The Internet as a significant force of electoral persuasion

The Internet is playing an every dominant role in our everyday lives. In the realm of electoral politics too, its significance has been proven time and again and only strengthened over the years. Starting with the Dean Campaign in 2004, the Internet has become a powerful medium that has altered the nature and scale of the entire spectrum of campaigning from fund raising to the persuasion of the electorate both, to come out and vote, as well as to lend support to a particular political party. The heights of this revolution are in the United States, but it is by no means limited to it as witnessed by the tremendous role of the Internet in the Indian elections held earlier this year.

It is no surprise that the Internet has altered the course of campaigning forever. As Towner and Dulio explain in their paper on New Media and Political Marketing in the United States: 2012 and Beyond, the Internet has made campaigning more effective and efficient. It has made it possible to be more creative about both, the form and content of a campaign’s outreach. Candidates can choose from a plethora of outreach options that include the foremost and most effective email outreach, followed by others (in no order of priority) like online ads, social media, YouTube videos, etc. More importantly, it has made it possible to experiment with different messaging and form at a very low cost. A critical factor enabling this is that creating content and publishing it on the Internet is significantly cheaper than the production and airing of anything on the more traditional medium of television. Apart from the low cost, the fact that messaging on the Internet can be tried through processes like A/B testing make it possible to endlessly experiment with different content until the most effective and optimized style is discovered. By allowing the selective testing of content on small audiences, the Internet has also made it possible to reveal the most effective messages while limiting the public impact from the testing of the worst of the messages.

By all measures then, outreach through the Internet should be more effective at electoral persuasion than, for example, television ads. This however, has not been the case. Online advertising has been nowhere near as effective as TV ads. Part of this has to do with the content consumption habits of Americans. As Towner and Dulio explain in their paper, a large number of Americans still spend more number of hours in front of a TV than the Internet. It is no surprise then that TV ads are more successful than, for example, online ads. Online outreach can also be less effective for the very reasons that support it – the low cost and easy access mean that the Internet is that much more crowded with ads than airtime on TV.

At the same time, messaging beyond ads can be a powerful source of persuasion on the Internet. One needs to look beyond online advertising to realize the true potential for online persuasion and the tremendous possibilities for influencing people via the internet, something that is still in its early years when compared to a more established and well entrenched medium like TV. The possibility of shaping public opinion through YouTube videos, for example, is phenomenal. Such videos can appear to be ineffective for sustained, long-term messaging. But, their force to bring quick wins in terms of shaping public opinion can be tremendous. With the ability to go viral, content that is caught on to by the public can reach a very wide audience in a very short period of time and can remain on the airwaves into perpetuity without any additional cost to a campaign. With the significant campaign successes that have already been achieved through a medium like YouTube within less than a decade of its existence, one can only imagine what the possibilities as its use becomes more sophisticated. What has been achieved so far, then, is only the tip of the iceberg.

Will professional journalism die or can it be resurrected, liberated from its traditional avatar?

Traditional journalism, the kind defined and sustained for long by print media (read newspapers) has had it bad for a while now. No matter which way you look at it, traditional journalism is on the decline - newspapers have shut shop and/ or shrunk in size, the rate of which has only been surpassed by the fall in revenues of those publications still in business. Worse, even those that have made the transition to the online world have suffered, with some at best only managing to stay afloat.

The online world of social media and the peer production of news is blamed for this. Many like Shirky argue that the online, networked world has sounded the death knell of traditional journalism as we know it. Traditional journalism is expensive, episodic, and often mundane while peer produced news is cheap, explosive, and constant. According to Shirky, traditional journalism operates on a now irrelevant and anachronistic paradigm of monopolized content and media whereas the peer produced world of news unshackles information and places the power of producing and accessing content directly in the hands of the very people that consume it. Traditional journalism had a role in society – witnessing events and bringing news to people in an age when doing so was expensive. This problem is no longer relevant in the world of the Internet. Now, everyone is a witness and the Internet brings news anywhere at close to no cost.

While the change in paradigm is emancipating, people like Starkman raise the valid concern that the decline of traditional journalism is also leading to the decline of professional journalism. By virtue of maintaining control over content, newspapers or even the online versions of them (e.g. New York Times) have so far also played the role of curating content and editing it. More importantly, in the spirit of true journalism, they have retained their focus on sourcing stories that really matter, those that contribute to the public good by maintaining a check on institutions of power, as manifested in the genre of investigative journalism (e.g. this Pulitzer Prize winning story on Wal-Mart). This makes traditional journalism professional – deep, responsible, focused, and accountable.

