Bigger than us

We all need to believe in something bigger than ourselves. For some of us it is material pleasure- the next big purchase. For others it is professional achievements and constant intellectual stimulation. For others it is causes- eradicating disease and poverty and unhappiness in several forms, for the 'greater good' of humanity.

I am a strong believer in the infinite potential for happiness and 'higher ideals' that are innate to every human being. According to me, the roots of this capacity for happiness and desire for 'higher ideals' lie in the fundamental construct of a society- the simple fact that we choose to live in a society is proof that we think those around us are important, as are their circumstances. Our desire to 'improve' society is inextricably tied to our desire to live socially. Heartening to think that it is in our genes to want a better world, even though our choices every day might suggest that we don't care about the planet or other people. In this lies my fundamental faith in our humanity- that we cannot escape what is written in our genes. And therein begins the conflict.

Just as being social is encoded in our DNA, so are the simple facts of altruism and cheaters. For a successful altruistic group, each member of the group must be able to perceive and feel the benefit of contributing to the group. Secondly, simple group dynamics such as population size and contributions of members determine how much cheating a group can withstand. A queen bee "gets away" without contributing to the "work" that the drones put in only because her single contribution to a beehive "earns" her that right. Ensuring reproductive success is, to the workers, more important than being another individual collecting nectar. Population size is a simpler dynamic. In a group of four workers, one cheater is unlikely to get away uncensored. In a group of hundred, it is much easier for the slacker to get away with it.

This is where I feel grassroots movements of political and social change have a far better chance of continued success than a single, radical, nation-wide move. In a single village, kin selection is a stronger force than in a country. And it is far easier for a group of villagers to see the immediate benefits of honesty, volunteerism and forward-thinking. As group sizes increase, there is an exponential decrease in the perceived benefit of doing good relative to the effort required to do it. Here's a simple example- Taxes and traffic laws were made to benefit society. They were put in place to ensure a common standard of conformity that benefits every individual who is part of that society. Yet almost every honest, upstanding citizen would have jumped a red light or crossed the speed limit when they were in a rush. Simply because the individual benefit far outweighs the price of sticking to group rules.

A bill like the Jan Lokpal Bill seems unhappily laughable in this context. A democracy that is of the people and by the people now demands that the people stand up and answer to the rest of the people. We took a handful of people and gave them power, the license to be corruptible, then let them get away with bribery and unimaginable crimes. Now, we clamor for a bill that asks for answers. But who is asking for these answers? Another handful of people. Another group identical to the first in its origins, that 'we' will put in place to serve as "our" representatives. In exchange for their serving society by monitoring corrupt politicians, we will turn a blind eye to the corruption that is likely to permeate from the upper levels to the lower, when the rich politician tells the poor 'representative'- "Here's a few acres of land for your daughter's dowry and a college degree for your son, now let this one bribe I took slip, ok?". And once again, the immediate, individual benefit far outweighs the cost of sticking to the principles the 'aam aadmi' stood up for in the first place.

Does this view make me a pessimist? I still have infinite faith in the individual. Even in this unhappy scenario, a friend tells me of the auto driver who asked for an additional 20, but returned it when she told him she was heading to the park to join the protests. I have faith in that integrity in that person, and every other human being like him. What I lack is trust in power and laws and hand-waving about bills. Society did not evolve top down. And I don't think it can be improved from the top down either. To those at the bottom of the pile, the trickle of benefits just isn't worth the price of the sacrifice. Like the single cells that evolved into us, I believe we must start at the beginning rather than the end. If there really were enough individuals who truly believed that there is no room for corruption, no tolerance for crime, we would not need a bill such as this one at all. Let us start with making the single incorruptible individual, and the chorus that democracy should be will emerge.

(Despite the opinions voiced here, I would still like to hear why this bill would work where other anti-corruption laws and the basic principles of democracy have failed).