There are times when we need to stop, press pause, reflect and reset. David was given such an opportunity. Second thought, compelled may be a more accurate term to use. Nathan, smart man that he was, used tact to approach his King. His mission was none other than to rebuke David for taking another man’s wife. In order to fail to prove this sinister plan, David had sent the hapless husband, Uriah the loyal army officer, to the fiercest part of battle, as this appeared to be the best way to ensure he didn’t return home alive.
His plan worked perfectly. Remember, I said Nathan was smart. Nathan knew if he said the thing “gbam” like that, a second “gbam” would most likely immediately follow, and this one would be the sound of his decapitated head hitting the hard floor. Back in those days, woe betide anyone who has the effrontery to challenge his King so frontally.
So, Nathan was clever enough to employ an approach which effectively gave David enough rope to hang himself with. That way David couldn’t deflect blame. He told David a story of two men in a town. One rich with plenty of sheep and other livestock and the other, miserably poor. So poor, his only asset was one lamb which he totally doted on. The rich man received visitors one day and instead of picking one of his sheep, which he had in abundance, out of sheer greed and heartlessness, he slaughtered the poor man’s lamb to prepare a feast for his treasured guests.
Upon hearing this, David flew off the handle and instantly pronounced a death sentence on this most treacherous of villains. Nathan’s job had been made easy as he didn’t have to say much more, other than to remind David of what he himself had done. Unknowingly, the king had already condemned his actions with his own mouth. He was trapped. One thing David had failed to realize when hatching his evil plan was the result of callous actions, which is that no one wins. One side just loses slowly. But eventually, they must.
I’ve said time and time again that the problem with our society is not that people don’t know what the problem is. It’s that no one sees himself as part of the problem. David saw the wrong in the villain in the parable but hadn’t until that time, seen that same wrong in himself.
With the theatre of the absurd currently playing itself out in plain sight of all Nigerians, regarding the NDDC brouhaha, no one really wins. The difference is that the ones who continue to suffer deprivation are painfully aware that they are losing because the development they’re entitled to still hasn’t come their way; but the ones who think they are winning by corruptly enriching themselves, are not aware that they are losing too, as their sense of humanity gradually ebbs away.
A man who already has more than enough but continues to scoop more and more while watching others suffer around him has not only lost his conscience but if we check very well, may have lost a substantial part of his mind too. The fact that he’s not aware of it doesn’t make it less true and in fact only reiterates that distinct possibility. I once read that the ultimate wisdom is knowing you will go home one day. That portends the biggest loss of all.
The “veil of ignorance” is an ethical theory proposed by John Rawls to determine the morality of one’s actions. It sounds a little bizarre but the more you look at it, the more it makes sense. It speaks to the very relevant issues of social contracts; the people’s rights and duties to the state, vis-a-vis the responsibilities of the state to the people. The theory contends that if an individual preparing to make a decision concerning his society, knowing very well what the consequences of his decision would be either way, was to put on a “veil of ignorance”, he would most likely make a just and balanced decision.
This is because once the individual puts on this proverbial veil, which instantly renders him ignorant of his position in society, he would be constrained from making skewed decisions that would favour a particular group over others, since he will not for that moment know which group he belongs to. It’s like asking your youngest child to share the meat for himself and his older ones when he knows he will pick last. So, had David put on this veil, leaving him ignorant of his position as king, he would not have killed Uriah in order to take his wife, knowing such an act was punishable by death.
Perhaps now, we will see the futility in expecting our National Assembly members, the primary beneficiaries of lopsided government expenditure, to be the same people who will curb the perceived excesses.
Let me add that Rawls’s “veil of ignorance” theory consisted of two supporting principles. One in particular, is the Liberty Principle, which says the social contract should ensure all people enjoy maximum liberty, so long as it doesn’t infringe on the freedom and rights of others. Tell that to people of the Niger Delta.
Changing the nation…one mind at a time
DAPO AKANDE
