When an acquaintance was appointed to a “juicy” high government position, naturally – as is the decorum and expected in such cases when one is raised high up at the “eating” (that’s the mindset) high table – she thanked the powers that be, that is, the Government Appointing Authority, for giving her what she carefully framed and phrased as the “opportunity” to “serve”.
Anecdote: having been given the “opportunity” to “serve”, that’s, the country, is the claim or rather sweet lie, made by everyone in such instances. So, she’s not the only one, it’s a common and seemingly instinctive reaction, like a quick fart as a result of a sudden jolt on a full belly.
But the crux, quite frankly hypocrisy, of this pathetic common claim she – out of and as expected formality, simply repeated verbatim – was the fact that, having known her before and what she did, she was apolitical.
She had absolutely nothing to do with “serving” the country in any capacity nor interest in the country, be it social or civic engagements.
She always kept herself busy and away from anything that involved and/or had to do with the country – the government of which she was joining as and in the rare capacity of a high ranking official.
Whenever she engaged her compatriots socially in the land so far away, commonly referred to in political and technical parlance as the “diaspora” – where she fancied and passed herself off as an “entrepreneur”, a dubious claim in itself, but nonetheless was poached for the high government position – it was always a brief interaction, no more than to say hello, “Chers amis [et] compatriotes” and off she disappeared to yonder, until chance dictated.
To see or meet her after that brief interaction, would only be a rare and chance encounter, in and of itself, something that would make her seem to have and radiate with this aura of a celebrity of sorts, that would, somehow, make one feel privileged to see and meet her once again.
There was always never anything mentioned about the country, let alone the indication or the slightest interest in “serving” it, mentioned.
As a matter of fact, she made it quite clear, outwardly in attitude, that she would not and wasn’t prepared to entertain any talk/conversation remotely about or connected to the country and its government to which she would later be raised high up at its “eating” table.
But, firstly, how she was considered for appointment to a “juicy” high government position alone, is in itself, something of a mystery that merits its own story.
Secondly, how and where she plucked the courage – the sheer shamelessness with all those press cameras flashing at her, in her face, giving her all the limelight she could only have dreamt of until that moment – to make that pronouncement, is something truly to behold.
It made me reflect deeply and ask, what I believe are pertinent questions:
- Why did she have to wait to be given the “opportunity” to “serve” the country?
- Why do many other [such] people [have] to wait to be given the “opportunity” to “serve” the country?
- Does “serving” the country require one to be in (occupy) a government position, without which, it is impossible for such people to serve?
- Didn’t she have the opportunity before to serve the country in various other ways and capacities than wait to be given the “opportunity” to “serve” as an appointed government official?
- Likewise, don’t many others like her who, upon their appointments to government positions, then loudly and shamelessly make such false and empty public declarations, have the opportunity to serve the country in various other ways and capacities than in the capacity of appointed government officials?
- What happens or would happen to these people if and when such “opportunity to “serve” is not available or not given to them? Do or would they choose to fold their arms and simply be passive?
- What do these people mean by “serving” the country anyway? What’s “serving” the country?
- Does that mean that those who aren’t in government or high government positions aren’t “serving” and/or therefore, can’t “serve” the country?
- Who is said to “serve” and not “serve” the country?
- What criteria is applied in determining who does and doesn’t “serve” the country?
However, and not surprising at all, this hollow and opportunistic “patriotism” comes out naked when these people are suddenly removed from their ‘juicy’ high government positions and effectively kicked off/away from the government “eating” high table.
Consequently, they are reduced to scurrying for crumbs falling off from the same government “eating” high table they once occupied – which is similar in function to a revolving door, always has one or two sent off and one or two welcomed on – but is now occupied by other similarly opportunistic people, shamelessly pretending to be more patriotic and “serving” the country than the lot before them.
But in all this pretentiousness, flaunted false patriotism, there’s one common characteristic, true to human nature, and that is that people, without the slightest shadow of a doubt, and in reference to the mindset of the “eating” high table – are enthusiastically patriotic to their stomachs.