On the other hand, led by the trends of the day, peer produced news can miss key issues and is often based on unsubstantiated facts. It’s amateurish and carries no particular mandate to keep an eye on the institutions of power that control us. To that effect, peer produced journalism is shallow, often irresponsible and unaccountable, and more or less lacks credibility.

If journalism as we know it is moving in this direction, can we then expect the death of professional journalism, the kind that has played a critical role in public accountability for decades past? I would expect, no. Shirky talks about the need for experimentation that might lead to the new paradigm. In this news media revolution in which, as Shirky puts it, “old stuff gets broken faster than new stuff can be put in place” new models of the production, distribution and monetization of news need to be tried out until a new, viable paradigm emerges. So far, the experimenters have been in opposing camps – the traditionalists who are hell-bent on replicating the traditional news business online and people like Shirky, who insist that the future of news is one that is entirely peer driven and devoid of institutional support.

Why not envision the future of journalism to be one where the strengths of both the old and the new come together? Why not infuse the breadth and witnessing capacity of the online peer production world with the editorial capabilities of expert journalists? Nothing stands in the way of a paradigm that sees journalists engage in a two way conversation with the broader internet world, seeking ideas for stories, suggesting some, tracking amateur stories, building on them, and I could go on. Experiments like this are already in motion – the Guardian did an investigative story based on the inputs crowdsourced from its readers and the newly launched online news site Vox has tried curating reader comments. Why not imagine a paradigm where the comments become the story and vice versa?

Evaluating a Wikipedia page - India’s Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission

Having recently created my Wikipedia user account, I am initiating my first steps towards understanding the world of Wikipedia articles by critically evaluating the Wikipedia page on India’s national policy on solar energy – the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (also known as NSM). I have picked this article for my first foray into the world of Wiki because it is a topic I am very familiar with. For close to three years, I have worked for Bridge to India, a solar energy business-consulting firm in India. I have had to deeply understand the policy from its early stages starting in December 2010, track its progress over the years, develop policy briefs advising the Indian government on ways to improve the policy, and consult international and domestic solar companies on the most appropriate strategy to take advantage of the policy.

In terms of comprehensiveness, the article covers some key aspects of the policy but falls short of being complete. To begin with, the article is outdated. The NSM has undergone a massive revamp under the newly elected administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The changes include an increase in targets under the policy and various details of the policy with regards to restrictions on the use of domestic content for solar projects, the options for project developers to seek buyers for their power, the support for small-scale solar power generation, amongst others. The article also fails to recognize an overall shift in the policy approach the hallmark of which is the fact that the responsibility for the policy rests with a minister collectively responsible for the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy as well as the Ministry for Power and Coal. Further, the article inadequately conveys the goals of the policy, the technologies associated with the policy, the various industry and market players engaged with the use of the policy, and details on the crucial Domestic Content Requirement that is a major limitation on the use of technology within the policy.

In terms of sourcing, the article can do a lot better. It relies mostly on government sources of information, which tend to be delayed with data and use language, which is very heavily biased in favor of the government. There are some mainstream Press sources used that appear to be reliable. However, from my work in the sector, I know there are a number of excellently researched academic studies and market reports that have been overlooked by this article. Overall, the sourcing appears to be lazy.

The article’s neutrality is very questionable. The article comes across as being biased, often representing the positive line towards the policy commonly held by the government. This is no surprise given the fact that references used by the article are primarily government sources. The article would be far more useful with a more accurate and nuanced representation of the goals, objectives, and accomplishments of the policy as provided by numerous other academic and industry research sources.

The article is not particularly well written and is, therefore, difficult to read. In each section there are disjointed statements that are jarring to the reader. The sub-sections used in the article are poorly structured and are not completely exhaustive of the numerous aspects of this policy that should be covered in a Wikipedia article.

In terms of style and formatting, the article does appear to broadly conform to the Wikipedia style. Though, in this aspect again, it underutilizes the efficacy of the formatting style by inappropriately naming sections and sub-sections and lacking an comprehensive structure and style.

