DEFINITION
The dictionary definition of 'militia' is a group of citizens who are organized or capable of providing paramilitary or policing service, namely:
(a) An army reserve composed of part-time soldiers (organized militia).
(b) A nation's able-bodied citizens who can be called upon to defend it (unorganized militia).
(c) A private military force (with or without government backing).
(d) The national police forces in Russia and other CIS countries.
In all of these cases a militia is distinct from the full-time professional soldiers paid by the government. In modern times the militia normally serves to supplement a standing army (e.g., help it resist an invasion) and act as a safeguard against it (i.e., deter a military coup). In some cases the 'enemies' against which a militia has been mobilized are political opponents of the government like strikers. Some so-called militias are small bands of criminals working for oppressive regimes as proxies, like the Janjaweed militias that are helping the Sudanese government ethnically cleanse the Darfur region.
The term originally described ordinary citizens who protected their community before the creation of standing armies and police forces. They generally consisted of every able-bodied male of military age. As they were made up of many ordinary citizens they would not oppress the people, who were in fact themselves, whereas standing armies are notorious for doing so. The term 'militia' has been corrupted by elites who want to redefine it to mean a small group of state employees like police and reservists or a pool of untrained and unarmed citizens who are merely eligible for military service. Private militia groups are universally portrayed as dangerous outlaws by governments and media organizations due to the perceived threat they pose to the elites who control most nations, even though the overwhelming majority of members simply want to participate in the defence of their country and essential rights but are denied the opportunity to do so in a state run equivalent.
DEMOCRACTIC MILITIAS
In a democracy legitimate power stems with the people, not a political, aristocratic, religious, military or business elite, so citizens should retain the practical means to defend their democracy by being an active part of their nation's armed forces. We believe democratic governments should encourage able-bodied adults to join a Swiss style citizen army or Home Guard style militia. If their government declines to do so we believe citizens should join a private militia group along the lines of Australia's version of the British Home Guard, the WWII era Volunteer Defence Corps, initially a private group founded by the RSL (taken over by the Australian army when its role expanded).
A large part-time people's army reduces the likelihood of war as members derive the great bulk of their income from civilian employment thus are less than enthusiastic about interrupting their civilian lives and careers by marching off to an unnecessary war, while many citizens are far less likely to support a war of aggression if it is likely a family member will have to fight it, factors which help explain Swiss neutrality and the fact that it has not fought a war in almost 500 years (not counting a very brief civil war in 1847 that did away with the last vestiges of feudalism). Being a member of a military organization promotes discipline, comradeship and self-reliance, which fosters social cohesion and an egalitarian, democratic mindset thanks to the mixing of people from different social classes and cultural groups who would otherwise have little if any close contact with each other.
RIGHT OF REVOLUTION
In political philosophy the right to revolution (or 'right of rebellion' or 'right to resistance') is first articulated by the Monarchomachs in the context of the French Wars of Religion, and is essentially the natural right of preservation. It was later taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part of his social contract theory. Locke wrote that the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens and replace it with another. The right to revolution was cited in the US Declaration of Independence:
|
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
|
The right to revolution helps explain the purpose of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of "the people" to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. It follows that if the people have a right to overthrow a despotic government then they have a right to possess the practical means to do so. The great advantage of a well armed and regulated militia is the deterrent effect, which greatly reduces the likelihood that the people will ever need to exercise their right to revolution, thus preserving liberty without bloodshed.
DUTY OF DISLOYALTY
Like Locke and Thoreau, Gandhi believed that the quest for freedom incurs an obligation to oppose an oppressive government, which he called the "duty of disloyalty", when the state fails to represent the people's interests and needs: "Disobedience of the law of an evil state is therefore a duty". Gandhi moved beyond Thoreau by contending that the freedom struggle demands active participation in community action to stop said evil, primarily through non-violent action as he believed citizens had a duty to preserve order and peace to prevent bloodshed. Outside the chambers where India's new federal constitution was being written, Gandhi spoke urgently to his "Brothers and Sisters":
|
What I am about to tell you today [June 28, 1947] will be something very special, I hope you will hear me with attention and try to digest what I say. When someone does something good he makes the whole world partake the good. When someone does something bad, though he cannot make the world share his action he can certainly cause harm. The Constituent Assembly is discussing the rights of the citizen. As a matter of fact the proper question is not what the rights of a citizen are, but rather what constitutes the duties of the citizen. Fundamental rights can only be those rights the exercise of which is not only in the interest of the citizen but that of the whole world. Today, everyone wants so know what his rights are, but if a man learns to discharge his duties. . . if from childhood we learn what our dharma [sacred duty] is and try to follow it our rights look after themselves. . . The beauty of it is that the very performance of a duty secures us our rights. Rights cannot be divorced from duties. This is how satyagraha [non-violent political action] was born, for I was always striving to decide what my duty was.
|
Gandhi believed violence should only be used as a last resort in cases of legitimate self-defence, such as when the state committed crimes against humanity like politicide and genocide, and was well aware of the danger to life and liberty that civilian disarmament posed: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." He also stated that rights should be earned through the fulfilment of civic responsibility, which includes the duty of the majority to protect minorities. This was in stark contrast to the view of some fellow Hindus who justified the oppression of Muslims by arguing that in their newfound democracy a majority had the right to do as it pleased, as this is what popular sovereignty meant, a view that resulted in a brutal civil war in which over a million Hindus and Muslims were killed and many more displaced.
GENOCIDE CONVENTION
The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide requires all UN member nations to actively work to prevent and stop genocide. Sadly, little or nothing is often done as governments usually decide the cost of intervention is too high, thus the need for potential victims and their friends in the wider community to arm themselves to deter this crime against humanity. History has shown us that a genocide can occur unexpectedly and quickly while victims cannot rely on outside help, as the Rwandan tragedy amply illustrated, where the corpses were literally piling up for all to see and the governments of the world looked the other way. It is therefore up to a nation's citizens to ensure that they are capable of stopping genocide, and in doing so deterring this crime.
We believe a free people have a right to possess arms suitable to deterring and resisting governments gone bad in order to protect their democracy and essential human rights, whether this threat comes from a neighbouring country or a domestic regime. Such a government may have gained power democratically as history has shown us that extremists can exploit bad times to get themselves elected to office, as was the case with the Nazi Party. Democracies are generally far safer than non-democracies, but countless democracies have fallen due to the monopolization of power by governments. The less able citizens are to defend their democracy, rights and freedoms the more likely it is that crimes against humanity will occur. The defence of your nation, democracy and essential rights is far too important a task to be left to a few government employees, thus the need for civilians to take on the burden of armed vigilance, ideally via a Home Guard style militia that any competent law-abiding adult citizen can join.
|
|
