For the last dozen years or so, it was widely thought in Thailand (and elsewhere) that the King of Thailand (who is quite beloved to people I know personally as supposedly having the best interests of his people at heart) was a bulwark for democracy in a part of the world that has known mostly dictators in the post-colonial period.
Of course, that is no longer the case as the King of Thailand has supported a coup by a Muslim General against a corrupt but populist democratic government. As is always the case in this sort of coup where rule of law is trampled by tyranny there is always some sort of specious justification--usually involving the attempt to get rid of corruption (even though undemocratic leadership is almost invariably more corrupt than democratic leadership even of the wickedest variety), or the need to cure pressing military problems that a general would be expected to know better than an elected politician.
The truth is that even though democracies are far from perfect governments, they are better at governing just about anything than any form of unrepresentative government. Generally speaking, democracies depend on the vigilance of the people (who themselves, in many politically immature systems, do not seek to be responsible as adults). Democracies, however, allow the governened to hold their leaders accountable for their actions, which is the most effective form of preventing corruption and keeping leaders reined in (which is sadly necessary at all times and in all situations). In all other forms of government, there is some form of force or fraud that prevents people from having rightful supervision over their government. In the case of a military government, the modus operendi is that of force, where men (and possibly women) with automatic machine guns prevent people from exercising their God-given rights. In that of a monarchy, the modus operendi is fraud, where a leader perports to have some sort of divine or semi-divine status that puts such a leader beyond scrutiny and criticism from mere commoners. In Thailand, the current situation has a little bit of both flavors of tyranny.
Despite the promises that some form of autocracy will be more efficient and effective than a democratic form of government, the truth invariably demonstrates that any gain in stability depends upon massive atrocities and only temporarily hides the disasters that threaten society, and exacerbate their results (see Congo, Iraq, Nepal, etc.). In addition, the threat of military force at the slightest problem a democracy faces prevents the citizenry of a given nation from developing the necessary maturity to make democracy work. Democracy is not an easy business--it depends on there being an active citizenry with the expectation that laws will be obeyed by all--including lawmakers, soldiers, and other officials of the state. It also depends on a citizenry that is willing to demand their rights (even at a cost) and accept the responsibilities for ensuring that no one abuses their power. This is the responsibility of adults, who are capable of dividing right from wrong and are able to handle solid intellectual and moral food rather than the milk of civics lessons.
What is currently going on in Thailand at best will end up in a situation like Nepal (where popular demonstrations forced the fall of the autocratic monarchial rule) and Argentina (where a disastrous military conflict ended the rule of a military junta not unlike Thailand's current leadership). At worst, dictatorships can linger on indefinitely despite failures in solving the military problems that bring them to power (see Pakistan, Myanmar), or can even threaten the absolute dissolution of a nation (see Somalia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Congo, Serbia, etc.) and attract foreign military operations. It is far better, given this grim picture, for a nation to tough out the inevitable rough periods of an early democracy and form their own solutions to problems that allow for minority rights as well as majority rule, lead to more egalitarian social structures and the elimination of immoral systems of social division that deny the natural equality of humanity, all issues of massive difficulty that demand gradual and patient work. In no nation can these tasks be considered completed, but only in a society of mature political citizens can such tasks even be partially resolved in a lasting and beneficial fashion.
Sadly, these basic lessons are too often ignored, both by people with power who become addicted to position and authority and who forget that what is best for them is seldom best for the people as a whole (even paternalistic authoritarianism is an unrighteous form of government). While it may seem expedient in such cases to temporarily withhold democracy in order to deal with pressing problems, the skills in creating and maintaining a democracy can only be learned through struggling through trials. As painful as such difficulties may be for a nation, it is necessary for a society to endure such difficulties so that they may grow in maturity. To treat the citizenry of a society as children forever is to deny the promise that God provide to us as rulers. If we are to rule effectively over others, we must be able to rule over ourselves and develop self-control, patience, and resopnsibility. This can only be learned in an egalitarian society where people are resopnsible for their own actions without being able to rely on the commands of others who claim some sort of superiority to them.
How long will the simple love simplicity (for nothing in this world is truly simple)? It seems, in much of the world, that it will be for at least a while longer.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The Imaginary Engineer
For those who do not know, I am a graduate student in Industrial Engineering (Engineering Management) at the University of South Florida. During a discussion in class yesterday (Tuesday, 9/12) our class (and professor) had a rather passionate discussion of what makes Industrial Engineering such an obscure and misunderstood part of the engineering profession (thankfully no one has asked me about the Taylor motion studies--yet).
My background, to be fair, is not that of industrial engineering. Until I was well into college (my junior year, to be precise), I had scarcely heard anything at all about Industrial Engineering, despite being very active in the engineering school and finding acquaintances from a wide variety of engineering disciplines. My background is Civil (Structural) Engineering. While people may not know my specialty is buildings (most people, for some reason, automatically think of bridges), at least some people have an idea of what civil engineers do. Maybe a woefully small percentage of this world, but a recognizable portion nevertheless. Industrial engineering lacks even this sort of common understanding.