Lastly, the article carries two illustrations, which is better than nothing. However, the use of these illustrations is questionable in terms of their relevance to the overall article. They do not contribute in any significant way and are strikingly disconnected with the textual content of the article. The article can certainly benefit with more illustrations that connect in a more relevant manner with the text.

Internet as freedom, Internet as farce

The Internet is a powerful platform for freedom and social change. It has the ability to connect a large number of people in a short period of time, giving them the freedom to shape who they are online, share information of any kind (almost, but more on that later) quickly, and design and deploy enterprises - social, political or commercial in a relatively cost-effective manner. As Christakis and Fowler put it in their book Connected, online relationships “can be unfettered by geography…and (allow for) the kind of anonymous and large-scale interactions that are much harder to arrange in the real world” (Page 257). The implications of this freedom for social movements are obvious as seen in the role of, for example, Facebook in the Arab Spring. Social media allowed for hitherto disconnected communities to connect with one another, realize the force and meaning of their common agenda, and collaborate and coordinate at an unprecedented level to effect social change. The anonymity that many in the uprising enjoyed gave them the freedom to organize and share their views without fear of retribution by the state.

The implications of such freedom in other spheres of political and commercial life are unprecedented. The ability of social media to mobilize support for political campaigns is now well known not only in the United States as with Obama’s first campaign, but also in countries like India. There, the recent elections saw the now elected Prime Minster use social media in a big way. A landmark study in 2012 involving (controversially) Facebook manipulating the news feeds of members shows the potential for social media to go further and actually impact voter turnout. It begs us to imagine the possibilities that social media holds for enriching policymaking. It can empower both policy makers and constituents to engage each other better, contributing to policies that are better suited to the needs of constituents, optimized to use resources efficiently, and developed in shorter periods of time.

The same connectivity and energy of social media can also be effective in the development and deployment of new technologies and business models, for example, of alternate energy. From my own experience of working in solar energy in India with Bridge to India, social media is playing a key role in bringing forward innovative ideas around distributive solar generation models that are widely known to be better for the country than the model of large-scale solar generation currently supported by the government. Social media then is not only helping develop ideas, but is also supporting deployment by building a critical mass of experts and enthusiasts, connecting buyers and sellers, communicating effective messages about the benefits of the model, and turning the movement into a force of policy change.

The threats to this very freedom systemically prevalent within this very same Internet then are shocking. The battle over net neutrality, for example, is a grim reminder that powerful corporations continue to threaten the use of the internet in a manner that drives connectivity, information dissemination, and mass mobilization through innovations like YouTube and Skype, amongst others. Worse, the near-absolute power over the Internet enjoyed by the very harbingers of Internet freedom like Google and Facebook means that they have the means to regulate, modulate and manipulate the so-called freedom that internet users have embraced. And, the concern is that they are already doing so. They often regulate this freedom intentionally, either out of their own sense of what is right or wrong or coerced by governments who’s demands they often have to meet in order to continue their businesses and maintain their bottom lines. The greater fear is the largely unintentional but pre-programmed restriction and manipulation of Internet activity that such companies are practicing in the form of algorithms giving rise to the so called Filter Bubble.

With the kind of control that the Internet giants have and often use over the Internet, it begs us to ask the question if the freedom offered by the Internet is in fact a farce. In the real world, interactions are directly in the hands of people – they are immediately and near-entirely cognizant of the risks they engage in and are well aware of the consequences. In the Internet world, with its promise of freedom, the dangers of manipulation are little understood, very real, and have little legal or regulatory recourse, at least for the moment.

The perils of the Internet age

Network effects, Web 2.0, big data, social media, collaborative production, and the democratization and widespread dissemination of content are all hallmarks of the digital age that make us stand up and applaud in absolute admiration and near-awe of this phenomena called the Internet.

Shirky in his book Here Comes Everybody lays out in great detail what the advantages of the Internet are for collaboration and communication. As he explains, the Internet has unleashed the power of group action for effecting social change. By eliminating the transaction costs associated with information dissemination, influencing, motivating, and organizing, the Internet has injected a historically unprecedented amount of energy into the power of people to effect change. By allowing people to organize, form communities and exchange information freely and rapidly, the Internet has become the ultimate platform for collective action, collaboration, and creativity, all at once. Shirky suggests that the degree of collaboration and sharing facilitated by the Internet positions it as a medium strong enough to anchor community and public life. The degree of transparency and peer-scrutiny-led accountability that the Internet offers only strengthens its usefulness as an agent of social change.

