Machiavellian Soup

In a previous post Stealing from a Thief, I expressed my alarm about a lot of loose talk openly encouraging people to deceive by taking money from a party under the pretext of voting for them in a by election. People were then urged to renege on that promise and keep the money, supposedly to teach a lesson that bribery doesn't pay.

To justify the act, some declared the money legal, halal, etc. Clearly people saw nothing wrong in obtaining a personal benefit from a deliberate act of deceit.

In what I think describes the situation fairly, here's what Answers.com has to say about the word Machiavellian:

adj.

   1. Of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism.
   2. Suggestive of or characterized by expediency, deceit, and cunning.

This word is often reserved for despots and tyrants who use any means to stay in power, including trickery and dishonesty. It is also emblematic of a situation where the end justifies the means.

Its not a word decent law-abiding people want to use to describe themselves.

And how our actions speak louder than words.

I'm sure you've heard all the slogans before. Keep Putrajaya at all costs! Take Putrajaya by hook or by crook! These shouts ring equally loudly on both sides of the political divide.

But hang on a minute. At all costs? By hook or by crook? I was glad when RPK came out with his recent article "The ends can't justify the means," relieved that one voice is making sense amid this cacophony.

RPK's lament was hoisted against a political landscape, about politicians and their supporters who seem hell bent on doing anything, including sacrificing their ethics and morals to get what they want. I must state that I agree with RPK's arguments 100%.

But what he didn't mention was how deep this attitude goes and for that, I think many people will miss his point about the need to fight the good fight ethically.

Perhaps we should first recollect how we got here. We are a land of immigrants. A few came here as wealthy traders or hired labourers but for the most part, many of us are descendants of refugees. In the hurried escape from disaster, war and famine, our forefathers and foremothers crammed into tight boats to set sail into the unknown with only the clothes on their backs and a few precious heirlooms. With little food to share, it was a fight to stay alive all the way. One does whatever it takes to get an advantage or an extra mouthful of food. Whatever regard one had for rules, morals and ethics probably took a back seat on that journey.

On land, life was hard too. The rules of survival didn't change much. Its watch your back, grab what you can and run faster than the next guy.

3-4 generations later, I see a society of descendants of immigrants driving nice cars, living in nice homes and using Blackberries but has the underlying refugee mentality really changed?

Rather than answer the question directly, allow me to point out some common examples in our everyday Malaysian life. At the train stations, witness the horde of people mow down disembarking people as they lunge into the train whose doors are just opening, the "Please Queue" sign all but ignored. On the streets, witness how people discretely look left and right for any signs of authority before they make an illegal turn or dash through the red traffic lights. At the buffet restaurants, witness how well-heeled people grab food like they hadn't eaten for a week, some unashamedly cutting queue and mowing down children and the elderly in the stampede. At the land office, witness how an applicant discretely offers money in an envelope in order to extract a favour.

I bet you none of these people would actually see anything offensive in their behaviour. Some actually think this is what competitiveness or being smart is about. We do whatever it takes to get what we want. We take when no one's looking. Might is right. Morals and ethics? Hello kawan, take off your rose tinted glasses lah. If we don't do it, the other guys will and then we'll lose out so let's not be naive.

This world view seems to have followed us from the refugee boats to our modern 21st century lifestyles and from the looks of it, its guiding us even in the way we choose our governments. The ends justifies the means. By hook or by crook. Morals and ethics? Hello kawan, take off your rose tinted glasses lah. If we don't do it, the other guys will and then we'll lose out so let's not be naive.

I think I've seen the beast and the beast is us. We love to talk about religion and God and morals and ethics but only when it suits us. Those things don't count when our survival is on the line or when we're really desperate for something, like a change in government. Or maybe we think we can count on God's grace to be forgiven. We've lived a hard life, we argue. We suffered long enough under a cruel government and if God really loves us and is as compassionate as people say, then surely He'll understand. Now where's that money I stole?

So the hard fact is, whatever illusions we may have had about decency and principles fly out the window the moment an opportunity stares at us in the face. We think nothing of stealing and knowingly riding on the back of dishonest men into power. When we turn complicit, we'll soon discover that we're really not that much different from petty thieves and con men. We share the same work ethic. They too had a hard life. They too are opportunists who are only being practical by not letting morals get in the way. They steal other thieves' money just like we do and use each other to advance their aims.

We become the thing we hate.

See the conundrum?

That is why like RPK, I disagree with the by-hook-or-by-crook philosophy. Sure we might win if we fight fire with fire but if we start a new dawn on an act of injustice or cruelty, then I think we'll put in motion a future that we will neither expect nor condone had we known, and we may never know what hit us when it does.