 |
| The
Role of the Government in Our Private Lives
|
 |
Historically, the development of human society was closely
intertwined with the development of state structures and institutions.
The modern world is practically unthinkable without governmental
institutions. In fact, the government manages the development
of countries and, to a significant extent, defines their future.
At the same time, it is possible to distinguish democratic
countries, where the government is under the public control,
and undemocratic countries, where the government controls
the society. Nevertheless, the role of the government, regardless
of the country, tends to be rather oppressive since any government
tends to regulate the relationships of people that inevitably
affects private life of any individual. In this regard, there
are no exceptions and the interference of the government into
the private life of people traditionally evokes a strong criticism
and opposition to any oppressive actions from the part of
the government. It is worth mentioning the fact that in democratic
countries the public can have a larger influence on the government
compared to undemocratic countries, but still the public has
to accept certain rules and norms imposed by the government
on people even if people have to sacrifice some benefits of
their private life. In such a context, the government is viewed
as an oppressive mechanism which limits human liberty and
interferes in the private life of people. On the other hand,
the government performs an important role of a regulator of
social relationships since the society needs a mediating power,
which could soothe conflicts between people or interest groups.
Hence, the role of the government turns to be dubious: on
the one hand, it is an oppressive power that interferes into
the private life of individuals and limits it in a way, while,
on the other hand, it is the major power which maintains the
existing social order. In such a way, the role of the government
is important but it needs to be controlled by the public,
otherwise, the government may outgrow into a dictatorship
power which oppresses its citizens and does not serve to the
interests of the society.
It proves beyond a doubt that in the contemporary world the
government plays a determinant role in the life of society.
At the same time, even in the most democratic societies the
government tends to oppressive actions which limit individual’s
liberty and interfere into the individual’s private
life. In this respect, it is possible to discuss the current
situation in the US and consistent changes that took place
in the country which affected consistently not only the private
life of ordinary Americans but even more they influenced the
life of immigrants and foreigners in the US. What is meant
here is legislative changes, including the Patriot Act of
2001. In fact, the introduction of the Patriot Act in 2001
caused numerous discussions in the US society, even though
the act was supported by both houses of Congress. At the same
time, the act was a response to the dramatic changes that
occurred in the US in 2001. To put it more precisely, the
introduction of this law was a part of the response of the
US on terror attacks and its major target was to prevent the
repetition of other terror attacks. The supporters of the
act estimated that this act can almost guarantee the national
security of the US and all Americans.
On the other hand, the opponents of this legislative act argued
that this act was a great threat to the democracy in the US
and to civil rights of Americans as well as other people that
were either living or simply visiting or just having business
in the US. In such a situation, it is important to analyze
the background and the reasons for the introduction of the
Patriot Act and assess its impact on average Americans, the
situation in domestic affairs at large, the position of foreigners
and immigrants in the US in order to understand what the actual
consequences of the introduction of the act are or could be
in the future.
Obviously, the introduction of the Patriot Act was determined
by objective factors that stimulated the American Government
to enhance the national security policy. In this respect,
it should be said that the Patriot Act was introduced shortly
after the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. This was probably
the largest tragedy in the modern history of the US, when
thousands of innocent people had died in the result of the
terror attacks, while the national security system and law
enforcement agencies proved their inefficiency in the prevention
of the terror attacks at such a large scale.
At the same time, the inability of security agencies and law
enforcement agencies of the US to protect American citizens
from the attacks of terrorist resulted, or at any rate, it
was estimated so, from the gaps in the national legislation
concerning the problem of security. In such a way, a bit paradoxically
though, the susceptibility of the US to the terror attacks
on September 11, was viewed as the consequence of the liberties
and civil rights of people that were living or simply were
at the moment of the attacks in the territory of the US (Van
Bergen, 137). As a result, the suggestions to improve the
existing legislating and enlarge the opportunities of law
enforcement agencies in their struggle with terrorists were
declared on the top level one of the eagerest supporters of
the introduction of the Patriot Act was the President of the
US, George W. Bush.
Basically, the supporters argued that law enforcement agencies
should have additional rights to investigate and conduct preventive
measures in order to minimize the risk of new terror attacks,
while the current level of freedom in the US exposed the nation
to the great threat making law enforcement agencies unable
to prevent terror attacks and protect Americans from terrorists
(Cole and Dempsey, 78). This is actually why the Patriot Act
was supported by the Congress and the law was introduced on
October 26, 2001, a month and a half after the terror attacks
on September 11.
Nevertheless, in spite of the arguments of the supporters
of the Patriot Act, the introduction of this law caused a
strong opposition in American society, especially from the
part of organizations targeting at the protection of civil
rights. Many specialists (Michaels, 141) argue that the Act
threatens to the private security violating basic human rights
and liberties and giving law enforcment agencies practically
unlimited authority in the field of private security. It should
be pointed out that the act limited consistently the liberties
and constitutional rights of Americans and this was the major
challenge to the opponents of the act. Basically, they argued
that the introduction of this act, even though it may decrease
the external threat from the part of terrorists, provokes
another, even more serious threat to the national security
and to the fundamental principles of the traditional American
lifestyle. To put it more precisely, the opponents of the
act underlined that it had actually undermined the basic principles
of democracy and it also limited the rights and liberties
of Americans (Wong, 237).
