The Illusion Of Choice

“Rats in a maze are free to choose: left or right.”

We need to ask ourselves whether everything we understand about democracy is grounded in reality or merely a beautifully orchestrated fiction that pushes us into the corners it claims to protect us from. 

Over recent years, our modern day popular culture has become increasingly more divisive. From the clothes we wear to the food we eat; what we say or don’t say, what we do or don’t do - everything has become a political statement. This political division has become so widespread that you’d be hard-pressed to find a person who hasn’t lost friends, family, colleagues and even money over political disagreements. This notion that we have to either “pick a side” or be excommunicated from society is dangerously radical. Certain groups within our society have considered themselves to be morally superior to others. They have weaponised this self proclaimed status and used it to silence and control people that are either disengaged or disagree. They claim to "know what’s good for you” and feel they have the authority to act on it even if you don’t agree. They will present you with solutions to your problems and tell you that you’re free to choose. But what if their solutions for how you should live your life don’t represent your values? What if they don’t address your concerns? What if they don’t accommodate your feelings or take stock of the things that you, yourself, have witnessed and experienced? Surely you should should have the freedom to look elsewhere? Surely you have the right to a second opinion? It would seem that you don’t. 

As a global community, we are in a very unique position. We have all been at the mercy of a pandemic that has forced us to come together - albeit apart - and do our best to survive. In areas of health, wellbeing, business and academia, people around the world have adjusted their approach in ways that allow them to maintain a level of consistency that is both practical and safe. Having to negotiate and renegotiate how we handle ourselves in the throws of this pandemic is something I’m sure most people can relate to. We have been made to stand still while a tsunami of information consumes us entirely. The fear mongering, the statistics, the harassment, the financial strain and government regulations; all burying us within ourselves. And then a shift happens. In the stillness of ourselves we begin to feel an itch. We feel our instinct telling as that something isn’t quite right. We tell ourselves that it’s because of the stress of the pandemic, but our instinct refuses to accept this answer. This is when we start to look a little closer. And when we look a little closer, we begin to see the cracks. We begin to notice that things which were once considered happenstance are now obviously connected. We remember when the government chose to shut down small businesses in an attempt to “flatten the curve” while simultaneously allowing massive franchise stores to operate at full capacity. We then remember that certain government officials are shareholders in these franchises. We consider that it’s about money and not public health. We quickly suppress these thoughts as we remember that time we saw people being labeled “conspiracy theorists” for asking simple questions. But then we remember the banning of cigarettes and alcohol under the guise of “public health and safety” just to witness our leaders profiting from blackmarket tobacco hustles. We then find out that the biggest transfer of wealth in history has happened during this pandemic. We explain this away as moments of opportunism rather than a sinister plot, because we’re “not a conspiracy theorist”. This denial doesn’t negate the fact that things still don’t add up.

When we look past the fear and begin to ask questions, we realise that we don’t have access to certain information. We notice that posts and articles are being removed from social media. We then start to see this happen in real-time. We see entire websites being de-platformed. We see the homes of journalists being raided and we see healthcare professionals being fired. We see members of our society being vilified and excommunicated. We see the Canadian government freezing the bank accounts of peaceful protestors. We even see them threatening to euthanise their pets in an attempt to get these protestors to stop voicing their concerns. It then dawns on us that the governments attempts to silence the protestors only proves the protestors point. And when we have the courage to ask what connects all these incidents, we realise it’s because they all questioned the dominant narrative. They challenged the status quo. We shake our heads in disbelief because this can’t possibly be real. Clearly we’ve missed something or gone too far. This can’t be happening to us, in free counties and at this time in history. When we remember all we have learned about the collapse of civilisations, our panic starts to fester as we notice the warning signs all around us: censorship, misinformation, fear mongering, propaganda and manufactured division. We notice a small percentage of the population holding the monopoly in areas of wealth, power and information. We come to the realisation that when tech companies are able to silence citizens and de-platform sitting presidents, we should worry. We should worry because this means that board members of tech companies effectively hold more power than the supreme courts of the countries within which they operate. 

History has an almost endless supply of examples that demonstrate how damaging censorship can be. Whether its erasing entire cultures and historical event, or removing articles that expose corruption, as soon as people no longer have access to all the information they are unable to make informed decisions. They are unable to orientate themselves and decide what to accept, who to vote for or what to do with their lives. This comes down to a three tiered principle: Information. Perception. Behaviour. 

The information we have access to directly impacts our perception and our perception then dictates our behaviour. This means that by simply controlling the flow and access of information; leaders, companies and journalists are able to influence peoples behaviour. For example, if we are warned that an area of town is unsafe, we will most likely avoid it. The information is the warning. The perception is “unsafe”. The behaviour is avoidance. Whether the area of town is safe or not is irrelevant, the information we have access to has told us that it’s not. Whomever controls the information, controls the people.  

During the various tobacco booms, newspapers, magazines and television were all filled with catchy slogans and happy faces telling people that smoking wasn’t only okay, but healthy. When tobacco advertisements had pictures of men in lab coats with the accompanying tagline of “Just What The Doctor Ordered”, it doesn’t take much to understand how manipulative these campaigns were. Especially against the backdrop of thousands of doctors coming forward trying to warn the people about the negative impact smoking has on human health. But that didn’t matter, because we can see now that it wasn’t about public health, it was about the bottom line. Openly admitting that your product causes any kind of damage to the consumer is bad for business, so what do you do?  “20,679 Physicians say ‘Luckies’ are less irritating” - you spin the narrative. You manipulate interviews and data in ways that minimise negative press by directing public perception. When looking at the above slogan, people don’t necessarily register that physicians aren’t in fact endorsing “Luckies” tobacco, they’re merely stating that they’re “less irritating”. The connection that people do make, however, is that physicians are commenting favourably on “Luckies” tobacco. Every single one of those physicians could have said that smoking should be avoided, but that’s irrelevant because the company got them on record saying that “Luckies’” formula was less irritating in relation to competing brands. Tobacco companies began hiring full time lawyers whose sole responsibility was to ruthlessly counter any bad press, information or lawsuits. This resulted in many people being lead to believe that smoking was perfectly healthy and something they could even let their children participate in.

