Autonomous State vs. State of Agency
Two opinionated states of affairs, “state of autonomy” and “state of agency” are positioned in distinction to each other as both are entirely dissimilar from each other. The difference in both the state of affairs typically takes place by methodology implemented by the government and perception of the general public about these two supremacy systems. With the initiation of the 19th century, autonomous and state of the agency came into view as a two system of domination.
As it is explained in chapter 15 that Hitler and his policies had disturbed the lives of common Germans, his follower's Nazis snatched the freedom of civilians. The autonomous state is the most satisfactory standard of governance management in most of the countries as no one is permissible in this scheme to come into supremacy and the general public is the one who elects the leader. All the citizens are given equal respect and freedom. There is no conception of centralization of control and establishment of an autonomous state. Representative government is responsible for providing food, shelter, and jobs to the public. People are given their proper rights, such as rights to practice their religion and speak whatever they want to. It is entirely the anti-shape of a state of an agency where the leaders restrict people from practicing their beliefs, customs, and rituals. Today, the state of autonomy is one of the influential ways of governance as it is based on the three fundamental values of freedom, equal opportunity for all, and social norms.
On the other hand, the state of agency is a controlling system in which one commanding person tends to rule in the entire country without caring about the rights of the citizens. The rules and regulations of the state of the agency are considered as unacceptable for the whole nation. In a state of the agency, a dictator is the ruler of the country and has all the controlling power to make decisions for the country. The freedom of speech, self-determination, and autonomy are sacrificed in a state of the agency. People are not allowed to express their feelings to other, in fact, they can be sent to jail if they will talk against the government. According to, In Germany, Hitler and his followers Nazis were exhibiting a state of agency in the country, as civilians did not have enough rights to raise their voice against the atrocities of the government.
I never got a chance to live in a state of the agency. However, I had to visit Rwanda in Africa, where there is a state of agency in the country. It was a terrifying experience for someone like me who is belonging from an autonomous state. I was not allowed to take photographs; the military government restricted us from using the Internet. It was not easy to live in such situations. The worst part of my experience was that the military regime did not allow me to interact with the citizens of Rwanda. I felt isolated and strange while living in Rwanda. I was only in Rwanda for four days, but that was more than enough to make it evident that it is not easy to survive in a state of the agency. I was forced to stay in one hotel and was not allowed to go out without the permission of the government. All these points prove that if a tourist is facing so many issues, then the citizens of the country must be facing more hardships in a state of the agency.
Works Cited
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2007. Print.
Hunt, Morton. Research Through Deception. 12 September 1982. Web. 4 August 2016 <http://www.nytimes.com/1982/09/12/magazine/research-through-deception.html?pagewanted=all>.
