The common good versus narrow interests

The common good versus narrow interests

I am increasingly getting accustomed to all kinds of contradiction wherever I set my foot on, and my mind is also taking part in this process.

To my best knowledge, it was the case of two categories of people who utterly differ from each other, either in terms of principles or the way they perform their shares of duties. This is going to be summed up by portraying two different characters of two men. Both of them reflect the image of a society as a whole, though one of whom ranks for a mere, give or take, 2% of the majority, a point of view.

In a certain place they were both working. The place brought them together and both were supposedly doing the same work. One of them was known as a motormouth with his endless speeches through which backing morals and principles, and how these values constitute the cornerstone of the success of any organisation or society. The man had the necessary skills to attract his co-workers and make them believe every single word he uttered. What’s more, he used to show up in social events to offer his assistance or sympathy if anybody was going through hard times. But behind these moves lay a malignant intention.

Back to the working place, he was the one who skipped responsibility and never performed his share of duties. A loafer who was frequently looking for somebody to fill in for him, and he was always looking for the easiest ways to get benefits. To guarantee and gain an advantage he, and all people of his kind, resorted to toadyism and licking boots without valuing how important one should shield his dignity from any kind of mistreatment or humiliation. It didn’t matter after all, since morals had no room in his priorities.

In contrast to the first character, there was that man who used to work without going public.

He would work hard and perform his work effectively and efficiently. He was the man behind the success of the place and its appalling reputation. But you would never see him in public because he was not the one who would scan the situation for his own interests, nor did he wish to live at the expense of others. He was lovable among some of the staff thanks to his innovative ideas, being simple, and first and foremost for his honesty and sense of altruism.

You would never find him praising those in the high-up, instead he remained stern when it came to what was right or wrong, opening room for a clash of personalities, and this what made him a lot of enemies and vultures. However, he was the panacea each time a crisis emerged, yet he got nothing in return but enmity. Ultimately, not feeling the sense of belonging within this unhealthy atmosphere led him to present his resignation and even leave the country.

The new environment was healthy and welcoming, and an avenue for growing more and more successful presented itself; an opportunity he did seize and exploit very well.

By Ismail KAMAL