"What really determines what is in one's interest are considerations of utility to human end" - David Hume.
Leadership, talking in the realm of politics, is not about what a leader must, but what the people want. Democracy is people -centered, and clearly why it's difficult to manage.
When you are a candidate of a big party, you enjoy free services of coteries of courtiers and lackeys who will readily mill around you to wait for the next order. They spritely hiltch inside your car at every slight opportunity you are going out in such a tearing rush. It's always a survival of the fittest as they contest for the seat beside you all in a vain bid to prove how loyal and committed they are to your course which they have embraced as a 'Group interest'. Unfortunately, service may be free, reward like gratitude is a burden.
Like a breach in the wall of a forte, they look for every opportunity to create a hole in your soul and force their way in - sometimes through diabolical means. They are desperate and despair is not in their dictionary so far as your door is not shut out on them. With your cooperation, they thought they already rule your mind. They feel you are happier with them around dancing over you like chocolate all over ice cream. On the contrary, you really don't see them as adding much value, that sounds patronizing but you still neither see them as pesky insects. In your mind, it's a matter of time. You are only appeasing their consciences when it last to flinch their freedom.
Alas, victory knocks and usher you in with those footsoldiers stamping their feet momentarily behind you like a loyal platoon member creeping at the back of a sackless super hero. Conviviality is a just reward for gallantry. You treat them into a lavish dinner, you promise you will offer a good government that they all will be proud of and that you will take cognizance of the public interest - their collective bargaining. But that is the least of what they want.
I repeat, that's not what they want. Let me allude to the work of David Hume again for a clearer perspective on how often people swath personal interest with the cover of public interest. "This problem is further compounded by nature of interest which makes what is in the interest of a person dependent on the particular situation of that person". Mark you they are following you, not for love or lack of something more worthwhile to do, but thinking your interest, once met, is a clear path to the advancement of their own. Here lies the danger! How do we add conflicting and disparate individual interest to form a whole?
The most galling aspect is that they have a dream often bigger than their individual worth. The self-styled social media warlord, doing photo ops with laughable captions, think he is best suited for your PRO position. The never do well party chairman considers himself tailor made for the position of a chief of staff. They begin to sing discordant tunes and scramble for position in the like manner they jostled for the front seat during the campaigns. They suddenly became pugnacious and arrogant telling you how much they suffered for your ambition not to suffer. Even the jobless and wooly headed amongst them would remind you how many times he escaped death following your motorcade in the thick bushes and lonely path as your local body guard. Why couldn't he merit the CSO position?
Paradoxically, the real Eggheads, to whom those juicy positions are naturally made because of their God given talents and native intelligence are far away from your mind. And they don't seek, they are sought.
Another great philosopher of our own time and clime, A.B Ekanola lent his voice, a food for thought - "when people are considered as individuals with distinct peculiarities, they are likely to have interests that are distinct from and even contrary to those of the public".
The question now is, which comes first, the personal interest of the political hangers on or the public interest? This - I must say - is the point where political powers entrap those who have it. And of of course when a leader needs to turn on the lights on his mind. Should a political leader adopt the doctrine of equality and just desert or reward his followers based on their contribution to his electoral victory?
Only for thinkers, not wailers please.
No comments:
Post a Comment