Who is responsible?

To be sure, these individuals are the perpetrators. But they are also the products of specific environmental forces — which, of course, is not to say that the authorities mustn’t hunt them down, prosecute them, and lock them up for life if need be. But it does mean that, if we don’t deal with the root causes, then the society will keep producing bandits and murderers.

There is a certain set of people who believe that they know what these root causes are. Their explanations range from racism, to capitalism, to atheism, to neo-liberalism, and other such crap. In fact, it may well be that the ideologies embraced by these self-same commentators — ethnocentrism, socialism, religious fundamentalism, and international conspiracies — are more pertinent causes for the social upheaval we are now experiencing.

There are also some persons who say that we are all to blame. I find it interesting, though, that those who offer this explanation never seem to include themselves in the "all". But the idea that everyone in a society is responsible for its ills is true only in a very trivial sense. Everyone’s actions probably have consequences, in that even small acts can have large effects. But such interactions, if they do happen, are too complex to track.

We cannot know if a teacher boofing a child leads to a murder 20 years later. And the situation is complicated by the fact that well-intentioned acts may have bad consequences and vice-versa.

Yet common sense suggests that it is foolish to claim that we are all equally responsible for the ills of our society. It is perfectly obvious that different people have different levels of skills, talents and knowledge. More importantly, individuals also have different levels of power and influence (which, since we do not live in a meritocracy, may or may not be related to their skills, talent, or knowledge.) What this means is that the average person will have neither the interest nor the capacity to exert significant influence on the society. This is, in fact, true of all modern societies, and it is therefore foolish to blame the average person, as certain political analysts like to do, for his lack of interest in politics or social issues.

It is also incorrect to attribute such disinterest, as these same analysts do, as a major reason for the backward state of our politics. The data from social psychology and history suggests that it is always a minority of persons in a society who catalyse social progress. Indeed, when mass movements do happen, it is generally to the detriment of the country, whatever short-term benefits may accrue.

Additionally, our political arrangements are so structured that the average citizen, even if they have the inclination, would find it difficult or impossible to become active in government in any meaningful sense. We lack the structures of developed countries, such as an effective and well-budgeted local government system, that allows participation at the community and constituency level. Our system is a centralised one, with that centralised power in turn centralised in the Prime Minister.

Because of this, blaming the politicians is the response that carries the most merit. After all, you can only hold a person responsible for an event if they have power over that event. Since it is politicians who shape public policy, then they must bear the brunt of the blame for the country’s woes.

The counter-argument that it is "the people" who put the politicians there has little weight, for the reasons outlined above. The reality is that it is key persons within the key social groups who affect how politicians conduct the politics. And this brings me back to the ethnocentrists and socialists and true believers. Given what we know about how social groups function, and given comparative anthropological data between different societies, it is possible to make an informed speculation about how societies either progress or remain mired in backwardness. Put too simply, societies which achieve economic prosperity and social stability are societies where key persons and groups embrace rationality, secularism, and ethical standards. The nations of Western Europe achieved these goals by the middle of the 20th century, while the East Asian countries did so by its end. In all cases, progress relied on market forces allied to a reasonable gap between the haves and have-not. Adherence to secularism was also crucial, since in a secular society the individual is defined by citizenship, not race, and it is means-ends criteria, not folk wisdom, that help shape public policies.

Significantly, there is no nation with a high level of religiosity which has achieved these goals — indeed, researcher Gregory S Paul in a recent survey found that "higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies."

This implies that any religious person, if they are truly sincere about achieving the greater good for our society, would promote religion only as a private matter which should be respected by the State.

They would not attempt to impose their religious beliefs on the policies of the State, save where such beliefs could be supported by ethical argument. Thus, any believer who was truly moral and spiritual could not oppose abortion law reforms or equal rights for homosexuals.

So, if we are to decide which groups and individuals are more responsible for the shortcomings of this place, we have to ask who wields a greater influence over the public mind and, by extension, the politicians. Are they those few persons who offer rational, researched, ethical discourse? Or are they the ignorant ideologues who host radio programmes, get appointed by the Prime Minister to sit on the Central Bank Board, and who have their own schools despite having bogus PhDs?

The answer, I think, is clear.

E-mail: kbaldeosingh@hotmail.com

Website (now updated) www.caribscape.com/baldeosingh