Emasculatory Insistences
These pieces of news are emasculatory . . .
What do you mean by 'emasculatory'?
Actually, I don't know the apposite word to describe what I mean. These pieces of news emasculate me, or make me despair.
You despair of what?
I despair of the potential of democracy on the Bias planet.
Did you have any hope for the potential of democracy on the Bias planet?
Not at all.
Your words seem inconsistent. How can one who didn't have any hope despair?
. . . You are right. I haven't had particular hope for it, but I had imagined that the democracy would at least try to assume some pretense of legitimacy.
So, are you astonished by some unconcealed expressions of essences of democracy?
Well, 'astonished' sounds nice: somewhat polite.
Anyway, what pieces of news emasculate you?
For example, the Japanese prime minister chronically says incongruous things.
For example?
As a preface, he is alleged of having pressured the ministry of education in order to make a certain institution selected for approval of opening a single veterinary college department, in favor to his friend, who is the governor of the institution.
I don't understand well what you mean by "opening a single veterinary college department."
As a regulation, the government allows only one institution to open the new veterinary college department.
Oh, so did the prime minister say that the only one institution must be his friend's?
Any prime minister won't be foolish enough to say directly so. His several staff members are alleged to have pressured the ministry to draw up a schedule of opening the veterinary department, which allows only the prime minister's friend's institution to meet.
I don't understand well. Why can only that institution meet the schedule?
Because that institution had been already preparing to open the veterinary department.
In spite of its not having been selected yet?
Yes. The institution seems to had been already confident that it would be selected.
Why?
I don't know.
Anyway, the ministry has some documents that describe how it was pressured, and the former vice-minister who was in charge of the process vouched that those documents were shared in the ministry and the consensus of the pressure twisted the process. In fact, the ministry was against the schedule, but forced to comply with the demand.
Did those staff members admit the pressure?
No.
Anyway, the process was definitely twisted because the process was executed under the recognition of the pressure, whether the pressure was really from the prime minister or not.
However, the prime minister insists that the process was crystal-clear.
Um? Did he say that the process was crystal-clearly twisted?
No, he said that the selection process was crystal-clearly fair.
Huh?
He insists so.
. . . Now, I understand how it's emasculatory.
If the prime minister makes an excuse, he will have to make at least a consistent excuse. . . . If he claims that he didn't twist the process himself, but some other people did, that may be feasible based on the evidences found so far.
Yes, . . . but anyway, the process was twisted, at least in the part of the ministry. Or doesn't what the prime minister calls 'the process' include what happened in the ministry?
To make things clear, we have to know how 'the process' was like.
OK.
The application conditions including the specification of the opening date were decided by an advisory board, not by the ministry of education.
Is that so? Then, what was the pressure for? The advisory board could just put in the opening date whatever the ministry of education said.
Formally it could, but as the ministry of education is the one that finally selects the institution, if the ministry of education hadn't comply with the opening date, the date would have been just a pie in the sky.
Oh.
So, the advisory board had to take a consent from the ministry of education, and in fact, the consent was expressed in the advisory board meeting and the decision of the advisory board was made based on the existence of the consent.
Then, what happened in the ministry of education was certainly an important part of 'the process': without the schedule, the application condition was impossible.
In fact, the notion that the schedule made only the prime minister's friend's institution eligible was widely shared, and another institution that was considering to apply gave up because of the schedule.
And the prime minister insists what?
He insists that the process was crystal-clearly fair.
. . .
I repeat that if he makes an excuse, he will have to make at least a consistent excuse. He might even be able to claim that nobody pressured the ministry, but someone somewhere made a groundless conjecture of the non-existent pressure, and the conjecture ended up twisting the process.
Anyway, the process was twisted, whoever twisted it.
That's an undeniable part.
And I wonder whether it can be called a groundless conjecture. After all, the someone made the conjecture because he or she had perceived the prime minister as such a person. And the conjecture was shared because people concerned had perceived that the prime minister was capable of such an act.
The prime minister is the chief of the administration, and a chief perceived so will be a problem.
And the prime minister insists what?
He insists that the process was crystal-clearly fair.
Well, . . . won't somebody tell him that while the ministry itself says that there was a twist in its own process, it isn't his say to insist that there wasn't?
He has to say, "There was a twist in the ministry's process? It's outrageous. While I didn't twist it, who did it? We have to identify the culprit."
But he insists that . . .
The process was crystal-clearly fair.
. . .
His words are outright inconsistent, and he doesn't even show any concern that he has to make consistent explanations. I have known that democracy is the execution of selfishness of majority, but this unconcealed disregard for truths is beyond my expectations.
You are right in identifying outright inconsistency with disregard for truths: truths are inevitably consistent and can be neared only through seeking consistency.
I now understand why those pieces of news are emasculatory. We can't have any meaningful discussion with those inconsistencies-happy people. We, truth seekers, develop our understandings by finding and eliminating inconsistencies. But when we indicate an inconsistency to inconsistencies-happy people, they don't care at all. There is no lead to discussion!
Yes. There are some people with whom discussion isn't meaningful.
Between two truth seekers, even if their views are quite different, there is room for discussion. Even if they don't agree with each other, inconsistencies indicated will develop each one's view. But with inconsistencies-happy people, it's just emasculating.
So, with regard to democracy, it can't help but become about just counting votes without meaningful discussions, if inconsistencies-happy people constitute a majority.
