This week I want to visit an old conceptual aurgument that sought to understand the extent and limits of freedom and expediency. These two were understood in the context of individual freedom and the extent to which, as individuals or groups of communities/organizations, we often make decision on the basis of expediency and usually justify our actions on the basis of protecting and advancing our freedom. This discussion is meant in a way to be a comment on the current political incidents in the country, amongst which are the collapsed opposition attempts for coalition of an umbrella type, continued polarization of thoughts among and between opposition parties, the leader of opposition fiasco in parliament, and crossing of influential opposition members to the ruling party. I don’t intend to necessarily provide conclusive explanations of all these occurences, but hope to add a dimension on possible reasons behind some decisions taken by either individuals or organizations on these matters. There are two basic tenents that we need to appreciate before we venture into any discussion of these concepts and their relevance to some of the decisions taken by politicians in one or all of the above refered to issues.
First is that, sets or communities, organizations and most collective entities commit themselves to general principles that become the basis for defining the limitations of our individual freedoms and any opportunities of possible use of expediency to promote our own personal interests. In this context therefore, “…individual freedom, wherever it ever existed…” is largely a derivative of the respect we attach as individual persons or organizations to these set of principles, even if they may have never been expressely articulated in our basic documents. This is the case because for long periods in the history of governance, these principles have been guiding the express of freedom and its embedded connotations from varied perspectives. In the context of the current political events, I am going to posit that freedom will largely, but not exclusively, mean a state in which we can individually or collectively use the knowledge we possess for our purposes or interests. I recall the words of Adam Smith here “…every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice [being] left perfectly free to pursue his own interests in his own way”. This assertion by Smith and many other liberal economists after him inherently implies individual freedom that is guided by egotism and selfishness.It is obviously an oversimplication of a coherent analysis of all factors that may have been at play when decisions on each of the refered to incidents took place, but I am going to argue that we can partially explain the failed/collapse of umbrella talks, failed coup on the leader of opposition in parliament, current intolerance amongst and between certain political parties and even Rre Ntime junior’s crossing to the Botswana Democratic Party on the basis of the above. Simply put, political expediency became the anchor on which different political parties and individuals articulated what freedom for themselves or individually meant, relative to what should otherwise been decisions guided by those general principles I refered to earlier. In this context political parties and individuals’pursuit of individual freedom to make decisions that protect their identity and purpose is inherently guided by in part, complete altruistic and selfish motivations. In the world of such individuals and organizations, altruism becomes a virtue that defines your will, even if it means disregard for the perceived general principles as understood and upheld by the larger polity.
The second consideration is that at a general level, there is no necessary connection between altruism and collective action, neither is there one between egoism and individual action. This therefore in part suggests that individual political parties were guided by their individual freedoms as separate entities than they were by the need for a collective decision that could have sought to promote the collective image of all within the context of the initially agreed premise for the need for opposition coalition. If this argument makes sense the political expediency by each party was the rational for protecting each’s integrity and survival. I hope I am not misunderstood to be saying political parties had no right to be self centered in the coalition negotiations, but I am simply saying at the core of the negotiations was, in my view, and ought to have been, the eminence of the collective defining individual actions and their limits, invariably subjecting the collective to the individual parties’freedom to protect their identity was in itself a recipe for failure.
This is the central tenent of this argument, that generally initial deliberations will seem to suggest that all is well intended and there is no need to be persimistic, but the underlying and unsaid value of this is that when there is room to be politically expedient in our decision making and use that as a basis to protect our image and separate identity, then there is an implied admission (intentionally or not) that when it comes to a push all individuals will necessarily act in their selfish and egostic considerations. Hayek sums it nicely by saying “….Altruism to be virtue, certainly does not presuppose that one has to follow another person’s will. But it is true that much pretended altruism manifests itself in a desire to make others serve the ends which the ‘altruist’ regards as important”.
On the basis of the above arguments, we can then argue that what could be the lost beneficial effects to the collective was closely tied to the ability and resolve by individual parties to act in accordance with the concerted efforts of all, based on a collective understanding of the ultimate purpose of the coalition talks. At the very least, therefore, we could have expected political parties to define the limits of collective effects and benefits and agree on the general principles that must necessarily overide all other considerations for the good of having successful talks that would have ushered in a coalition of political parties. We can redefine what our respective party freedom to determine our individual self identity means and hopefully avoid using expediency as the disguised ultimate mode for our survival. I rest my case for now.
Molaodi teaches Public Administration at the University of Botswana
