By Peter Kimemia

Christmas is here again – and so is the end of 2007. For many people, the year has passed just too swiftly to allow them to complete what they planned to accomplish. For others, the year has been agonisingly long, possibly laden with unpleasant experiences.

For all of us, Christmas and the New Year come with mixed possibilities of fortunes and woes.

There are hopes that the worst of this year will be left behind, and that the New Year will usher in a dawn of better tidings – a brighter future.

Unfortunately – as is the case every year – although 2008 will have its fair share of extremely happy winners and achievers, there will be hordes of sad people wondering just what they have to do to find relief from their dire material positions.

Sadly, there will be numerous victims of structural violence in our society – victims of conniving elites; and victims of crime.

Many will suffer because of the direct actions or inactions of others hell-bent on securing or maintaining an edge of advantage over the next. And no, I am not on a mission to deride competition, hard work and personal initiative. In fact it is to these we owe much of the progress attained by society up to now.

Writing just over 200 years ago, the father of modern economics Adam Smith pointed out that, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of their fellow-citizens.”

These words and the metaphor of the “invisible hand” have been used to justify the pursuit of self-interest under the pretext that this will always lead to an incremental dose of happiness for society as a whole.

Granted, a larger cake would always be better than a small one. However, for this larger cake to bear any shred of relevance to the majority, mechanisms for sharing it must be directed by a separate institution rather than the market.

From where I stand, the “trickle-down” story seems at odds with the strong views that Smith expressed regarding how a functionally humane society should operate.  Contrary to common misconceptions, Smith did not assert that all self-interested labour necessarily benefits society, or that all public goods are produced through self-interested labour.

He merely proposes that in a free market, people usually tend to produce goods desired by their neighbours. Frequently, as evidenced by the malaise in our society, some acts of self-interest tend to bring unwanted results. In his largely ignored Theory of moral sentiments, Smith actually admonishes us to have a moral sense of what is enough, and to strive to create a more caring society where equity is pursued as vigorously as we do efficiency.

It is on this piece of instruction that our collective obstinacy comes across most prominently, especially compared to our firm and enthusiastic embrace of Smith’s notion of the pursuit of individual interests.

For this reason we need to use the Christmas break to reflect solemnly on our role in increasing societal happiness.

From a governance point of view, the verdict seems to be that we still have a long way to go before we can make a contribution that will add value to the majority’s happiness.

At a local government level, there are cases of betrayal, nepotism, fraud, non-performance, self-enrichment through abuse of power, and in communities we shelter our errant brothers and sisters; we fail to assist the police in rooting out crime – and yet continue to complain. We frequently benefit from taking unfair advantage over others.

There is no better time to redeem ourselves than over Christmas. As we take time off to rest and enjoy the festive season with family and friends, we need to reflect carefully on the events of the past year and decide whether our vigorous pursuit for personal aggrandisement added value to society’s collective happiness.

As we head into the New Year we need to commit to curb the vices that have wrought so much unhappiness and deprivation to others; corruption, crime of all sorts, greed, and yes, even laziness. If we are happy with and feel vindicated by Adam Smith’s ideas of free markets guided by an invisible hand, we should equally be courageous enough to embrace his admonition about the ingredients of a humane society. This is not only to the bureaucrats in our three spheres of government, it is not only to the politicians, but to all of us.

For if communities participated fully in assisting in the fight against crime, refused to lubricate the wheels of corruption and took their civic obligations of holding government to account more seriously, half the battle will have been won.

Even if the global economic order coerces us into the rat race, let us retain our sense of what is enough. Make a less fortunate person happier this season, and let the goodwill extend into the New Year.

Ethical governance is a prerequisite of a humane society, a challenge to all of us. Have a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, won’t you?

– This article, written by Peter Kimemia of Afesis-corplan, first appeared in the Local Government Transformer Dec 2007/Jan 2008.