The power of the Internet is only being enhanced as it reaches the generation of Web 2.0, and beyond. As we learn from a blog post by O’Brien (What Is Web 2.0), using the Internet as a platform rather than a network that hosts platforms can revolutionize the way the web, and more importantly the users of the web, are used in expanding its potential. He talks about the ability of Web 2.0 to leverage customer self-service, algorithmic data management, and the network effects associated with user contribution to significantly expand the reach and dominance of applications and services on the web. By leveraging users, the web has the potential to culminate its different offerings into a few, or someday, one mega platform that offers everything at once.

While the advantages of the all-dominant and all-possible Internet are apparent, both Shirky and O’Brien fail to recognize some serious threats the Internet in its current form is posing to individuals, communities, and even countries. Little attention is paid not only by the authors, but few others, to the near absolute control that the Internet, especially stalwarts of the Web 2.0 generation like Google and Facebook are gaining over public content, private information and, to some extent, people’s entire identities (given that a large part of who we are today is determined by our presence online). As a New York Times article highlights, so severe is the threat of exploitation of this dominant position of the web that countries like Germany are taking drastic steps to stem the onslaught of giants like Google that is in near-complete control of our online lives (refer Google Is Target of European Backlash on U.S. Tech Dominance). As the article suggests, given the possibility that such positions of dominance can fall into the hands of governments either friendly or otherwise, the risks to national security and privacy are real and significant.

Shirky does bring to light another key risk of the power of the Internet – its ability to foster disproportionate, uninhibited, and often-harmful action. He explains that the many advantages of the Internet can also have the often-unintended effect of over doing action due to the ability of content to go “viral”. This is best illustrated with the example of the recent Internet viral sensation known as the Ice Bucket Challenge (refer The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge Has Raised $100 Million -- And Counting). While little harm (except in maybe this case - 4 firefighters injured when Ice Bucket Challenge goes wrong) can be seen coming from a campaign that has raised close to $100 million for an important medical cause, it does beg us to ask if one cause deserves so much support so quickly while many others have struggled for so long?

In any case, the Internet is unstoppable and is only getting stronger (refer How Apple Is Invading Our Bodies). It’s about time we woke up and recognized the perils of this internet age!

The Charade of Equality by the Educated Class

Over the past few years we have seen a new class of Indians who pride themselves in being educated, liberal, progressive and modern. While such attributes were the preserve of the elite till recent years, the so called middle class too now attempts to emulate the same, feeling confident about being modern with increasing education, exposure and disposable income. Coming together as the Educated Class, they take pride in standing for modern, liberal values of equality, freedom and justice. Hailing primarily from urban areas, they have a strong sense of being champions of these modern values and exude a jingoistic rejection of petty discrimination based on caste, class or religion and any accompanying social injustices. It is in this context that one of the greatest hypocrisies of this class becomes all the more shameful. I am referring specifically to the social discrimination domestic helpers have to face everyday across thousands of colonies in this country.

The use of domestic help has to a large extent been institutionalized by the British who helped glorify the same by attaching their imperial/elite aura to the idea. Over the years, using domestic help has become a way of life for most urban households depending on their ability to afford such services. Though fewer households have full time domestic helpers, most engage them in one form or another. The economic and labour conditions in this country too have enabled such a market to thrive. While being completely unregulated and prone to exploitation, many see such a contract as supporting employment with concomitant availability of domestic services. However, such a contract has resulted in the creation of a separate class of people who are looked at as being lower in social stature due to their engagement with supposedly menial work. It is open knowledge that depending on the circumstance and parties involved, they are subjected to exploitation, humiliation and in some cases even subjugation. They are often referred to as servants (an imperial legacy) with most people actually perceiving and treating them as that.

The deliberate ill-treatment of domestic helpers is none the less a fact that is known and spoken about. In fact, the educated class to a large extent is vocal about its disapproval of any gross ill-treatment of such workers keeping well in line with their larger pretentions about being the torch bearers of modern liberalism in this country. What no one acknowledges however, is the conscious segregation that is practiced against the workers and their families across most colonies where they work.

