THE HUMBLE PRESIDENT

KEY TOPICS: Uruguay, President Jose Mujica, consumerism

LISTEN TO AUDIO RECORDING 
Read STORIFY Version

SUMMARY: Uruguay's President, Jose Mujica, plans to legalize marijuana in an effort to stem criminal activity in his country and the wider region. However, Mujica's personal philosophy is equally news-worthy. In our (maddening) era of consumer capitalism, the President's modest lifestyle is a poignant reminder that we can all live without. 

Jose Mujica: "I am frugal not poor."

Jose Mujica wasn't always Uruguay's president. He was once a guerrilla fighter who sometimes used violence to achieve his political goals. Later, he became a state prisoner who for many years lived on meagre rations while confined to his cell. Back then, there was a revolution to wage: Uruguay was under a dictatorship, like much of Latin America, and capitalist excesses were reducing many to poverty. Jose Mujica or Pepe, as he is affectionately known, believed in a just society for his people - at any cost.  

Now 77, Mujica's activism has taken on a different hue. Elected in 2010 to Uruguay's highest office, President Mujica effects change through government, which today oversees a stable democracy of three million. As President, he could enjoy many privileges that would afford him a luxurious lifestyle. The presidential palace, servants, security detail and handsome salary - a far cry from prison life - are all part of the presidential job package. Few would take up running a country, however small, without these kinds of privileges to make up for the heavy responsibilities, loss of privacy and constant politicking. Yet, in his earnest attempt to live simply, Mujica has rejected these excesses and shown us that he's still a revolutionary man. Living on just ten percent of his monthly salary, Mujica might in fact be the poorest president in the world, but donating ninety percent of his earnings makes perfect sense to a man who doesn't need more, just enough.

For many of us, power and wealth hold obvious appeal. They mean independence, opportunity and access, and comfort. We may know they don't bring ultimate happiness but we believe they can still be deeply satisfying. So, we strive. In the west, the infrastructure we've built counts on (most of) us seeking ever more profits and pleasures with some being rewarded with significant power and wealth. However, we're beginning to understand that our current levels of material production and consumption are simply unsustainable. 

Jose Mujica at the United Nations in New York

Mujica, whose vision is long, has known this for some time. Given the pressures that we and our planet are under, he feels compelled to ask: how can we afford to consume mindlessly? The short answer is: we can't. As Mujica explained at last year's UN General Assembly: "It seems that we have been born only to consume, and to consume, and when we can no longer consume, we have a feeling of frustration and we suffer from poverty, and we are auto marginalized." His blunt assertions that bend toward the philosophical set him apart from other world leaders who get stuck politicking and appeasing special interests, let alone inspiring. 

Al Jazeera recently interviewed President Mujica at his farm house outside the capital of Montevideo to find out more about the man's much publicized humility. The interview is no routine question and answer exchange for Mujica is no typical man. It - or rather he - inspires us to question ourselves - habits and desires - more than anything. His call to action, ironically, is for us to think. Think more; think differently; think for ourselves. 

To call Mujica a hero would betray my romantic tendencies, but I don't care. The humble president is heroic to me because in spite of his power and (potential) wealth he lives with integrity, the kind found in those who try to live in accordance with their values. I admit Mujica reminds me of my deceased father who always taught me to think for myself. I've taken to watching the interview again and again as a sort of meditation, lecture and a call to action from the President himself and my dear ol' dad. 

Thank you, Pepe. 

Addendum: Jose Mujica cannot seek re-election so this fall he will hand over power to Uruguay's next President.

Related Articles: (Feb. 28/15) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-31679475

YES, IT'S TIME TO RESTORE OUR ANTHEM

KEY TOPICS: Canadian anthem, gender equality, Restore Our Anthem campaign

*No summary included.

