I’ve come to understand is that a very pivotal feature for the progress of any society is responsibility and accountability. There should be people responsible for certain things. There should be people and resources submitted to those responsible. And those responsible should be held accountable for any shortcomings regarding who and what they’re responsible for.
Traditionally, the man of the house is responsible for providing for and protecting the wife and kids. If any harm ever befalls the wife or child, the man is inclusively held accountable. Where was he when someone was slapping his child? And for that arrangement to work, the wife and child are expected to be submitted to the man. If he insists you should not go to XYZ place, don’t go. Going despite his instruction is you consenting to not be entitled to his protection. His reason for asking you not to go isn’t important. And that is accountability on your part. No one is going to hold him responsible if kids 50km away are homeless. It’s the kids he’s responsible for that he’ll be held accountable to.
Hence, in many societies, parents can make certain decisions for the child. And the child can’t make certain decisions without parental consent. Because the parents are responsible for the child and the child is accountable to the parents. If you’re saying parents don’t have a right to make certain decisions for the child, you’re also agreeing that the parent isn’t responsible for the child in certain matters. So, when the child becomes an adult and seeks independence to do as he pleases, he’s also choosing to relinquish the protection and provision from the parent. This is not to say a parent can’t protect or provide for their adult children. It’s to say it’s no longer their responsibility, but mere benevolence, once the child has chosen to be independent.
We were taught early in school that family is the smallest unit of the society. So, the matter of responsibility, accountability and submission scales as you begin to zoom out. From local government, to regional to national. People vote in leaders, put them in charge of their common wealth. And in exchange, those people are responsible providing certain things including amenities and security. And even in the case where the leader wasn’t voted in but forced his/her way in, the rules are still the same. The leader is in charge of the common wealth of the society, the citizens submit to the leader, and in exchange, the leader provides for and protects the people.
However, some societies hold their leaders responsible more than others. And I think that distinction is what differentiates a society that will make it from the one that won’t. A society that cannot hold its leaders responsible is not going to make it. When things go well, the first thing most people think of is who to blame or who’s responsible. And it’s why society evolved to have dedicated roles. Most times, if you try to run a system with the ideology of “everyone is responsible”, then no one is responsible and the system will fail. Because you’ll have some trying to do everything and some doing nothing. It’s why you’ll usually specify roles.
So, when there’s a problem with water, and the society decides to blame the person put in charge of music, that society is not going to make it. But that’s exactly what happens in some societies today. You have elected leaders, put in charge of your common wealth so they can provide for and protect in certain regard, say water. Suddenly, there’s no water. Instead of holding the Minister of Water responsible, they will handpick, people will turn to the Minister of Music, insult him and say he’s to blame for lack of water. That kind of anomaly incentivizes people to not do their job, knowing someone else is gonna be held responsible for it anyway. End result? A dysfunctional society.
An unfortunate event happens somewhere in the country and instead of holding the elected and delegated leaders responsible, you hold a political aspirant responsible. So you want them to be responsible for you, without you submitting and being accountable to them.
Someone decides to educate the public on certain matter and you’re holding them responsible for the situation of things. There’s fuel scarcity in your territory and you’re holding software engineers for building an app to identify which stations have fuel. The roads are suddenly unsafe and you’re holding the citizens accountable to buy bullet proof buses and provide armed escort. Foreigners paying for your medication decide to stop and you’re holding them to it instead of the people you pay taxes to. Another country decides that they don’t want to admit more people into their country, and you’re insulting their president instead of holding yours responsible for making your home country unlivable. In what world does that make sense?
I’m yet to figure out if it’s the inability to determine who’s responsible. Or maybe it’s just cowardice. Let the weak one take the blame instead of laying it firmly at the feet of the person responsible.
Leave a Reply