Many workers live with their families in the same colonies where they work in “servants quarters” or sometimes just outside the colony in slums. Living in the colonies, it is understandable that the workers’ families would have the same needs of health, recreation and movement as the families of the affluent employers. However, restrictions on the movement and actions of workers’ families are often enforced in such colonies. Workers’ children are not allowed to play in the same parks as the employers’. None of the sports facilities are open for use to the workers’ children even with the option of paying for the same. Workers and their families usually have different entry-exit points than the affluent residents and are required to carry their identity cards at all times and prove their identity at any time. They are required to get “permission” to bring in relatives from outside with most colonies not allowing them to stay over-night or, more often, not allowing them to enter at all.

The gross discrimination practiced against the workers within the houses is worse. It would be unfathomable to have a worker eating out of the same cutlery that the employers use and most have different glasses (usually the unused steel kind) for drinking water. They are forbidden from sitting on any of the furniture in the house with the possibility of them eating at the same table as the employers being considered sacrilegious. Allowing the workers to use the same bathroom is considered unimaginable with the reasoning that they are usually unclean and unhygienic in their manners. What is worse is that if a help were to “violate” any of these unwritten norms, they would be reprimanded for “taking the liberty to equate themselves on the same level (socio-economic I presume)” as the employer. Based on the reasoning that their “position” is lower than the employer’s, they would be accused of taking undue liberty and over-stepping their limits.

Treating people in this manner is strongly at odds with even the weakest understanding of equality and fairness. What is being perpetuated by the educated class is a revolting act of discrimination behind the well constructed farce of standing for equality and justice. What is worrisome is that such a practice is considered the norm both amongst the employers and the workers, with the matter considered completely out of the purview of any discussions pertaining to the workers’ rights and equality. Further, the educated class has managed to develop a pervasive notion of equality in which the inconvenient issue of treating domestic help with due dignity and respect has been considered irrelevant. An acute critique of this hypocrisy needs to begin if we are to duly salvage the idea of equality as is being practiced in this country. Delay to do so will not only erode the moral fabric of our people but will precipitate the disgusting charade being put up by the holier than thou educated class.

Emraan, Exclusivity and the Pluralistic Indian Society

In a country as diverse as ours, where even physical characteristics differ drastically from one region to another, discrimination towards fellow countrymen is commonplace. Add to this the aspect of multitudinous religions, and the stage is set for exclusivity and narrow mindedness. The Emraan Hashmi episode added some sparks to the dormant, but ever present, debate on partisan housing societies in Mumbai, and raised the more fundamental question about the extent of discrimination faced by the largest minority. From my understanding of the incident, the events took place as stated below.

Mr. Hashmi, on being forewarned (by a broker) about his slim chance of getting an apartment in a particular society on the basis of his religion, decided to put it to the test. The Seller and Buyer agreed to the terms and all that remained was a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the society. The society delayed granting the NOC beyond a comfortable period of time which immediately brought Mr. Hashmi and his family into action. His family first tried to meet the society members, which the members construe as “barging in forcibly”. Finally the society declined the NOC on the basis of Mr. Hashmi’s onscreen antics as a ‘serial kisser’ thus giving the entire episode a narrow moral dimension.

The moment he was denied an NOC, Mr. Hashmi’s doubts were confirmed. He then decided to do all that was in his power to expose the ‘ulterior motives’ of the society. He leveraged his celebrity status and put into action the all pervasive and powerful media, squarely charging the Nibbana Housing Society with discrimination against Muslims. The consequences of placing the issue in the public domain were two fold. First, the minority community’s feelings of being discriminated against were accentuated, and second, the ‘opposite camp’ immediately charged Mr. Hashmi for playing up the minority card even when no discrimination existed. For every action there is at least an attempt at an equal and opposite reaction.

Both perspectives are parochial in their own way. At times the Muslim community puts faith in a flawed assumption that every Muslim is discriminated against, and in the context of finding accommodation in Mumbai, it is hard for a Muslim to gain admission to ANY housing society. This is an unacceptable generalization. There is no doubt that discrimination on the basis of religion exists in our country, and as the largest minority Muslims are at a greater risk of bearing the brunt of this discrimination, but this does not mean that the problem is faced by Muslims alone, or that every housing society in Mumbai discriminates against Muslims. On the other hand, some representatives of the majority community show no hesitation in accusing minority communities (particularly Muslims) of raking up controversies on false pretences. This argument again creates friction between religious communities and harbours gross generalizations, after all, it would be ignorant to assume that any Muslim who complains of discrimination is subverting the truth.

