A parable of houses

Day 612, 07:14 • Published in Japan Japan • by Sophia Forrester

A few citizens, perhaps less hotheaded than most, have asked in the media and forums why many of their fellows are unwilling to simply forgive and forget certain questionable events of the past few weeks. A simple story may illustrate.

You own a home alongside several neighbors, one of whom ("Mr. I.") has purchased an excellent security system. This system is so advanced that it is trivial for Mr. I. to protect his neighbors as well as himself. Just a few months aqo, Mr. I. used this system to foil a theft planned by one mutual neighbor ("Mr. U") from still another ("Mr. R.") However, Mr. U. has been released on bail and Mr. I. is not content, so he asks permission for access to your yard for the express purpose of stealing something from Mr. U. as "payback."

You naturally refuse. However, Mr. I then brings up a clause in your homeowner's agreement that he pretends you have violated. On its face, the clause says nothing even remotely similar to Mr. I's forced reading of it, and the alleged violation is obviously outside anything which is actually prohibited by the literal text of the clause. However, you are worried that Mr. I may file a complaint with the homeowners association, and as he is very forceful in his manner of speech you are momentarily unsure whether there might have actually been a violation despite the fact that the thought that the homeowner's agreement had been broken would have sounded completely silly to you in any other circumstance. Furthermore other members of the community have now agreed to cooperate with Mr. I as well, and you are unwilling to go against what seems the decision of the group.

The burglary planned by Mr. I has taken place and is being investigated, though neither case has yet been resolved. After a few days it becomes impossible, of course, to hide what has happened from your family. Your wife knew to begin with and was supportive of your decision, though she had raised concerns. Your children however are fervently split. One side insists that Mr. I is the "good guy" and his burglary an act of justice, and one side insists that burglary is wrong and their family should not have aided and abetted such conduct. This latter group expresses pity for the situation into which you had been forced, but has the temerity to insist, first privately, later in public, that you subsequently follow a more scrupulous code of ethics which refuses to aid others, even friends, in committing wrongs.

This differs from the situation in which our nation finds itself today in only one way: While a head of household is the highest authority in a home, a head of state is not the highest authority in a nation. In any democratic republic, it is the people, not the government, who are sovereign; a state which does not follow this principle is not democratic at all, let alone a republic. Therefore the suspicion of our government's integrity that has surfaced in recent days is a credit to the national honor of eJapan. The truth, of course, will out.