New Zealand: An Unbelievable Real Café Story! (I)

by Laura Lai/ Comment

I have read an article on Internet from ‘The Guardian’ on the fact that New Zealand’s Prime-Minister (Jacinda Ardern) was turned away from a café in New Zealand’s capital (Wellington) on coronovirus capacity. I almost got shocked (in a positive sense), when reading this article, but not because Ardern was turned away from a café on a capacity her Cabinet decided, but because I agree with all the characters in this café story including the person who wrote the article (Mattha Busby). I basically cannot disagree with any of them, although I am writing a comment.

Being used with media reports on national MPs enjoying all sorts of privileges, when the country is one of the poorest in Europe; being used with supra-national MEPs and civil servants having all kinds of substantial allowances for whatever purposes that definitely have cheaper solutions, I always looked with admiration to the Scandinavian countries and the way they cherish the public money.

The Scandinavian citizens have lots of other interesting things to do than to ‘supervise’ what those elected by them or what their civil servants working for them do with the public money, but somehow the Scandinavian politicians and civil servants have the conscience of a best use of the public money for the common good. Ministers from Scandinavia fly economy class – how’s that?! They don’t have any pride to allow themselves the arrogance to travel business class when a public servant?! Apparently, no. Furthermore, a few months ago the Queen and the King of Sweden themselves made an official visit to India and they travelled with other people rather than on some sort of ‘privileged bubble’, and guess what? They had a lovely flight.

I got used with the idea that this is typical for Scandinavia, and that there is little interest in adopting this attitude, but I am glad that the others’ way of ‘cherishing’ the public money does not influence the Scandinavian mentality either. These are two mentalities expressed in two types of behaviors running in parallel and gathering each its own admirers and followers.

            I am on the Scandinavian side, because that is the way things make sense to me and because that is the way I would do things, too. A civil servant is at the service of the citizens to take the right decisions for the common good (such as creating jobs, for example). I understand the pride of some politicians, though: the one who got elected has the most of the citizens who put the trust in them, which probably give a sense of pride, but it does not justify different arrogances, like travelling business class when on public duty and when there are plenty of public needs to find a solution to. That is why I think the Scandinavians got it right. For the way the others have got it, I am sure that there is a logical explanation, but one to which I do not subscribe, such as the view of J.-J. Rousseau.

            This French philosopher argued on the ‘Discourse on the Origin of the Inequality among People’ that there are two types of inequalities. On the one side, the ‘natural or physical’ inequality, meaning that there are some natural elements that makes us unequal, such as age, health, physical condition and a good/bad heart (with the sense of being good/bad people). On the other hand, there are the ‘moral or political’ inequalities based on an unwritten convention, by which he meant that we all consent that some of us to be more privileged than us in terms of power, wealth and honor.

            I agree with the former and I disagree with the latter. I find it hard to believe that voters consent that the elected ones or the civil servants – at the citizens’ service – to enjoy public money to make wealth, to enjoy greater honor, but the one of winning over the political adversaries with better ideas at the open ballot box contest. In terms of power, indeed, the citizens invest in some citizens the trust to take decisions for the common good in a system of balance and powers that does not make anybody omnipotent.

The café story that happened in Wellington unfolds as follows: On Saturday, May 16^th 2020, Jacinda Ardern and her partner (Clarke Grayford) went to a café for a brunch. When they got there the café was already full because of the social distancing rules and they had to leave. Fifteen minutes later, when a free table was available, the same manager run after them down the street, and guess what? They returned! The Prime-Minister herself and her partner returned! No offence, no arrogance, no nothing! Most probably, just hungry. (to be continued below)