No man is good enough to govern another man without that other man’s consent.
— Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President
This presidential soundbite becomes relevant only if he had extended the thought as to who actually benefits after willingly consenting to be governed.
The ‘heard mentality’ justified by the herd mentality hardly answers or addresses any issues relating to who benefits. News-making media outlets decide public opinion. Everybody hears what they want to hear.
The concept of government becomes a mortifying rhetoric when asked to believe that citizens need to surrender or sacrifice some of their rights in order for obedience to be equated with guaranteed benefits.
When wondering and pondering qui bono (who benefits) the governed cannot help feeling like a lamb shorn, or about to be shorn. That is moral genocide by willing consent no matter which way it is spun.
Thousands of treatises, books, essays and articles pander to the justification of government but they hardly ever approach the question as to who actually benefits. Even Nature is appalled.
The governed seem blasé and uncommitted while government continues its power game. Commitment by the governed becoming evident only during elections is a most disturbing trend.
Recently, six Malaysian states were, once again, euphorically, swayed by election fever. Three states went to the good guys, and three states for the better guys. The talking heads and self-appointed pundits never asked qui bono.
Sir Walter Raleigh’s observation that ‘men well governed should seek after no liberty, for there can be no greater liberty than a good government,” sounds refreshingly utopian. But, is that at all possible?
Do citizens really benefit from organised chaos in government? We changed three governments in less than three years after February 2020. I doubt if government and the governed benefitted.
John Steinbeck’s mind and pen unleashed the thought that confusion in government is not only tolerated but encouraged because a confused people can make no demands. Thus, qui bono needs no esoteric analysis.
Adding insult to injury is that inevitable show of low standards in high places that hold the public trust. Who benefits when you shroud lying and cheating as unethical practices bordering on unproven blameworthiness?
Harold J. Laski wrote that “every citizen of the modern world is the subject of a state, and is thus legally bound to obey its orders.” What if the state disobeys its own rules and orders? Who benefits?
As Professor of Political Science in the University of London, Laski admits, rather tongue-in-check, that “the problem of the organisation of the state is that of the relationship between the subjects and the law.” He painted himself into a problematic corner.
Anthropological traditions of evidence say that the concept of government began with the idea of protecting a community from both external and internal threats. Everyone benefited?
Government evolved. Experimentation, experience and extensive expansion of power and authority became the very avatar of a necessary evil. Truth be told, the real beneficiaries of any government are the people in power.
The present Madani government promises a place under the sun for every Malaysian. But the Opposition, which also earns government perks, and a pension after leaving office, does not seem to think so. Qui bono with the spirit and substance of Article 153 Federal Constitution should be a given.
A legally mandated monthly meeting between the between the power in people and the people in power would genuinely manifest the truth as to who stands to benefit. Not once in every five years when election fever pushes the mercury way up.
Parliamentary debates do not genuinely reflect the power in people. It merely highlights the state of minds of the people in power. So, qui bono?
How does the government measure the happiness and contentment index of its people? By randomly interviewing a few hundred people, and claiming a foolproof assessment of their sentiments? Where is the benefit in that?
Government must not just be busy in the business of running its own administrative machinery. It has to stop ever so often to genuinely gauge and assess the average citizen’s reasonable expectations.
The judiciary must be wary of untested legal theories. Bar and Bench must not become intellectual outcasts by referring solely to and relying on common law traditions. The hand from an ancient grave cannot be an oracle of certainty, clarity and consistency. Who benefits?
Instead of making powerful oratorical laments and comments to inspire voters, political candidates must stand up, introduce themselves, shut up, sit down and ask relevant questions of the voters. This way the qui bono element is well served.
In the final analysis, observed Mackenzie King, who benefits is solely determined by organised opinion in any government. Where there is little or no public opinion, there is likely to be bad government. Rings a bell?
Qui bono is best answered when and if nations will start adopting Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness Index that is used to measure the collective happiness and well-being of its population.
Is Malaysia ready for collective happiness and well-being bereft of politics? Rebuild or reform, or continue with the daily kabuki theatre performed by the gigantic managerial bureaucracy known as the civil service?
Nationalism and patriotism resonate with the will and resolve of the citizens to stand up, take charge and drain the swamp.
