ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ย. 2024
- Media description: Scenes from the American television series The West Wing (Season 6, Episode 14) addressing the re-writing of a constitution for the Republic of Belarus.
MEDIA CONTEXT
The award winning television drama series The West Wing (Warner Brothers) is based around the top echelons of the White House dealing with the daily tapestry of personal, homeland and global issues. The 'West Wing' contains the famous Oval Office of the president of the United States of America.
Scenes from Episode 14 (The Wake Up Call) of Season 6 depict interactions between White House Communications Director Toby Ziegler (Richard Schiff), Constitutional Law Professor Lawrence Lessig (Christopher Lloyd) and a group of representatives from Belarus. The Belarusians have come to receive advice from Professor Lessig on forming a new constitution for their country. Ziegler is anxious to start the writing process, whilst Lessig sees as his most important duty the instilling of "democratic values" in some of Belarus' most influential men.
MEDIA CRITIQUE
This episode is full of cultural contrasts that might be more noticeable to Australians than to Americans. Richard Schiff's character, Toby Ziegler, assumes his opinions are enlightened yet he is a walking contradiction; as a senior White House staffer, in a country with a long tradition of constitutional government, working in a bastion of democracy, he does not believe his democratic government is an ideal model for other countries. Is that a dramatic ploy or a cultural trace? On the other hand, Mr. Zubatov, Editor in Chief of a major Belarusian paper, is made to appear naive in asserting his president would not turn to unruly dictatorship if given absolute power. Is either of these a fair characterisation? Have the producers intentionally (or unintentionally because it is culturally ingrained) given the impression that 'foreigners' are not as enlightened as Americans because they trust in a different system of government? Whatever the case, this West Wing episode throws up some interesting discussion points that are relevant in Australia.
ANALYSIS & REVIEW
1. Lessig plays the role of mediator between Ziegler and the Belarusians. Lessig believes that the discussion about the constitution is actually more important than the document it delivers. "A constitutional democracy succeeds only if the constitution reflects democratic values already alive in the citizenry," he says with passion. (Lawrence Lessig, The West Wing: 6, 14). Discuss Lessig's statement.
2. How can citizens affect the way laws are invoked? Are a constitution and a vote any guarantee of citizens' rights? What else would you say is needed?
3. Even though the last century of history for Belarus is vastly different to Australia's, are there any similarities between how the "West Wing Belarusians" appeared to being going about the formation of their new constitution and what actually happened in the writing of the original Australian Constitution?
4. What constraints or restraints does the Australian Constitution place upon the various arms of the Commonwealth Government that make a dictatorship of the kind that continues in Belarus somewhat impossible in Australia? Take account of the fact that the states have their own constitutions as you formulate your opinion.
5. Belarusians appear to have the vote (universal suffrage from the age of 18), but at this stage of their history a Belarusians' vote is more or less worthless for invoking change. How is the vote of an Australian 'powerful'?
THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION & AUSTRALIA TODAY
The Belarusian Constitution has in fact gone through a number of changes in recent decades. This is true of Australia's constitution and those of many countries. What are some of the amendments that have been made to the original Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act? How do these amendments reflect the current values and attitudes of our citizenry?
PERSONAL APPLICATION
Have you read the Australian Constitution, or any part of it? Could you make a plan to read it this year or over the next twelve months? (Yes, you might find it hard to read or boring, but you would also be a unique Australian. How many Australians do you think may have read the Constitution?)
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
People seem to miss why this scene is great.
Tobe is the first impulse, the urge to judge superficially: if it looks right and acts right, it must be right. Christopher Lloyd's character is saying that the form of government is irrelevant. That it's possible to have the trappings of any system while it functions as only so many empty rituals. That you can put a paint job on rotten wood; or conversely, and more importantly to the viewers, for the spirit to die and the husk remain.
The Lawrence Lessig character (incidentally a person in real life) offers an alternate view. Namely, that the citizenry is the most important part of any government. Unrest will always be fomented by people until their government reflects their values -- but first they must have values. Also that people that want to be governed instead of ruled make bad subjects. Machiavelli knew well the difficulties of subjugating such principalities, "he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. And whatever you may do or provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless they are disunited or dispersed, but at every chance they immediately rally to them" (Chapter Five, The Prince).
