A lady friend of mine has recently found herself in a confusing position. After years of being in a solid relationship for several years, she has suddenly found herself with another admirer.
While she has stated that she now intends to “cheat” the main man in her life, she admitted that she is enjoying the attention that the other suitor has provided because it has been something that she has not received from the incumbent in her life.
However, in her case, competition has worked in as much as the love of her life has suddenly had to fight for her.
I think of this story because we live in a day and age where the word “loyalty” has become overused, and “appreciation” seems to be a word that has disappeared from everyone’s (especially those in positions of power) vocabulary.
Take all the talk about returning to the office as an example. Everyone is talking about the value of “employee loyalty” to the organization, but not nobody is talking about appreciation for the work that employees do in difficult times.
The most prominent example of expecting loyalty for nothing comes in the arena of geopolitics, especially when the People’s Republic of China is concerned.
Around a month ago, Australia got terribly upset because the Solomon Islands entered a security deal with China. The then Australian Prime Minister, Mr Scott Morrison got upset and made all sorts of noises about how Australia did not want a Cuba in its backyard.
Mr Morrison made the point that Australia remains the largest aid donor to the Solomon Islands and has sent troops to quell unrest in the Solomon Islands – which was polite geopolitical speak for “You depend on us so do as we say.”
The Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, Mr Manasseh Sogavare, rightly told Mr Morrison where he could stick it and Mr Morrison had to defend Australia’s position. Then, an article in Foreign Policy said that Australia was basically overreacting.
Australia’s reaction to China’s movement in the Solomon Islands is not particularly unique. The European Powers get upset whenever China builds relationships in Africa and Eastern Europe, and the USA gets upset whenever China makes overtures to Latin American countries.
You’ll get all sorts of articles about how China is placing poor and impoverished nations into “debt traps” and how they “promote corruption.” You will get all sorts of “alarmist” headlines like the following:
This is not to say that China is a saintly partner to the third-world countries that it courts. As Sri Lanka’s debt crisis has shown, China has more than happy to exploit corrupt government officials.
However, the problem here is not so much China’s overtures to certain countries, but the feeling of resentment that the “other” power feels.
Australia in the South Pacific, the USA in Latin America and Europe in Africa feel that China is “tackling their girl,” and their dialogue with the country dealing with China sounds inevitably like an entitled boyfriend – “Look here you ungrateful b***h – leave me for him, and you’ll regret it.”
What these powers fail to consider is that they do not exactly have a glorious history of bringing prosperity to their respective backyards.
Australia dumps unwanted refugees in the South Pacific, the Americans have a history of removing democratically elected leaders and replacing them with some of the worst despots in history in South America and the Europeans do not exactly have a record of doing something other than exploiting people in Africa.
So, whilst China is not exactly known for being benign, they do get things done. If they promise to build a road, it gets built. Here is a story that I noticed on my LinkedIn feed that makes this point.
If you read through the comments, you will note that Mr Stoisser does state that he believes that Europe would be the better partner for Africa in the long run. However, instead of figuring out how to show the Africans that they’re the better partner, they’re just complaining that China is encroaching on their territory because Europe was the first colonial power in Africa and therefore Africa somehow owes Europe.
Think of the Western Powers as the husband who, at best, neglects the wife but expects her to be loyal because of some accident in history. China, by contrast, is the guy who woes the lady daily with chocolates and flowers. Who can blame a woman for flirting with the guy giving her attention when the guy at home does not really do much for her?
Why should sovereign nations commit themselves to a single power which takes them for granted? I think of the Saudis in 2006 who stated, “We are a Catholic Marriage with the USA but since we’re Muslim, we can have more than one wife,” when describing their opening up to China and India.
Nations should never be forced to be “devoted loyalists” to more powerful nations, businesses, and people be tied to any force as if their lives depended on it.
The best example comes from Singapore’s elections, where the ruling party expects people to vote for them without due consideration. Sure, on balance, you can argue that the ruling party has done a good job in providing the goodies. However, it still needs to show that it values the voters.
One of Lee Kuan Yew’s worst mistakes came in 2011 when he told voters of Aljunied GRC that they would need to “repent” if they voted for the opposition. The voters didn’t like the religious connotations of the election and voted for the opposition, which has stayed there ever since 2011.
A grassroots member of the ruling party once confessed that the problem that the ruling party faces when dealing with wards that fall to the Workers’ Party is the fact that the Workers’ Party has not raised costs for residents, but has kept service standards on par with what the ruling party had. The ruling party by contrast has consistently raised costs.
Now, given that the opposition presence in Singapore is negligible, this fact is being ignored. However, voters in other constituencies are seeing an alternative model of getting things done, and suddenly they have less reason to be beholden to a single party.
There is a worse example of taking people for granted. That is the Singapore media, which has been a duopoly between the print controlled by Singapore Press Holdings and the broadcast by MediaCorp. When they were made to compete, they ended up running back to the government crying because they said “the market is too small for competition” instead of improving their product. They continued with their monopoly products. In the end, people stopped reading newspapers and the advertisers noticed. SPH has gone from a profit-generating company into a non-profit at the mercy of the taxpayer.
As every successful husband knows – you need to show your wife that she’s appreciated and valued so that she stays and ignores the guy with flowers and chocolates. Success is a daily struggle to ensure that people know you’re better than the competition.
Countries, businesses and political parties that expect loyalty without showing love to their target end up in a divorce that was a long time coming, but they never expected.
A version of this article first appeared at beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com