house with only two companions for 14 years and counting?).

Having been for approximately 20 of such classes so far, it feels like I have not truly learnt anything new. But, this is a necessary step towards achieving something more. Hopefully, not quite like Aung San Suu Kyi (I wouldn't wish for such a predicament to befall on myself), but something of that substance (or as close as it can get).