The scene is great because it's exactly why civics is important. That strength of character comes from the subtle difference being told what is right and having decided what it is right. It's the difference between learning and education.
Hold on, doc! Are you telling me that the US citizens don't have any democratic values? Is this why Trump is the president when the majority voted for Hillary? Is this why Hillary got the democratic nomination when people chose Barney? Or the politician in the US don't have any values? Is that why there's gerrymandering, a very few voting booths, you can't vote without a drivers' license/passport? Even if you vote despite all these hurdles, your vote doesn't count. The electoral college decides you voted wrong. If you ask your leader to change the system for public benefit, they don't listen to you but the lobbying groups. What are you trying to tell me doc?
I'd like to know why you think people are not
I don't appreciate how this show was made 20 years ago and nobody listened.
wait a minute Doc are you telling me that you wrote a constitution out of a delorean?
I figure if you are going to make a Constitution, why not do it with some style.
the Peruvian oatmeal cookies must've finally worn off.
Re: the Media Critique
I can perhaps shed some light on this.
Toby Ziegler is a fictional character, as is this version of Lawrence Lessig played by Christopher Lloyd. However, in real life, there is a real professor Lessig.
However, there's no contradiction in Ziegler's character here. If there is any "cultural trace" in Ziegler's character that marks him as particularly American, it's merely the fact that criticising a system and working with it to change it or to do the most good are not mutually incompatable or even contradictory.
Mr. Zubatov's naivete is likely exaggerated for the purposes of drama - it is, after all, a 45 minute show, and this was the "B" plot. If anything, it serves to underscore the main message of the clip, which is that democratic systems only survive when accompanied by democratic principles. An editor in chief not questioning the power of a central executive comes off as naive, yes, but this is merely cinematic shorthand. A more accurate, subtle portrayal of a shifting from authoritarian to democratic principles would take too long for the *entertainment value* of the scene.
This may be my favorite scene in the series.
In rebuttal:
“Chavez, Maduro, and Bolsonaro; they all choose a presidential system”
Watching this clip after Bolsonaro got elected.
Shylock Shy good point :)
They choose the system because they controlled all the branches of government
2:05 The Queen is the unifying national figure in the UK, rather than the Prime Minister.
Medea's Biggest Fan She doesn't unify me, but great video on your channel.
That last exchange made me tear up . . . seriously.
I love some of the choices the West Wing makes for cameos. To go against grain with Christopher Loyd as a constitutional scholar, it's a bold choice when considering how he's been typecast his entire career, but obviously a very talented casting director knew he had the acting chops to pull if off.
but his brother being cast as the loony UFO guy after playing a silly guy on scrubs..
How more timely can this be? 4 years ago and it strikes to the very heart of what we all hope for in a newly democratic government, and an established one. Kudo's for posting this beguiling and hope-filled reminder. ~ S ~
didn't work out so well did it
Wow you cut the clip way too short. He goes on to explain who the rest of the people are and really sheds light as to how democracy could really start from a seed of a handful of people. Missed opportunity.
You know Bartlett would have done anything to sit in that room! They should have him pop in once in awhile.
If he'd "popped in," he never would have left...
@@blackhawkswincup2010 💯
The main strengths of the US Constitution are that: it established guarantees of important freedoms; it laid foundations of separation of balanced powers between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial; it protected the power of the little man to use the court system to challenge the misdeeds of the powerful man; It codified the commonly held beliefs of the educated leaders of the populace, and was thus representative of the beliefs of less educated Americans; and it supplied the structure for the Constitution to be amended and rewritten to adapt to new situations.
Get in your DeLorean and join me in 2023. A disgraced former president is about to arrested on the first of his many crimes and is calling for riots that mimic what he did when voted out of office. Many millions of service to our country via military or civil, swore an oath to our constitution. There’s a sizable part of our populace that would tear it asunder. Whatever gods may be, please save the USA.
the GREATEST show in the h i s t o r y of television.
