Sixty years ago, Edward Banfield published a book which sheds some light on politics, society and the dynamic between the political class and citizens in Mediterranean and Levantine societies.

The Moral Basis of a Backward Society was the product of a field study in the town of ‘Montegrano’ (alias for Chiaromonte) in rural Calabria. The town’s economy is primarily agricultural, and its people were plagued by relative poverty and the lack of educational opportunities. Despite the great leaps forward in education and the economy, Banfield’s observations are still relevant and challenging.

Banfield tries to identify those factors which prevent collective action aimed towards the common good in a culture which is not radically different from that of the rest of Western Europe. This is an important question to answer since successful self-government depends on engaging the efforts of various individuals for matters of public concern.

In Montegrano, the politician is a foreboding figure: “Those he liked he would raise to the stars and those he did not like he would crush.” His relationship with the population depended on whether or not they received favours: “If they received favours, they are followers. Those who received neither good nor evil from him repeat what they hear.”

Despite the widespread poverty, many use and abuse their situation to suit their own needs. Not taking part in community projects is excused because the peasant has to work his field. However, “his field is a tiny patch of wheat on which, except for three weeks a year, he can do almost nothing”. Some argued that the lack of educational opportunities led to political incompetence. However, Banfield notes that “most of the opinions were reasonable”.

Many believe that they will never get anywhere in life regardless of how hard they work. This is particularly galling in a society where “getting ahead” and impressing others is central to a person’s existence. He describes the prevailing culture as “amoral familism”, where individuals maximise the material, short-run advantage of the nuclear family while assuming that all others will do likewise:

“In a society of amoral familists, no one will further the interest of the group or community except as it is to his private advantage to do so. In other words, the hope of material gain in the short-run will be the only motive for concern with public affairs.”

In many of her writings, Daphne Caruana Galizia wrote on how several segments of Maltese society – regardless of party affiliation or social class – can be classified as amoral familists.

In the pursuit of the short-term material self-interest, many often jeopardise long-term goals

She was right, and this phenomenon is worth understanding.

In a society where amoral familism dominates, few people would be interested in taking part in public affairs. Indeed, “for a private citizen to take a serious interest in a public problem will be regarded as abnormal or even improper”. The principle of independent checks and balances is alien since checking on public officials is perceived to be the business of other officials.

The widespread perception of public life is skewed to the point where it almost becomes a parody. Those who have little or no power will favour a political arrangement where law and order are enforced with a firm hand. Persons or institutions who claim to be inspired by a desire to strengthen the common good (rather than private self-interest) are regarded as frauds.

The ballot becomes a tool to strengthen short-term material interest. The voter may have views on what would benefit the common good, but his voting intentions will not change “if the family’s short-run, material advantage is in any way involved”.

Some may even choose to vote against measures which will help others in the community because “even though his position is unchanged in absolute terms, he considers himself worse off if his neighbours’ position changes for the better”.

Little confidence is placed in political parties or governing institutions. Voters assume that any group in a position of power is self-serving and corrupt and that public officials are enriching themselves at their expense. As a result, “the self-serving voter will use his ballot to pay the incumbents, not for benefits, but for injuries, i.e. he will use it to administer punishment”.

This has dangerous implications for political life: “A regime is worthy of respect if it has plenty of power and uses it rigorously to enforce obedience and to maintain law and order.” Many believe that good governance is only “obtained by luck” rather than through “effort, enterprise and sacrifice”.

Since the notions of what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ depend on the whims of those who are in power, “no general principles can be internalised as conscience”. With no internalised principles, individuals will depend on the “promise of rewards and the threat of punishment” to guide their behaviour.

This realistic assessment is chilling. Reading Banfield’s work should not be seen as an act of self-flagellation; rather, it is a challenge for us to recognise our collective shortcomings and to work towards a different political culture.

Banfield does provide some suggestions to modify this general world view in order to lead to economic and political progress.

Firstly, he suggests that material self-interest should be more broadly defined to include the broader self-interest. He cites the example of an individual who might forego some immediate benefits to develop a reputation for fair dealing. This reputation will undoubtedly maximise his self-interest in the long-run.

Secondly, he cites the importance of having persons who have the moral capacity to act as leaders. Such individuals need not act altruistically, however, regardless of whether they are paid or not, “they must be able to act responsibly in organisational roles and to create and inspire morale in the organisation”.

Finally, voters and officials must resist the temptation to destroy or undermine institutions “out of spite or envy”.

Banfield’s work remains relevant because it points to a sad, even tragic, reality: that in the pursuit of the short-term material self-interest, many often jeopardise long-term goals.

André DeBattista is an independent researcher in politics and international relations.

andre.deb@gmail.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.