The buildup to the Nigerian 2023 elections has been interesting to watch. It has provided an interesting glimpse into questions and observations of people at different levels.
I’ve been thinking: would people make better choices if they were empowered? Are poor choices subjective to circumstances or are they altogether independent of circumstances?
Would poor people make better choices if they were better off, or are their choices simply products of who they are —people defined by a set of independent variables (values, beliefs, culture etc)— different from status and station?
Would corrupt actors be able to exert undue influence on the masses if the masses were better-placed? Wouldn’t the subject simply change to a matter of better inducements to capture cooperation?
Is corruption defined by scale or limited by scale? Would people make better choices if they had the means to? Are ideals and values insufficient in a war against inducements? Are people loyal to their values or needs?
If a change in status is expected to be useful in encouraging people to make correct choices, doesn’t this mean that people are loyal to their needs? If there is anything we know about needs, they never quite go away.
A poor person who sells their vote for a plate of food because hunger; if empowered with enough food to never worry about hunger, wouldn’t the next selling point be his next need? More money? Juicier offers? Do we not commonly say that *everyone has a price*?
So why pretend that a person whose circumstances will dictate their decisions will do better under better circumstances?
Maybe everyone really does have a price after all.
