Aubyn Hill
MANY PEOPLE IN BUSINESS, politics, sports and even the Church tend to see every action and every outcome in terms of power. Many others - poor people, rich people, those who are not religious, those who are religious, people of every hue and colour and certainly people in business and politics - see almost everything through the prism of money. But probably the most pervasive prism through which most people focus their vision is the prism of relativism. Everything is seen to be relative to the circumstances. For most people the ends justify the means. There are no longer hard and fast rules by which we should order our lives and society, instead we have an insidious relativism which dilutes and even eradicates most every ethical standard it touches. However, those who are successful in life recognise that there are times when our behaviour, speech and the way we treat others have to be affected by the consideration of power and money. They ensure that they use a much higher and demanding principle and focus their decisions and behaviour through the prism of right and wrong.
SIMPLE BUT NOT EASY
I always found it amazing that when the Soviet Union existed and the world was essentially divided into two ideological blocks, the most repressive regimes with openly brutal dictators would always want to call themselves 'democratic'. Similarly today, many practices and behaviour which any objective or moderately ethical person would list in the 'wrong' column, are vying to share or dominate the podium where right should rightfully stand. In a competitive world - and certainly in Jamaica - where the ethical is deemed to be weak or foolish, wrong behaviour and attitudes are treated as right and what is right is treated as irrelevant or even a hindrance to progress. The truth is while wrong has been trying to wrap itself in the garment of right to camouflage itself and deceive the thoughtless, to the thoughtful what is right and uplifting is fairly easy to identify. It is fair to say that even in a relativist world and confused society such as the one in which we live, identifying what is right against what is wrong is fairly simple; the real problem is that choosing between right and wrong is, as ever, not easy.
THE PRISM CHANGES THE OUTLOOK
Deciding to run one's plans, actions, words and even thoughts through the prism of right and wrong really can change an individual's outlook and behaviour. For example, when one is severely criticised instead of looking at the messenger (the critic) with disdain, if the message were to be seen through the prism of right and wrong then the criticised would have the benefit of deciding if what the critic was saying is right and if so change his or her behaviour, or if the critic was wrong then ignore the message. Instead, what we normally do is react immediately in anger to the critic - a person whom I normally count as an unpaid consultant - and miss the entire message and the benefit that would come from an often incisive, if acerbic, comment. In the same vein, if we, before we speak, were to run our thoughts and proposed speech through the right and wrong prism we would then probably arrive at the point where we would speak only when what we are going to say is first, true; second, necessary; and third, kind. Consider how much less we would all speak and how more productive our speech would be, not to mention how little harm and hurt we would cause.
LEGITIMATE BUT WRONG
Last week the four presidents of Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil met to discuss the recent announcement by president Evo Morales of Bolivia that in six months all the oil and gas assets of his country will be nationalised. Both Brazil and Argentina, as well as other western oil companies have huge investments and interests in Bolivian energy and assets, especially natural gas. Commenting on the summit and president Morales' decision, one Argentinian newspaper called his choice legitimate but wrong. The paper declared that while president Morales had the legitimate right as the head of the sovereign government of Bolivia to make that policy decision, it was bad or wrong economics for Bolivia in the long run and would drive away foreign investors from Bolivia and could prove to be a source of hardship for Argentina and Brazil. Our decisions and behaviour can be legitimate but wrong.
On the other hand a decision can be wildly popular (at least at first) but very wrong. Many poor Zimbabwe nationals contend that president Mugabe of Zimbabwe made a very popular decision to nationalise the farmlands of the country. Both in foresight and hindsight the decision was a terribly wrong one in that it has pushed, arguably, one of the countries in southern Africa with the best prospects to shameful and severe poverty with inflation today running in the vicinity of 800% per year. Zimbabwe is a country to which I used to provide financing for oil purchases from the Middle East in the mid- 80s and one which I visited many times. I have not been to South Africa but I always thought Zimbabwe was one Black African country in which I would live. President Mugabe's wrong decision has crippled that once vibrant economy and beautiful country. Mugabe, if he ever had one, threw away his prism of right and wrong about two decades ago.
RIGHT AND UNPOPULAR
Pope John Paul II is one leader who invariably used the right and wrong prism for his thought processes, decisions and his actions. To many who believe in the absolute sanctity of life, his position on abortion was right, though they are fully aware that it was (and is) seen as wrong in large sections of many countries of the world. The problem relativists and people of a more liberal persuasion have with someone like Pope John Paul II, is that they claim that the prism of right and wrong leaves no room for grays and its outcomes are therefore too adamant and unyielding. Others would argue that where we have too many grays there is too much room for flexibility that leads to corruption, deception and unethical behaviour. It is hard to argue that the pendulum of social behaviour in Jamaica resides too deeply in the territory of the prism of right and wrong. Most objective observers would have to concede that the pendulum, certainly in Jamaica, is far too deeply embedded in the relativist, unethical region which is the breeding ground for corrupt unethical and even depraved behaviour.
Aubyn Hill is the CEO of Corporate Strategies Ltd., a restructuring and financial advisory firm. Respond to: writerhill@gmail.com