LISTEN TO AUDIO RECORDING // Read STORIFY Version

It's Wednesday, 8:45am. The national anthem rings through K. D. Public School's aging two-storey building. "...Our home and native land…" Nearly four hundred girls and boys suddenly stand at attention. Their conversations and unpacking put on hold. "True patriot love in all thy sons command..." In the lobby, between display cases, latecomers with worried expressions stop mid-stride. Nearby, a teacher reminds her students to remove their toques and headphones. "...The true, North, strong and free..." In this elementary school, the younger students' high-pitched voices are full of pride. "...God keep our land..." Some classroom teachers, too distracted to sing, scan their rooms to take a head count. Others, modelling "appropriate" behaviour, join the chorus: "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee." The final verse sung, everyone relaxes in what feels like a mass exhale. 

Each morning, it's the same ritual: public schools across Canada pledge allegiance to this country. No questions asked. As a teacher and activist, this troubles me. Questions invite discussion, debate and change. And sometimes even long-standing traditions, like our national anthem, need to be questioned. In a secular democracy, it's critical to ask questions. What really is 'patriot love'? What role does God play in civic life? Are all Canadians truly 'free'? And why does our English anthem address Canada's sons but not its daughters? Yet schools fall silent, as do most Canadians. 

The 'Restore Our Anthem' campaign is not only raising questions but demanding change. Supporters, like Margaret Atwood, Vivienne Poy and Kim Campbell, are asking Canadians to pressure the federal government to remove the male bias in our 100-year old anthem - once and for all. I agree, it's time for Canada's sons and daughters to stand together as 'us' Canadians. However, taught from a young age about fair play, Canadian children might stand to gain the most by witnessing their government act in the name of fairness and equality for all. 

"Restore Our Anthem" Website

It's 2013. One hundred years ago the Canadian government adopted its English-version anthem. Back in 1913, women weren't able to vote nor considered 'persons' under the law. "True patriot love in all thy sons command" was only fitting. But, ironically, before 1913 the English anthem was gender neutral. "True patriot love thou dost in us command" was the verse Canadians sang. It's not clear why changes were made to Robert Stanley Weir's lyrics. Regardless, today's 'Restore Our Anthem' campaigners believe: "Restoring the anthem to reflect its original version is the simplest way to encapsulate the equality of all Canadians." With enough pressure, school children could soon be singing an anthem that commands our respect because we would see that it changed for us, not the other way around.

Vivienne Poy, former Canadian Senator

A similar campaign was started in 2002 by then-Senator Vivienne Poy and followed up by the Harper government in 2010. "In all of us command" was twice proposed and rejected. Each time, the federal government gave in to the people who said the English anthem was too beautiful to change. People who viewed the 'sons' battle as a waste of time because gender equality in Canada had already been achieved. As a third attempt is launched, similar opinions are surfacing. 'Why bother changing an anthem that's hardly sung?' argue some. While others ask, 'Why are women complaining when they're already equal under the law?' The reality, as I see it, is different. The anthem is sung everyday and civic traditions need to reflect the role that women now play. Moreover, this isn't a women's only campaign: Canadian men also support the cause. "This is a no-brainer. All thy sons? Citisons? All of us, of course," says author Wayne Johnston. While radio personality Jian Ghomeshi (before the unsavoury accusations) offers this view: "Making a small change to the lyrics of our national anthem doesn't undermine our tradition. It preserves it." To bring everyone into the fold with, "In all of us command," would certainly be fitting for our time.

It's been over a decade since we started battling over 'sons' and 'us.' Opponents seem to believe they're just words that we shouldn't take literally. 'Sons' is meant to include 'daughters'; it's meant to encompass all Canadians, they say. However, I agree with 'Restore Our Anthem' campaigners that these same people wouldn't be as agreeable if we were dealing with 'daughters' instead: "We have a feeling if the word was 'daughters' it would be taken literally" ('ROA' website). To illustrate the point, just imagine if we replaced 'mankind' with 'womankind'... It seems the words are more important than opponents either let on or realize. However, if we choose to ignore their biases, hidden or otherwise, this debate will continue to fall short on integrity. Our children need us all to do better. 

Since 2002, individuals and groups have been standing up to a century-old tradition that, let's remember, is human-made or, more accurately, man-made. It's not impervious to change just as we Canadians aren't. I hope the current government takes a stand on this outstanding issue so we can finally exhale. It's simple: an anthem that we can all be proud to sing calls on all of us to guard this country and its values. Now that's an "appropriate" message for school children, don't you think?