When we don’t have access to all the information, we can’t possibly be expected to make balanced decisions that consider all variables because we’re not aware of all the variables. This is currently happening all around us. The data and resources we need to have access to  in order to make informed decisions about what to do about our health is being censored. 

 Leaders have insisted that members of the general public don’t have the capacity to think for themselves. Leaders believe that they are in a position to make better decisions and feel that people should have decisions made for them. In the interest of “public health”, officials have restricted the free flow of information so as not to “endanger” the public by exposing them to information that the officials label as counterproductive. Leaders have decided that mass-vaccination is the best solution to combat the covid-19 pandemic. They have taken it upon themselves to silence any criticism of this solution so as not to hinder its roll-out. Anything they view as a challenge to their solution is immediately censored, distorted or outright removed, all in an attempt to “protect” the public from “misinformation”. But misinformation according to whom? What standard? Because the arguments against mass-vaccination aren’t about misinformation, they’re often a request for more information. More studies. More research. More transparency. More responsibility. More accountability. These sincere requests have all been denied and labeled as conspiracy, thus giving companies and communities the authority to de-platform anyone who questions the approved narrative. Case in point, upon hearing that in order to gain access to vaccines, pharmaceutical behemoth, Pfizer, was demanding that countries offer up their sovereign assets as collateral damage. This was to protect the company from any costs incurred by potential civil claims. Among the sovereign assets were federal bank reserves, embassy buildings and military bases. The company refused to provide their product unless countries agreed to these terms; ensuring that Pfizer was to be indemnified against lawsuits arising from damages or deaths. Countries that agreed to these terms were bound by non-disclosure agreements. The only way we have some insight into the demands that Pfizer has placed at the feet of countries, is because the countries that refused the proposal - Argentina, Brazil and South Africa - went public with the companies attempted ransom. The problem is that not many people are aware of this. The situation sounds so outrageous that many wouldn’t even believe it to be true. But the truth stands, in plain writing, at the end of a specific search. Never promoted, silenced when shared and fluffed off when queried 

It’s is all starting to sound eerily similar to the dystopian novels and films we all know and love. Where political parties use a crisis to authorise a regime of tyranny and classism by actioning censorship and propaganda, all under the mantra of “For Your Own Good”. It's difficult to trust the ideals and solutions that leaders are presenting to us now, when they have a history of ignoring all the values they claim to currently represent. What I find even more difficult to understand is that people will openly criticise the inefficacy of our government or the corruption within our leadership circles, yet choose not to apply that same logic to how the pandemic is being handled. They choose, instead, to throw blame at their fellow citizens. Fellow citizens who are at the mercy of all the same regulations and lockdowns that they are. One could suggest that this is an attempt to help them feel a sense of control in a time where so many decisions and opportunities have been confiscated from them. After all, it is said that we embody our oppressor before we forgive them. But what happens next?

We are told that in order to escape the pandemic, we can choose to do so. We simply have to choose to get vaccinated. Despite the evidence that proves the contrary, we are told that this is the best solution. If freedom is what we want, vaccination is what we must do to make that happen. Freedom. You are free to choose. Pfizer, Moderna, Astra-Zeneca,  J&J, Sputnik; the choice is yours. But what if what we want isn’t represented in the options handed to us. If our choice lies somewhere else, are we not free to pursue it? The answer is no. People have been convinced that just because they can “choose” between the options provided, they have “free choice”. These people would do well to remember that a rat in a maze is free to choose between turning left or turning right. But this does not mean that the rat is free. Does the rat have the choice to no longer be in the maze? Some would argue that it does; all the rat needs to do in order to leave the maze, is choose the correct path out of the maze. The rat is “free” to choose, but only free to the extent that its captors permit. True freedom wouldn’t even consider a maze given that being in the maze is a consequence of capture; the result of being caught.  The rat should be free to choose where it wants to go and what it wants to eat but its not. The rat isn’t free. The rat is owned. The rat is governed. 

I fully respect how radical this is all sounding. I feel I need to state, for the historical record, that I’m not calling for The People to overthrow the government in any dramatic capacity. Organisations and regulators are important. They ensure that people remain in-check. They prevent people within society from damaging society. They do this with respect to the values that their society collectively embodies. Freedom, protection and bodily autonomy; the very qualities inshrined in our constitution. The virtues that our leaders were elected to uphold. The leaders that The People elected to represent them. Yet some would argue that when close to 70% of South Africans didn’t vote in the recent 2021 elections, our leaders don’t have the consent of the majority to govern. The minority rule. Leadership structures no longer ensure representation of The People, they instead aim to represent the interests of the leaders themselves. The People feel they are participating in “democracy” by voting or protesting, campaigning and brainstorming, but at the end of the day we’re still at the mercy of what our leaders decide. Void of accountability and in the absence of empathy. 

So yes, within in confines of our diluted democracy, we have freedom. We are free to choose. In our beautiful maze we can choose to move left or right. And in the context of leadership, we can choose to either get stabbed or shot.