امکان تغییر در طرز تفکر مردم و مسولیت های دولت، اندیشمندان و یا خود مردم
How is it to change people’s mindset: The government, scholars or people themselves?
One of the most controversial issues rising at the top of governments’ strategies is their people’s mindset. Although different approaches have been written in the political atmosphere, lawyers and legal academics are deeply conflicted about this subject. Some social players believe in the idea that this point of view can create public angst by limiting or threatening freedom and the power of individual and social rights as well. However, such a change has promoted the quality of welfare. Without this revolution, current life style was not possible to occurred. In this article, I attempt to present who are more effective to improve people’s mindset: The governments, scholars or people themselves.
The concentration of the debate focuses on this question: “How are child abuse andA government plays an essential role to manage all elements of its society. Historical experiences approve people almost are walking on the predesigned path dictated by their states. Media, newspapers and social networks ,for example, are defined directly as their governmental players. In addition, the public principles of education performed in the universities, colleges, schools and other educational centers which are supported politically and financially by politicians. The meaning of censor and its borders have been excused by these elements structuring in order to reshape people’s mindset. The historical war between democracy and dictatorial rulers presents such a situation is expanding or limiting this dilemma. Civil societies and NGOs have been activated to protect national and social interests, while all of them are acting under regulations approved and observed by their governments. Therefore, the less or more power of this player cannot be conceived as an important factor about the reality that people are absolutely living under training processes designed and performed by their states governing the territory where they are living there, or even a temporary residence, they are in for working, traveling or studying. This is the common chapter recognized among all legal and political doctrines.
Scholars is acting professionally to reshape the different mindsets actually changing the world and metaphorically revolve the roles in the individual and social lives. This is a serios question about which elements saved the Europe after the second world war: mindset or industrial revolution? The answer that is able to make a real consensus in the history is the mindset. Because industrial revolution was natural childbirth of it. Meanwhile the mindset has been created and developed by scholars who professionally is working and searching in scientific centers. They are dedicating their lives to develop science and public lifestyle. Those who are defending that the governments are only players to change the people’s mindsets are not in the overwhelming majority.
Third players who are noticeable to excuse the legality and legitimacy of themselves in creating people’s mindsets, are just the public. Some scholars believe in the idea that people are just the object, no subject. While some crucial functions are possible to occurred just by the people. They are not mutually exclusive that those people who are functioning as active subjects can be recognized as objects. The majority of lawyers, including me, believe that the role of people about their destinations are vital to change their lives and others. In the history of social revolutions in both developing and developed societies, people have wanted and determined to change their lives as well as their governmental styles. Their states cannot completely impose their policies on all parts of the societies and for a long period of time. The latest card game will be put on the table by people who are decided to change the result.
In conclusion, whereas all three players have been defended by different scholars, academics and law makers, legal professions are struggling to determine different kinds of functions performed by the governments, scholars or people. It is not possible to refuse their roles and duties individually. Nevertheless, they are playing as an interwoven chane. They are not successful, if they are not working as a blended team. They are different. Furthermore, they are living metaphorically in the separate islands, but with a unique legal regime assisting them with living together and working with a full power of trend to achieve their targets shaping an atmosphere that it is deriving a new-found benefit for their societies as a whole.