"'I must do something' always solves more problems than 'Something must be done.'"

            In times of national or global crisis, the rights and responsibilities of citizens grow in relation to the crisis situation. Because my ideal political/economic system involves a touch of collectivism, citizens would react to crises with interdependence and cooperation in mind. 

devastation of the 2010 Haiti earthquake

            In terms of humanitarian crises, citizens have the responsibility to speak up for those affected, and to contribute to efforts that act to prevent harm to people, whether local or global, and their possessions. An excellent example of effective humanitarian aid was the Indian Ocean earthquake in 2004, which created a tsunami that devastated the coasts of landmasses bordering the Indian Ocean and killed over 230,000 people. There was damage to infrastructure and the economy, as well as food and water shortages and danger of epidemics. The humanitarian response was overwhelmingly supportive; numerous countries’ governments, as well as non-governmental organizations, contributed aid funding to the cause. Various corporations such as Pfizer, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and Exxon Mobil also contributed to those struck by the tsunami. In addition, there were numerous large-scale fundraising events with hundreds of participants around the world. This is how humanitarian efforts should be; citizens individually, as well as government, should be inclined to give generously to others in need. Some say a nation should look after its own people before other nations’ people; however, if the opportunity presents itself in which aid is needed in order to save lives, it should be given. We should not discriminate between people and where they live. In the instance of the tsunami, tens of thousands of people were injured, and ten million were left homeless. Their positions were much more dangerous and detrimental to their health than those homeless in a democratic nation. It is the citizen’s responsibility to contribute to humanitarian efforts that benefit other humans, wherever they may be.

            In civil rights movements, citizens have the right to make their voices heard; they also have a responsibility to pressure their government to take action in either their nation or another nation, where civil rights are being violated or do not even exist. Taking part in the movement for equality and proper treatment of humans is crucial; being involved in helping others attain fair circumstances is vital to the appreciation of one’s own civil rights and freedoms.



            Regarding antiwar movements, pressuring a government to put an end to a particular war or conflict is admirable. However, not everyone is a pacifist, and not everyone believes in accomplishing things and agreeing on decisions peacefully. Sometimes, military might is necessary (for example, the American fight against USSR communism during the Cold War). Not everyone has the same beliefs about war, and it would wrong to call antiwar movements a responsibility of the citizen to undertake. However, it is definitely a right that can be practiced, sometimes successfully. 

            In the days of the Cold War, McCarthyist politics brought about a “Red Scare” in which citizens of America feared the presence of communism on their own soil. During this mistrust for fellow citizens and politicians, it was the right of the citizens to defend their own ideologies and protect their beliefs and values; however, it was their responsibility to act fairly and justly when accusing others of being communist. Needless to say, Joseph McCarthy did not follow this responsibility; he accused others, unfairly, of being communist in the name of self-advancement goals.



Aung San Suu Kyi and her 'National League for Democracy',
 along with pressure from United States, United Kingdom,
and United Nations, brought democracy and civil rights to
Myanmar (formerly Burma). The country was
under military junta rule since 1962.



            Prodemocracy movements are not necessarily the responsibility of democratic governments or its citizens. There are many different circumstances that must be considered before actions are taken to spread democracy throughout the world. The imposition of democracy in nations can be detrimental in some situations, and very beneficial in others. If liberal nations intervene in other nations for their own self-advancement purposes—for example, trading purposes for economic advancement—imposition of liberalism is not justified and should not be sought. If the nation’s people are suffering under the current ideology and liberal nations attempt intervention for humanitarian purposes, involvement is a viable option that benefits the nation being imposed upon. However, if nations seek to impose liberal ideologies upon nations merely for the sake of spreading their sphere of influence, it is not a worthy project. For example, if a liberal democracy wants to assimilate a culture of people with a very different ideology, it is not a commendable cause if this culture is satisfied with their beliefs and wants to protect them. This has occurred in Canada with the First Nations people, as well as the Francophones. It is questionable today whether the imposition of liberal democracy in the Middle East is a viable course of action. Many believe the cultural differences in the Middle East do not allow for democracy. It is wrong to believe that democracy works everywhere, for all the different people around the world.