By Caroline Kibugi
For
some time now, we’ve been grappling with questions about how deeply rooted
corruption is in our society. How did it get this bad? How did we reach a point
where our leaders seem devoid of conscience, especially when their decisions
directly affect the nation’s well-being?
The
answer might lie in an old saying: “A fish rots from the head down.” Just
as expert toolmakers become one with their instruments, so too have our leaders
with their tools of manipulation. These leaders craft policies and systems not
for the public good, but for their personal gain. Political gatekeepers,
well-versed in exploiting the system, know exactly which channels to tap into,
turning them into lucrative streams of income that serve their selfish
interests.
They
have perfected the art of creating mental “tools” to manage public perception.
For years, the government have tried to increase civic engagement, yet it has
often done so in ways that overwhelm the public. They present dense, bulky
documents, knowing that it is impossible for citizens to process this
information within the limited time allocated for public participation. Such
schemes are intrinsically suspicious, tailored to benefit a few, even though
they claim to work for the greater good. No matter how they try to
convince us that time is against them, or that their thoughts are in the
country’s best interest, trust has eroded. We can no longer agree.
Another
key strategy they use is manipulating the public’s perception of their
leadership. They market themselves as thoughtful and forward-thinking, often
crafting 3-5 manifestos that seem to benefit the public. But when a leader is
genuinely committed to solving problems, shouldn’t they act decisively?
Instead, they dwell on past failures, blaming their predecessors rather than
charting a new path.
Perhaps
their most powerful weapon is the public’s ignorance. Many of us shy away from
scrutinizing issues that do not directly benefit us. When the government
introduces amendments, claiming they will bring about necessary change, the
public often agrees without understanding how these changes will be implemented
or on what basis. The lack of public engagement has long worked in the leaders’
favor. However, things are beginning to shift. The recent Finance Bill
demonstrations showed that the public is waking up, becoming more informed and
interested in political matters.
So,
does this mean the public has won this round? Or is it simply a brief victory
in a much longer game? What will the leaders’ next move be, and what are they
really aiming for?
Comments
Post a Comment