Why general amnesty for all?
By looking carefully at the first page of this issue, you will see, like in all issues, the statement “for a society of equals and general amnesty to all”. This statement is also one central principle of the association UMEHR that legally represents this journal. While its first part is generally accepted quite well by critical people in contact with UMEHR, the second part “general amnesty for all” frequently meets with incomprehension. Let’s take an example of the Corona crisis: As a result of the unparalleled aggression against people refusing to take the Covid-vaccine, who were defamed and discriminated, many unvaccinated people developed a lot of rage and aggression up until hate towards the politicians responsible and their supporters. The unvaccinated in Germany were no exception. Due to actively taking part in the organization of large demonstrations against the Corona restrictions, UMEHR naturally got in contact with many unvaccinated people who did not agree with the principle of general amnesty for all. “How could you let these criminals go?” or “It is unfair that there are no consequences for the people responsible for these crimes!”, in this style common statements are given. While I, as an unvaccinated person by myself, can completely understand the rage, anger, and frustration, I think revenge and as result punishment are destructive ways if you want to build a new and better society. To me, a general amnesty for all is the way more constructive way and in this article, I want to explain this position based on the example of the Corona-crisis.
Prevention of bloodshed and violence
When is an animal most dangerous? When it is driven into a corner without the possibility to escape since it has no other choice left than fighting. This principle is quite the same with political change. If you want it to be peaceful, you have to consider an “escape option” for the people responsible for the policy you want to change. Many people in policy, companies, and the media are opportunists, choosing the best option for their own. A political balance that turns more and more against them will let them seek opportunities to get out unharmed, so if you provide them with such an opportunity, they will thankfully use it. On the other hand, if you proclaim to punish them, by taking them to prison or doing even worse harm to them, not only their propaganda will use it against you painting the picture of some bloodthirsty rebels, but for their personal sake they will fight against you with anything they have until the last stand. Since this is the only option they have left. Political change under such conditions will become dirty and bloody.
Take an example of a fictive country under political change, where a mass of five million angry protesters marches to the government building where the reigning politicians have barricaded themselves with thousand of members of a heavily armed special force loyal to them. The odds are clearly against the politicians and their servants since they are heavily outnumbered. So how will they decide what to do next? It clearly depends on the behavior of the protesters. If they proclaim they will do the politicians no harm if they leave without fighting (and of course keep their promise) in a first scenario, they will most likely take this opportunity to order the special forces to put down their weapons and surrender peacefully since it is their safest option. However, if the protesters proclaim that they will hang the politicians in a second scenario, they will most likely order the special forces to shoot at the protesters. They simply have no other option left to save their life. Even a desperate, unwinnable fight like this appears to be the better option since it may be more likely to create an opportunity for them to escape with their life compared to surrendering to the protesters which would result in a definitive death.
Regarding political change, the outcome of overthrowing the current government would be the same in both scenarios. But while the change in the first scenario passes peacefully, the second scenario would not only result in a bloodbath with thousands or ten thousands of dead people but also in the barbarism of many protesters getting their hands dirty by committing murder. Which scenario would be the better one if you want to establish a new, democratic system with constructive approaches?
Where should we start anyway?
Considering the Corona-crisis, critical groups often talk about the punishment of the guilty who were responsible for all that happened. For the lockdowns that destroyed or heavily damaged companies, especially the small, family-led ones. For the misuse of children by forcing them to wear FFP2 masks despite not being affected much by the virus. For the aggressiveness, ruthlessness, and discrimination towards people who did not want to get the vaccine against Covid. But who are the responsible, who are the guilty? Critical groups often call the politicians that decided on the measures guilty, journalists that supported them by defaming everyone critical, or judges that permitted measures and rejected contradictions. But from my perspective, the number of guilty persons exceeds these groups by far.