This may not be a bad thing. When people do know about Industrial Engineering, they inevitably misunderstand it (I will refrain, at this time, from extending that comment into a general thesis of my endeavors). The name Industrial Engineering itself is somewhat off-putting. People think of factories and assembly line processes when they think of Industrial Engineering. While this is certainly a part of the field, it is a very small part (in this country--not so in areas of the world where primary manufacturing actually goes on). For the most part, Industrial Engineering can be (perhaps a tad misleadingly) simplied as management for and of smart people. In particular, Industrial Engineering looks at the processes (both in procedures and power relationships as well as in technology and equipment) that lead to efficiency as well as effectiveness in management (including the management of engineers--who in a previous discussion in another class of mine had very little nice to say about MBA's without an engineering background). A look at my classes in my curriculum sheet will give some idea as to the sorts of material an industrial engineer would study on the master's degree level:
Principles of Engineering Management
Management of Technological Change
Technology and Finance
Engineering Management Policy and Strategies
Statistical Design Models
Work Design and Productivity
Total Quality Management Strategies
Occupational Safety Engineering
Project Management
ISO 9000/14000
Benchmarking
In other words, the field of Industrial Engineering is one of those hybrid fields between engineering (with its focus on technical and technological solutions to the problems of mankind) and concerns of management (even adopting some of the jargon of management, like Total Quality Management and Six Sigma and so forth, as well as the concern of finances). This sort of blend has led Industrial Engineers to market themselves (when they do market themselves, which is not often, apparently) as engineering without the math (and by math engineers mean such things as differential equations and matrix analysis). The fact that Industrial Engineering is not as heavy in high level mathematics has led many other (perhaps envious) engineering students to label Industrial Engineers as "Imaginary Engineers."
I find this to be amusing, but others are perhaps less amused by this. Every major, at least in engineering, has some sort of insult attached to it (my favorite for the civil engineering profession: mechanical engineers build weapons; civil engineers build targets--and my favorite for engineers in general is: What do engineers use for birth control? Their personalities.). Industrial Engineers seem to have done a poor job of marketing themselves. This is perhpas ironic, but it is not a serious problem to me (I generally have a severe distaste for the inevitable distortion and oversimplification that results from marketing efforts, even if I recognize the necessity of successful marketing to make sure the needs of people are met, even when those needs are not originally known or felt). As it is, there are few industrial engineers in this world, and few people know what they do or how important they are. This was the source of some humor in the classroom as well.
I suppose I could go on much longer, but the basic point has been made and I have other ways to spend my time then endlessly pontificate on an obscure field most people reading this are probably quite unfamiliar with. At any rate, hopefully this has been a useful update as to how I spend my time when I am not ranting about some topic, and about why my updates are so infrequent. Regardless, until my next post, fare thee well.
My background, to be fair, is not that of industrial engineering. Until I was well into college (my junior year, to be precise), I had scarcely heard anything at all about Industrial Engineering, despite being very active in the engineering school and finding acquaintances from a wide variety of engineering disciplines. My background is Civil (Structural) Engineering. While people may not know my specialty is buildings (most people, for some reason, automatically think of bridges), at least some people have an idea of what civil engineers do. Maybe a woefully small percentage of this world, but a recognizable portion nevertheless. Industrial engineering lacks even this sort of common understanding.
This may not be a bad thing. When people do know about Industrial Engineering, they inevitably misunderstand it (I will refrain, at this time, from extending that comment into a general thesis of my endeavors). The name Industrial Engineering itself is somewhat off-putting. People think of factories and assembly line processes when they think of Industrial Engineering. While this is certainly a part of the field, it is a very small part (in this country--not so in areas of the world where primary manufacturing actually goes on). For the most part, Industrial Engineering can be (perhaps a tad misleadingly) simplied as management for and of smart people. In particular, Industrial Engineering looks at the processes (both in procedures and power relationships as well as in technology and equipment) that lead to efficiency as well as effectiveness in management (including the management of engineers--who in a previous discussion in another class of mine had very little nice to say about MBA's without an engineering background). A look at my classes in my curriculum sheet will give some idea as to the sorts of material an industrial engineer would study on the master's degree level:
Principles of Engineering Management
Management of Technological Change
Technology and Finance
Engineering Management Policy and Strategies
Statistical Design Models
Work Design and Productivity
Total Quality Management Strategies
Occupational Safety Engineering
Project Management
ISO 9000/14000
Benchmarking
In other words, the field of Industrial Engineering is one of those hybrid fields between engineering (with its focus on technical and technological solutions to the problems of mankind) and concerns of management (even adopting some of the jargon of management, like Total Quality Management and Six Sigma and so forth, as well as the concern of finances). This sort of blend has led Industrial Engineers to market themselves (when they do market themselves, which is not often, apparently) as engineering without the math (and by math engineers mean such things as differential equations and matrix analysis). The fact that Industrial Engineering is not as heavy in high level mathematics has led many other (perhaps envious) engineering students to label Industrial Engineers as "Imaginary Engineers."
I find this to be amusing, but others are perhaps less amused by this. Every major, at least in engineering, has some sort of insult attached to it (my favorite for the civil engineering profession: mechanical engineers build weapons; civil engineers build targets--and my favorite for engineers in general is: What do engineers use for birth control? Their personalities.). Industrial Engineers seem to have done a poor job of marketing themselves. This is perhpas ironic, but it is not a serious problem to me (I generally have a severe distaste for the inevitable distortion and oversimplification that results from marketing efforts, even if I recognize the necessity of successful marketing to make sure the needs of people are met, even when those needs are not originally known or felt). As it is, there are few industrial engineers in this world, and few people know what they do or how important they are. This was the source of some humor in the classroom as well.
I suppose I could go on much longer, but the basic point has been made and I have other ways to spend my time then endlessly pontificate on an obscure field most people reading this are probably quite unfamiliar with. At any rate, hopefully this has been a useful update as to how I spend my time when I am not ranting about some topic, and about why my updates are so infrequent. Regardless, until my next post, fare thee well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
