Reading the signs
Over the years, several people have taken me to one side and tried to explain how the “local mentality” is somewhat different to that which I was used to back in the United Kingdom. One person, for example told me that you will often see the signs, “Forbidden”, “Strictly Forbidden” and even “Absolutely Forbidden”.
“Forbidden is taken to mean something like ‘it’s not a good idea, it’s not recommended and maybe most people shouldn’t do it’. Strictly Forbidden is interpreted as “it is not a good idea, it’s not recommended and most people shouldn’t do it, … but there are always exceptional circumstances …’. Absolutely forbidden, on the other hand, is a lot stronger and means, ‘it’s not a good idea, it’s not recommended, no-one should be allowed to do it – except for me’.”
“What a nonsense!”, my guide told me, “if something is forbidden then it is forbidden. There are no exceptions.”
Although I pointed out to him that there was nothing particularly unusual in these signs, (we have them back in Britain as well!), I had to agree with him – at least in theory. Philosophically and logically he was perfectly correct. By definition, if something is forbidden then it is not allowed, it is prohibited and there is an implication that exceptions are not permitted. The qualifiers, (strictly and absolutely), seem to be redundant.
So why are these words added? It seems to me that they are used to provide additional information and emphasis. “Strictly forbidden”, for example, implies that the rule will be rigorously enforced, whilst “absolutely forbidden” suggests that whereas under certain, special circumstances, exceptions may be considered, but in relation to this particular action, no exceptions are acceptable under any circumstances at all.
Although, occasionally, a sign may attract our attention, (perhaps there’s a spelling mistake or a grammatical error or just something amusing about it), and invites a photograph to be sent in to one of the websites which host collections of amusing signs submitted by members of the public. Most of the time, however, when we see such notices we take them “at face value”, and we don’t think about the particular wording or the reason that the sign was put there in the first place.
Signs are meant to give us information.
If we consider road signs then that information might simply be to tell us where we are and help us to keep our bearings, (such as place names on the outskirts of a town or village, or the “mileposts” along the side of the highway which declare how far it is from the end of the road). In others cases there may be more detailed information, (for example the signpost at a road junction, showing the direction or distances to a given town or village). Sometimes, the information conveys a warning of some hazard ahead, (a winding road, a dangerous turn, or the risk of falling rocks).
These signs, (forbidden, strictly forbidden and absolutely forbidden), belong to a different class of sign. They are regulatory signs that are meant to inform us about what we can, (or in this case, cannot), do; what we are allowed, (or in this case, not allowed), to do. For example, some road signs indicate the maximum speed at which we travel, where we have to stop at a crossroads or that we cannot turn in one direction; entry is prohibited (for example, where it is a one-way street).
In most cases it is obvious why certain signs have been placed where they have. A “No Smoking” sign at a Petrol Station, for example, but sometimes it is possible to come across something, (such as, a speed restriction on an open stretch of road), which seems to be arbitrary and without any obvious justification. Where this happens, there is a tendency to interpret it is as; “it’s not a good idea, it’s not recommended and maybe most people shouldn’t do it … but there are always exceptional circumstances …”.
Where it is not clear why there is a sign prohibiting a certain form of behavior, then there is a risk that it will be ignored. This is magnified if there have been no repercussions from ignoring the sign on previous occasions. In the specific circumstances, ignoring the sign may lead to dangerous or undesirable situation but in the wider, more general context, it can lead to a cavalier attitude towards such signs and regulations in general. Where a rule is “honoured more in the breach than in the observance” it is not only a bad rule, it brings the whole system into disrepute.
In English we have a conundrum: “What’s the difference between Law and Tradition?”
The answer is that whereas “Laws are made to be broken; Traditions are made to be kept.”
I am not sure that I agree completely with that answer; it seems to me to be an oversimplification, although it certainly gives us something to think about.
Both law and tradition are concerned with regulating conduct, but it is doubtful that when lawmakers draft new legislation they actively intend that people will break the law. They do plan for the possibility and so make provision for certain penalties when and if someone does do so.
Tradition, on the other hand is more informal and is not usually codified in a “legislative act” and carries no formal accountability for someone who fails to keep the tradition, apart from the social disparagement, (for example, the loss of social status or ostracism).
There are different types of law – criminal law, civil law, administrative law, constitutional law, military law, international law and so on – each regulating different aspects of life and society. Administrative law for example governs the administration of government, and Civil law concerns the relationships between individuals and organizations. The Civil Code, as the basic law governing such relationships, sets out general principles as rules of law.
Occasionally, however, specific issues may necessitate specific, separate laws.
Whilst it is understandable that Tourism attracts a lot of attention in Kyrgyzstan, it is not clear to what extent Tourism, as such, merits a law to itself. It is generally agreed that Kyrgyzstan has tremendous potential for the development of tourism and it is hoped that the industry can be developed into a major sector of the economy. Although, personally, I am not sure to what extent tourism will ever rival the mining of mineral resources, energy production or agriculture as the power house of the economy, it does have a vital role to play in that it can help to provide employment and supplement the incomes of ordinary people in remote rural regions of the country as much as the profits of large corporations here in the capital – or, for that matter, abroad. However, there is little, if anything, that is not covered elsewhere in legislation, in the Civil Code or other laws such as that on Consumer Rights Protection.
There are, however, clearly circumstances in which some form of legislative act, (law or regulation), that relate specifically to the tourism industry can be justified. For example: where a specific issue requires the involvement of the state: to promote the country and protect the name, reputation and image of the state; to promote and encourage investment in a particular project or region; because it impacts on state security; or one or more state bodies are involved in fulfilling their central role and function.
In these cases it is important that for the legislative act to be effective, then it needs to be seen as necessary, appropriate, fair and reasonable (… not to mention, enforceable and enforced).
(Originally written for Tourism in Kyrgyzstan: Practice, Problems and Perspectives)
Bishkek