In this respect, it should be said that t Patriot Act provided
law enforcement agencies with additional rights that actually
threatened to the private security of Americans. For instance,
this act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies
to search telephone and e-mail communications, as well as
medical, financial, and other records. In such a way, Americans
turned to be susceptible to the free intrusion of law enforcement
agencies in their private life, searching their private information
even without receiving any sanctions from the part of a court.
Obviously, these issues affected constitutional rights and
liberties of Americans making them exposed to violation of
their constitutional rights by law enforcement agencies who
could use the Patriot Act to justify their intrusion in the
private life of practically any American.
Naturally, such a situation was absolutely unacceptable and
several legal challenges have been already brought against
the act and the Federal Courts have ruled that a number of
provisions of the act are unconstitutional (Michaels, 211)
that proves that the Patriot Act really threatens to the maintenance
of democracy in the US.
However, the position of foreigners and immigrants in the
US after the introduction of the Patriot Act became even worse
than the position of an average American. To put it more precisely,
the Patriot Act limited consistently the possibilities for
foreigners and immigrants to freely enter the country. The
measures of control and identification of foreigners and immigrants
were enforced substantially. In fact, the Patriot Act has
been severely criticized for its authorization indefinite
detentions of immigrants. The opponents of the Act argued
that it have the Attorney General “unprecedented, new
power to determine the fate of immigrants… Worse, if
a foreigner does not have a country that will accept him,
he can be detained indefinitely without trial” (Wong,
149). Basically, the law enhanced the discretion of law enforcement
and immigration authorities in detention and deporting immigrants
suspected in terrorism-related acts.
In such a way, the personal freedom of immigrants and foreigner,
one of the basic human rights, was under a great threat and,
therefore, they could become victims of law enforcement agencies,
their mistakes or misuse of their power. In fact, the Act
made foreigners and immigrants practically unprotected in
face of almost almighty law enforcement agencies.
Moreover, even the property of foreigners in the US was under
a threat. For instance, the Patriot Act expanded the Secretary
of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions,
particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities
(Mailman et al, 231). Consequently, the security of the financial
resources and transactions of Americans and, especially foreigners,
were under a threat.
Thus, it is possible to conclude that, in spite of objective
factors that forced the US Government to enhance national
security legislation, the Patriot Act should be viewed as
a very contradictive and arguable law because in terms of
the struggle against terrorism and enhancing law enforcement
agencies and opportunities to prevent to prevent terror attacks,
this law gives the latter almost unlimited provisions and,
at the same time, it has limited basic liberties and rights
of all Americans and foreigners and immigrants in the US.
This is why the implementation of this Act should be more
careful and more thoroughly prepared in order to meet the
law to the norms of the US Constitution, which cannot be changed
whatever external threats to the US are.
Nevertheless, whatever the reasons of the introduction of
such legislative changes as the Patriot Act of 2001 were,
they affected the private life of Americans and foreigners
in the USA consistently. In fact, today, people living in
the US are exposed to the interference of law enforcement
agencies into their private life that apparently has both
positive and negative effects. On the one hand, the interference
of the government into the private life of people enforces
national security and safety of all people living in the US,
but, on the other hand, it limits individual’s liberties
and even some civil rights.
At the same time, the situation in undemocratic countries
is consistently worse compared to democratic ones and the
oppressive nature of the government outweighs its role of
the regulator of social relations and the major power maintaining
the existing social order. Instead, an authoritarian government
establishes a new social order in which the government controls
all spheres of the life of society. In this respect, it is
possible to refer to Afghanistan and Iran, where the government
was and, in the case of Iran, still remains in hands of the
religious elite of the country. In fact, it is possible to
find numerous examples of the extent to which the government
oppresses its citizens in works of authors which experienced
the life under an authoritarian regime. For instance, “The
Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini and “Persepolis”
by Marjane Satrapi perfectly illustrate the negative impact
of the government on the life of people. For instance, the
main character of “The Kite Runner” is forced
to abandon his motherland because of the interference of the
government in the private life of people and threat to the
life of citizens, while “Persepolis” depicts the
childhood of the author in Iran after the Islamic Revolution
which changed the life of people dramatically for Islamic
rules regulated all spheres of human life, including their
private life.
Thus, it is possible to conclude that the role of the government
may be dubious since it can perform the functions of a regulator
of social relations, which maintain a stable social order
and maintains justice in the society. At the same time, even
the most democratic governments tend to the interference into
the private life of people, while in undemocratic, authoritarian
countries, the government can totally control the private
life of people and perform oppressive functions. In such a
situation, it is obvious that the public counteraction to
the government is essential. Otherwise, the interference of
the government into the private life of people will transform
even the most democratic government into a totalitarian institution,
while the public control and the public opposition to actions
of the government limiting individual’s rights and liberties
and interfering into private life of individuals can force
the government to change its policy and respect basic civil
rights and liberties.
Works cited:
Cole, D. and J.X. Dempsey. Terrorism and the Constitution:
Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security.
2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2002.
Hosseini, K. The Kite Runner. New York: Random House, 2003.
Mailman, S. et al. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
(USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001: An Analysis. Newark, NJ and
San Francisco, CA: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 2002.
Michaels, C. W. No Greater Threat: America Since September
11 and the Rise of the National Security State. Algora Publishing,
2002.
Satrapi, R. Persepolis. New York: Allyson and Bacon, 2007.
Van Bergen, J. The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for
America. New York: Common Courage Press, 2004.
Wong, K. C. The Impact of USA Patriot Act on American Society:
An Evidence Based Assessment. New York: Nova Press, 2007.
|
|
