Ian On The Red Dot

Just finished a rather heated discussion with a colleague about the US Presidential Elections. Actually, more specifically, about the Democratic Party’s nomination for candidate. And I realized why the PAP might just want the ordinary people to stay out of the way.

We (i.e. a lot of the people desiring change in our current system) assume that people have the desire to be informed, and if not, have the ability to seek out information and the facility to take that information, digest it, analyze it, interpret it and then make informed, well reasoned decisions.

But is that really the case?

Is the average Singaporean, or for that matter, is the average individual in the world like that. We all have our bias, we all have our preferences and a lot of us, if not all of us, are susceptible to let emotions overrule our logical facilities.

More importantly, none of us will ever have the complete view of the world, nor ever understand what we see even if it is everything.

And if there is one thing about people, we like to experience instant gratification as opposed to strive for long term satisfaction. This is a problem when a group, society, organization or country needs to solve problems - a lot of the times, the right solution is not obvious and if it is, it is usually painful for those involved.

So politicians pander to the worse in human nature - fear and greed. Give the people their regular goodies. Throw gold off the wagon. Make people fearful they will lose out to others, that their estate will not be upgraded and they lose out in the race. Play to the lowest common denominator, stay in power and then do what’s needed to fix the problem.

Of course, power tends to corrupt and good intentions is never a justification for bad actions, and sometimes the best laid plans of man fail.

But do we want to trust the average individual?

Are the average individual even willing to accept that arguments for any issue are nuanced - there never ever is a clear line between one side and the other. Are they willing to invest time and effort to understand every aspects of the issues that concern them. Or are they just ever too willing to just look for convenient signposts.

Or is it just plain arrogance to think that one group of people, while having themselves an incomplete view of the world and with that a incomplete understanding of the world, might just have a better view and the rest should stay out of the way.

Do we dare trust our fellow citizens?

Or is that too much to ask.

Which demands the greater price? Which gives the greater rewards?

To trust and maybe fail. Or not to trust and maybe fail.

Knowing human nature, which choice has the greater probability of failure?

Knowing human nature, is failure an inevitability in either choice?

And if failure is always an inevitability, which gives us a better chance of renewal.