The critique at the end seems to be wrong. Toby is not saying that his democratic government is not ideal for other countries. What his saying is that the PRESIDENTIAL system of government, which allows for a strong executive is not ideal for a country with a history one-person-with-an-iron-hand rule.
You're analysis is wrong. Ziegler is saying that a US style Presidential system cannot work for Belarus. Among developed Democracies, the USA's system is unique. Other countries with Presidents also have Prime Ministers/Chancellors etc who legislate whilst a figurehead is in charge of national unity etc. Go read "How Democratic is the American Constitution?" by Dahl. Americans treat the Constitution like a religion. You need to find the flaws before you can export it wholesale to other nations.
I’m content with the Bill of Rights, thanks.
@@javimiami92 exactly, you're saying "it's good enough for me" which is exactly what Toby is saying!! It happened to work for the US, only had 1 civil war and 15 million constitutional fights, there's zero guarantee it'll work in an ex-Soviet blok country
@@javimiami92actually, if your view is so self-centered then why have you ever watched this show?
@derrickstorm6976 I've seen this show many, many more times than you dude.
Did you forget what Professor Lessig says to Toby? The set of laws don't matter as much as the SENSE of the RULE of law. If the people don't have an adequate set of values, then no form of government will be good enough. You can hand someone a fancy car, but if the person doesn't know how to drive, it doesn't matter how great the car is.
Isn't it a shame that this never happened?? While most former Soviet Client states slowly evolved into stable democracies since the breakup, Belurus still maintains a soviet-style government that rules the people much like the USSR did, and Ukraine seemed to wobble in the middle for 20 years, before the Maiden Revolution gave the people their first taste of real democracy.. It's still uncertain if they will remain free, or again be pulled back into Putin's corrupt universe, but the average Ukrainian wants to be European, rather than Russian influenced, with NATO membership to protect them from the Russian Bear....
Thomas J Sanford and Belarus is a pure presidential system. Only two nations have full presidential system which is Cyprus (forced by the British) and Belarus. I think the video predicted what would happen to Belarus.
well hot damn. 4 years later and Russia decides to invade Ukraine. God bless Ukraine, hope Kyiv survives. Will this lead to World War 3? People in the future, please comment so I get a notification to come back here. Hopefully WW3 is averted.
Constitutional REPUBLIC
Where we're going we don't need.... a constitution.
after the latest role I saw Mr. Lloyd in, it is great to see him with good dialogue to act with
Yeah, how are those safe guards doing?
❤❤
2:11 - 2:17 ..................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
3:29 First Amendment.
Nope. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. It does not protect the specific right to teach German in school. You and I take those two rights as synonymous, but it's only because we live with a set of values that associates teaching German with protected speech. If we lived in a country that found German people and ideas to be a danger to our society, we may very well imagine that teaching German in school would present a direct threat to our country, tantamount to inciting insurrection, and therefore find that it does not fall under the umbrella of protected speech.
As Lloyd's character says, the freedoms outlined in a constitution only remain strong if they are reflective of the values the society believes in. If those values aren't there, the document can be interpreted to serve whatever purpose those in power choose.
This is why the Surpreme Court and its process of judicial review is so critical to protecting our freedoms. All it would take is five segregationist judges, and we could end up living uner Jim Crow again.
Freedom doesn't require only a constitution. It requires vigilence on behalf of the people to oppose any threats to those freedoms, and those threats rarely come from terrorists or other countries. They come from our neighbors.
SpydeyDan,
Right NOW (2018-2019), I'm beginning to think that freedom of speech means "the words that come out of your mouth" and nothing more. No freedom of expression (which includes wearing clothing that some people may find offensive, or wearing no clothing at all in any area regardless of how many people it may offend).
And does freedom of the press include weekly tabloids writing stories that are CLEARLY untrue, even if that story brings financial or physical harm to someone that can prove they did nothing to deserve that harm...???
So where does freedom of "anything" stop......???
"Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison? They got lucky." That sums up the theology of the modern American liberal.
Chuck Matloof Are you for real? most American liberals are ok with a Presidential system.
We'll see if our luck runs out after November 2020