Private truths, public lies

“Private Truths, Public Lies” (1995) is an influential book written by Timur Kuran, an economist. In his analysis, Kuran proposed the idea of preference falsification.

What is preference falsification?

In his book, Kuran explained the idea with a thought-provoking illustration. He described the situation of a man at his employer’s dinner party.

Despite the fact that the man did not enjoy the meal served, the man did not tell the truth.

Instead, the man chose to lie and he gave compliments to his employer on how much he “enjoyed” the night.

Why did the man lie? The man lied due to societal pressure and personal fears.

Now, does it sound familiar to you? Every now and then, all of us experience societal pressure and personal fears.

Basically, preference falsification indicates the situation where people keep silent about dissatisfaction and opposition. People hide their discontent about a policy or even the political regime on which it rests.

Kuran’s idea laid the foundation of why repressive regimes could actually transformed to become more open and democratic. It also answered questions such as why unanticipated revolutions could take place.

I am particularly attracted to this idea because it reflects the puzzling social phenomena that we are currently facing.

For example, the alarming number of arrests under the Sedition Act in recent months involving activists, politicians and media members.

As highlighted by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) in their statement, “The Commission is also appalled at the manner in which these arrests have been made, which appears to be tantamount to harassment and intimidation by the authorities and in breach of the rule of law.”

What puzzles me is, how could some “justify” these arrests that are blatantly a breach of the rule of law?

This is exactly how the idea of preference falsification fits into our situation.

I quote, “Individuals who become increasingly sympathetic to political change do not necessarily publicise their evolving dispositions.

“If the government enjoys widespread support and is thus very powerful, such individuals remain outwardly loyal to the status quo.

“In the process, they keep the government, outside observers, opposition leaders, and even one another in the dark as to the regime’s vulnerability.

“They conceal the developing latent bandwagon that might topple the regime. They disguise the fact that the government’s public support would collapse precipitously if there were even a slight growth in opposition.

“Sooner of later, an intrinsically minor event brings few individuals to their boiling points. They take to the streets, unleashing the long-latent bandwagon.

“The opposition darts to power. These dynamics are captured beautifully by the old Chinese saying, a single spark can start a prairie fire.”

It shows that, there are always people simmering behind public choices, which they, in fact disagree.

Hence, we have to be mindful that if we continue to express support for a political regime that we do not actually favour, and we merely doing it because of societal pressure and personal fears, we are, in fact, increasing the likelihood of that regime’s survival. – April 6, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.