If every decision on the rugby field had to be referred to the television match official there would be something wrong with the referee, or an understanding of the laws, or perhaps even the purpose of the game.
If every difference of opinion in our society can only be resolved in our hierarchy of courts, there is either something fundamentally wrong with us as a people or the rules that govern us are on shaky ground. Or both.
No number of rules and regulations can create an honest, law-abiding, peaceful, mutually respectful society. Without common purpose we cannot have common law. In the composition, manifestation and enforcement of our laws, rules and regulations, we should be careful not to lose sight of that which binds us.
It is wrong to make rules that perpetuate dependency, rather than enable the independent thinking that spurs growth. It is wrong to have rules that always protect the old and restrain the new. It is wrong to presume that conventional wisdom should always survive, that we should never “fix something that isn’t broken”.
It is wrong to pass laws that are either founded on an unnatural starting point or deliver an unnatural result, or where, for instance, equality of result prevails over equality of opportunity. It is wrong to blunt the spearhead of progress in the name of the weight it has to bear. It is wrong to write rules for the baddies. It is wrong to make sure the wrong people don’t do the wrong things instead of ensuring that the right people can do the right things.
When such laws, rules or regulations are promulgated we legislate against the natural forces of human endeavour. We produce the lowest common denominator of things. We constrain ambition and encourage illicit activity and, at worst, we reward failure and punish success. Failure becomes a refuge. Finally, vice will triumph over virtue — the opposite of the intention of the law, I would have thought.
Our real challenge remains. We are such a polarised society. Compiling the rules of play is made all the more difficult when the vast majority of the population are not in the middle. It is virtually impossible to contemplate all peoples and circumstances and, by definition, it is impossible to legislate for the exceptions. Our problem is that we are more often defined by our differences than our common purpose.
There are a whole bunch of reasons why we desperately need to create an enduring middle class, urgently. Covid-19 is a stark example of where trying to regulate for one-size-fits-all has been hugely problematic. A rule necessary in one environment or set of circumstances can be argued as being unreasonable, if not logically indefensible, if not patently absurd, in another. These obvious disparities undermine buy-in, let alone enforcement.
And so it is that we continuously and forever find ourselves needing to consult and review and revise and retract and reinstate until we have included even those who inhabit the tiniest sliver of one of the tails of our population distribution catered for in the outcome — lest we get taken to court for discrimination of one sort or another.
The result is a mess. If ever there was a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth, this is it. I have found, thankfully, that “on the ground”, in everyday life, among everyday people, there are far more intersections than we give ourselves credit for.
However tiny the intersection in the Venn diagram circles of our values and causes may be, there is good reason to nurture and feed and embrace and protect it, so that it may flourish and become the respected, if not revered, middle ground we share.
If we do, we may just end up living together in a country we love. If we don’t, I fear for the worst. See you in court!
• Barnes, a former SA Post Office CEO, has had more than 30 years of experience in various capacities in the financial sector
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.