Between humility and ignorance

Facebook
X
WhatsApp
Telegram
Email

LET’S READ SUARA SARAWAK/ NEW SARAWAK TRIBUNE E-PAPER FOR FREE AS ​​EARLY AS 2 AM EVERY DAY. CLICK LINK

This is from page 281 of Frank Knight’s 1950 presidential address to the American Economic Association – an address titled ‘The Role of Principles in Economics and Politics’ – this address is slightly modified and reprinted in the 1956 collection of several of Knight’s papers and speeches, On the History and Method of Economics:

“I mistrust reformers. When a man or group asks for ‘power to do good’, my impulse is to say, ‘Oh, yeah, who ever wanted power for any other reason, and what have they done when they got it?’ So, I instinctively want to cancel the last three words, leaving simply, ‘I want power’; that is easy to believe. And a further confession: I am reluctant to believe in doing good with power anyhow.”

Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine that you are appointed to a ministry, whatever it might be. Will your knowledge change – improve – in the course of your ascent to this new public role? More to the point, will you suddenly acquire all of the knowledge and abilities that you need to effectively discharge the duties of your new position?

Of course not. You will be the same person of average to above-average intelligence that you were before assuming public office. You will have the same knowledge and possess the same capacities that you had before. You and your fellow newly-appointed ministers in the manner of Mohd Rafizi Ramli will not all of a sudden become gods capable of bending society to your individual, or collective, wills.

Policymakers can only base their decisions on knowledge that is publicly available. There are no Illuminati-like conspiracies whereby elites become political wizards upon grasping the reins of power. Indeed, there are no such reins. Policymakers are forever in search of causal knowledge and powers – to both know enough and be capable of bringing about specific states of social affairs – that no mortal can possess.

See also  Urgent need for fire extinguishers in homes

Now, we already have a so-called reformist, unity government whatever is in power. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that you are unwaveringly beneficent and want only to promote the interests of the people who elected you, your constituents.

Unfortunately, you were largely ignorant of your constituents’ interests and incapable of bringing about states of affairs that would promote these interests before you were elected, and you remain ignorant and incapable to about the same degree now that you’re in office.

True, as an appointed minister, you now have access to an array of scientific experts and funding, but their knowledge was actually available to you before you assumed office, if only you had sought out relevant scholarly sources.

More to the point, expert knowledge is of limited value in your efforts to discover and promote the interests of your constituents. Experts might be able to advise you how to realise given objectives, but they are unlikely to know which goals you ought to pursue, which objectives, if realised, will promote your constituents’ interests.

In any case, to the extent there is disagreement among experts, you may find their advice more confusing than enlightening. You and your policymaking peers will have to choose whether to follow the advice of experts and, if so, which experts’ advice to follow.

See also  On the vanishing Lugat trail

Alas, there are no experts about experts, so you cannot expect any expert assistance in making this choice, even if he or she boasts a PhD in the subject from the most highly ranked economics department in the galaxy. In the final analysis, you are on your own.

What will you do under these circumstances? Since you do not know how to promote your constituents’ interests, you will not do that. You will do something that you know better how to do. Indeed, there are no other options. After all, you can only do things that you know enough to do (and you definitely do not know how to promote your constituents’ interests, except, as it were, as a matter of luck).

For example, you import chicken eggs to stabilise the supply of eggs instead of letting market forces take charge of the industry. The prices of eggs are far higher outside, so it is not possible to import more expensive eggs and sell them cheaply in the country while at the same time you fix the price of locally sourced eggs with financial implications of RM20 million per month in subsidies.

Think of market forces. Things become more expensive and this calls forth that new supply – people are willing to supply more at this new and higher price. But that does depend upon suppliers actually gaining that new and higher price.

If the new price isn’t in money, then the higher price doesn’t feed through into greater supply at all. That people have to wait three hours for rice in Caracas today doesn’t increase the incentive for people in Venezuela to grow rice now, does it?

See also  The re-emergence of the Cyrus Cylinder

One of the things that you know how to do is use the media to make it seem to your constituents that you are, in fact, trying to promote their interests. You know how to hold daily press briefings without a mysterious phone call “Sorry PMO called” interrupting and give interviews in which you extol your desire to promote your constituents’ interests (and lambaste your political rivals for their disregard of constituents).

You know how to hire social media influencers who will relentlessly advertise your care for your constituents and your desire to advance their concerns. You know how to create a team of advisors, special committees, royal commissions, special task forces, white papers and investigative panels; you know how to “enlist corporate figures such as Tan Sri Mohd Hassan Marican” in the case of improving the lot of the good folks who put you into office.

If you’re lucky, you will be rewarded with repeated electoral victories from voters, who cannot distinguish such media-facilitated and ultimately genuine attempts to address their worries from earnest efforts. After all, given your ignorance, your pretended efforts are no less likely to promote your constituents’ interests than legitimate attempts. But, if not, if you’re eventually thrown out of office for your failure to deliver for your constituents, there will be another – no-less-ignorant – aspirant to take your place.

And, thus, politics and power.

The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.

Download from Apple Store or Play Store.