It is easy to blame only the ones mentioned above, the ones on central switch points. But are they really the only ones to blame? What is with the responsibility and guilt of the common people, who often accepted the evidence-less corona measures without questioning and actively or passively supported their conduction, agitated by continuous medial propaganda? Are the bosses who threatened their employees to take the vaccination not guilty in the same way as people from the groups mentioned above? Or the policemen who violently broke absolutely legitimated protests with pretextual reasons like totally senseless mask duties on the outside? The teachers who forced the children to carry FFP 2 masks despite the harmlessness of Corona for the majority of the children? Or even the family members who refused any contact with their unvaccinated relatives and strongly blamed them?
From my perspective, they are as guilty as politicians, journalists, or judges. So if you want to punish the guilty of the Corona-crisis, you have to punish those people equally as well. But how do you punish millions of people? How do you find them out anyway, where can you place the line if someone is guilty or innocent? Can a passive acceptance and following of unethical measures also be considered as some kind of guild? I think these considerations lead us to nowhere since it is impossible to punish millions of people like it is impossible to establish fair and objective criteria to determine guilt.
Going new paths
In addition to the impossibility to punish all guilty people, the ones who decide and their willing supporters, I do not think it is a good way to start something new. Look at how all revolutions in history have ended: The former government or system was overthrown and the first thing the new powers did is to clean everything from the old, structures as well as people and often in a violent manner. While maybe driven by idealism at the beginning, the new rulers quickly became drunk by their power, unwilling to give it away. So they started to implement interventions to keep them in power at all costs, through violence, corruption, lies, propaganda, or a combination of them. Despite proclaiming something different, even equality of all people, the long-term result of all revolutions was only a change in the privileged elites. The same old structures and patterns, just in a new layout.
If we want to build a new, radical democratic society, we have to leave these old structures and patterns behind as well as ensure in a democratic way that they cannot return. I do not want to go into detail about what a radical democratic system is here since it is not the topic of this article and thus would go beyond its scope, but it requires completely different thinking and completely different approaches. Establishing structures and patterns that are democratic as well as safe against misuse and overthrow requires the efforts of the whole society that wants to be radical democratic. Considering the magnitude of the changes that have to be made, I do not think it is a good idea to waste our resources by hunting down every person who made herself guilty in the old system out of revenge since this approach is only destructive and creates new potential for conflict. For a system proclaimed to be completely new and better, we also need completely new and more constructive approaches.
General amnesty does not mean no consequences
But nevertheless, many people see it as unjust that the (in their eyes) criminals like the ones responsible for the events within the Corona Crisis can walk away freely without consequences. But this is a quite common misconception: General amnesty means only that the guilty will not be punished by law. But they surely will face large consequences.
They will lose all of their privileges and will never gain important positions again since they have proven themselves incapable of holding responsibility and being trustworthy. While they should not be harmed physically, it is most likely that they will be treated not in the friendliest way by the members of society anymore. Instead of punishment, they will get the opportunity to compensate for their crimes as much as possible, even if complete compensation is impossible due to their magnitude. This compensation not only includes being a productive member of society. It also means collaboration within the reconditioning of everything that happened, especially the things that happened behind closed doors, since we have to understand it completely to gain enough awareness to prevent it from happening again. And who could give better information about these crimes than insiders? If they do not agree to these terms, they can leave as outcasts and society does not care about them anymore.
So even with a general amnesty, the consequences for the guilty will be enormous but directed in a way more constructive and effective way compared to wasting resources to feed them in prison or doing something worse and thereby abandoning humanity. And for those who urgently want punishment, since the guilty ones usually are people enjoying their privileges of wealth and power, losing them may and will be seen as some kind of “punishment” anyway.
So despite I can completely understand the emotional feelings many of the unvaccinated have towards the guilty ones of the Corona crisis, from my perspective, the advantages of general amnesty clearly outweigh the problems accompanying a planned or conducted judicial punishment. Not only from a constructive and pragmatic but also from a humanistic perspective.
By Peter Mueller
