The Sick Country Syndrome: has pain got identity?
The bizarre news from recent months in Ethiopia—including the arrest of demonstrators for opposing a fascist Italian leader, Rodolfo Graziani; the eviction of Amhara people from the Benishangul region; the disenfranchisement of Gurage businesses; and the blocking of free press outlets—reminded me of a medical phenomenon called Sick Building Syndrome. Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) occurs when the occupants of a building experience acute health effects that seem to be linked to time spent in the building. Frequently, problems result when a building is maintained in a manner inconsistent with its original design or prescribed operating procedures, or when occupant activities create additional issues.*
After reading this definition, I wondered: is there such a thing as Sick Country Syndrome (SCS)—a condition in which citizens feel ill about belonging to their country due to its sociopolitical realities at a given time? And if countries were to undergo medical checkups at a metaphorical hospital of ‘human solidarity,’ how would they measure up against the symptoms of Sick Country Syndrome?
To me, one pillar of a country's sanity is how it allows people to exercise their free will while consenting to a shared identity bound by a covenant (e.g., a Constitution). That covenant must remain impartial regarding its citizens' color, race, gender, or religion. Such a country operates like a community of equals, where every member enjoys both rights and obligations—taxation with representation.
However, in a country where the will of one person or group is imposed on others—especially when this breach results in blatant injustice against members of a group simply for being who they are (e.g., black or white, male or female, of a certain ethnicity, language, or religion)—it becomes a grave breach of contract. This, I argue, is enough to diagnose the nation as suffering from Sick Country Syndrome.
Sick Country Syndrome, I believe, often originates in one of humanity’s most common sources of misery: a failure to learn from history, combined with the folly of repeating past crimes while expecting different results. Such nations often fall victim to propaganda masquerading as a noble cause—the “new nation,” the “new ideal,” the “new vision” worth killing for or denying rights for. These so-called ‘new’ ideals tend to require scapegoats: some members of society must be labeled enemies. Think of Hitler’s Germany targeting Jews, or Ian Smith’s Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) targeting Black people.
Countries with Sick Country Syndrome are marked by a dangerously normalized tendency to condone injustice, simply because those on the receiving end are labeled as “the other.” A minor expression of intolerance, often disguised as a joke by political elites, becomes a mantra for their supporters. Before long, the most heinous crimes are discussed casually at coffee tables and in chat rooms—waiting for just one signal to erupt. The tragic outcome of this impunity is that individuals become “guilty as charged” solely because they belong to a particular religion, ethnicity, political group, or language community.
Such nations run on a terrifying logic: the pain inflicted on others is no pain at all. This notion stems from the delusion that pain has a color, gender, religion, or ethnicity. It insists that pain experienced by “the other” is somehow different—less real.
But does such an identity-bound pain truly exist? Only in a country where suffering is weighed against arbitrary criteria: ethnicity, religion, gender, or color. When injustice is inflicted on “the other,” it is dismissed as not fully human pain. In such places, the basic recognition of one’s humanity becomes conditional—dependent on identity. History offers abundant examples: Europe's disregard for African suffering during colonization and slavery, its apathy toward Jewish suffering during WWII, and Ethiopia’s treatment of Amharas over the last two decades.
A nation that fails to ensure all its citizens feel included and protected—especially by tolerating any narrative that implies some citizens are less deserving—does so at its peril. Only in a sick country can someone be told, despite being a citizen, that they have not been “paid for,” that they cannot move freely, cannot be treated equally, or can be insulted without consequence.
When someone is recognized as a citizen of a country, they are “paid for” in full. They possess all the rights and responsibilities of belonging to that nation. Any reality that contradicts this is a symptom of a sick country.
...........
*National Safety Council, USA, 1997.
Comments
Yohi
T