In “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell offers the point of view that the Burmese (the oppressed) have the real power over the British officers (the oppressors). Because of the expectations created by the position of power Orwell is in, he feels that he is not able to show any weakness. When debating whether or not to shoot the elephant, he worries that “the crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at” (3). This argument relies heavily on Havel’s idea that a regime imposed without consent of the governed can tolerate no cracks in its façade.
I disagree with Orwell, because while the white police officers may be trapped in a performance (giving the Burmese some psychological power), they have the physical means of oppression, a much more tangible form of power. Orwell earlier recognizes, “The Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless” (1). Although he writes this in the context of the elephant, it applies as well in the context of British imperialism. Orwell alone can obtain the physical means to destroy the elephant, just as Orwell alone (along with his white comrades) can obtain physical means of power to oppress the Burmese. Orwell seems to get caught up in his own insecurities and therefore overlook the importance of force in determining power structures.
I definitely agree with you that Orwell overlooks the power he possesses over the Burmese simply because he is armed and they are not. While Orwell, in his hidden transcript, may be more on the side of the Burmese people than the side of the British imperialists, in public he is forced to do what is expected of him to demonstrate the British’s power over the Burmese. I think Orwell is ashamed to have shot the elephant and therefore looks for someone else to blame his decision on, when in reality he was the only person capable of pulling the trigger and he was the one who decided to do so in order to “not be laughed at.”