In the case of the issue at hand, i.e. Emraan Hashmi Vs The Nibbana Housing Society, the former seems to have an upper hand in the battle of allegations. Although the society claims that Mr. Hashmi’s onscreen frivolity is the primary reason for withholding the NOC, the major flaw in the society’s argument is that there are already a number of people associated with the film industry currently living in the building (although none currently active in Bollywood). The biggest chink in the armour is the presence of the Prem Chopra (known for his onscreen notoriety). It is unfortunate that an artist with a long and fruitful association with the Indian film industry has to be dragged into a sleaze contest, but the argument is a valid one. If onscreen ‘obscenity’ is the yardstick by which the society judges prospective inclusions from the film industry, then it must justify the denial of an NOC to Mr. Hashmi, while cordially entertaining Mr. Chopra. Further, the acclaim, respect and remuneration that Bollywood celebrities enjoy today are unparalleled vis-à-vis Mr. Chopra’s heyday. Lastly, time and westernisation have inevitably broadened the tolerance levels regarding onscreen intimacy as compared to yesteryears.

The other perspective to the issue is the heavily accented contention forwarded by Mr. Salman Khan. In his view, the present celebrity status of actors in the film industry may itself by the primary reason behind the refusal by the society. Today’s ‘hero’ inescapably comes with the package of media scrutiny (paparazzi), groups of excitable fans and a loud party culture. This could be one of the factors considered by the conservative and virtuous society, ushering in a new era of ‘celebrity discrimination’.

To decide whether the truth lies in Mr. Hashmi’s allegations, Nibbana Society’s counter-allegations, Mr. Khans contentions, or somewhere in between, is the prerogative of the State Minority Commission, which has been approached by Mr. Hashmi. Unfortunately judging the facts may be somewhat of a herculean task in itself due to the problem of justiciability in matters of discrimination. It would be inviting trouble if prejudiced individual or society would cite the reason for denial of a house in a particularly locality or building as “we do not allow X community”. The house could be denied under any pretext, and sometimes the person discriminated against may not even realise it. Here the benefit of doubt must go to the official mechanisms that have been put in place to deal with any such incident, which may come under the purview of law & order, judiciary, or in this case, the State Minority Commission.

Mumbai, as the commercial capital of the country, exemplifies the diversity of our country, and the diverse discrimination that is a part and parcel of it. Mr. Mahesh Bhatt, while defending Mr. Hashmi on popular media channels, extended a pertinent example. His daughter Pooja Bhatt could not inherit her mother’s house because she was a Hindu, while her mother (along with the respective housing society) was Christian. In the same city, an urban and popularly moderate Muslim couple such as Javed Akhtar and Shabana Azmi complained of the hurdles they had to face in order to get accommodation.
From my own experience in Mumbai, when three of my friends decided to take up an apartment in college, they too saw the inclusive tendencies of Mumbai housing societies first hand. On choosing an apartment in Prabha Devi, they realised that the society harboured a heavy pro-Gujarati bias; therefore entry to non-Gujaratis was highly unlikely. This however worked in their favour as one of the three was a Gujarati. These incidents bring to light discrimination on the basis of religion and region, which are the most common types of housing prejudice, not only in the Mumbai metropolis, but across the country. The question is not whether one religion or region is discriminated against or not. It is a fact that this discrimination does exist, and not only against a minority religion, but also against the majority religion in some cases. The fundamental question is: To what extent, and on what grounds, can a housing society persevere to retain its socio-cultural identity, whether linked to religion, cast, language or region? In my opinion, there can be no grounds for maintaining inclusive societies in a pluralistic and drastically diverse country as ours, as it can only lead to further parochialism and enhance an insular mentality.

Today we live in the era of Right to Information and Right to Education. We are living in times where one of the largest political parties is struggling for survival after being dealt a blow by the very people who it was trying to divide through partisan politics. As we make the transition from dormant spectatorship to an active and aware society which better understands its roles and responsibilities, we must appreciate the benefits of long term accordance rather than short term self interest. Herein lies the importance of individual choice; Choosing reconciliation rather than confrontation, choosing tolerance rather than hatred and choosing experience rather than hearsay. In a country where its own citizens face various forms of discrimination on the basis of race, region and religion, only a gradual change in the mindsets of civil society can lead to a harmonious and heterogeneous society. Only if we sow the seeds of tolerance today, can we bear the fruit of peaceful coexistence tomorrow.