Tyranny of small decisions should not prevent us from achieving our visions

In the mid-1960s, American economist Alfred E. Kahn detailed a theory called “the tyranny of small decisions”.

The theory describes a situation in which many small decisions, though unique and individual in their own right, cumulatively lead to an outcome that is greater than each of the parts.

The outcome is negative and undesirable because each of the insignificant decisions - though rational - fails to take into account larger perspectives, and the impact they may have on further decision making in the future.

As with many economic theories, the tyranny of small decisions extends to commentaries on politics, the environment and health.

A classic example was set forth by Garrett Hardin a few years later. Several different herders, each with their own herd, share one plot of land. They are, each, acting in their own self- interest to feed the cows.

The problem is that by failing to pull together and get organised, they each catapult the degradation of the shared natural resource.

None of them intended to deplete the supply, but that was the outcome - despite everyone’s interest in keeping the herding ground fertile for years to come.

If a person makes the small decision to eat junk food several times a week, they probably won’t feel the immediate health impact after each unhealthy meal.

But after a few months of that, the cumulative effects will be obvious.

Does this have any relevance to the Kenyan political landscape today? Certainly!

We have one Kenya, one landmass to share, one nation of people. Though we are diverse in language and religion, we share a common history and take part in a unifying democratic process.

But when we let myopic, selfish choices guide our decision making process, we fail to consider the long-term effects.

We cannot allow ourselves to be tyrannised by something that serves our own interests when it is not what is best for the larger community.

Many economists have discussed the idea that there is only so much a wealthy individual can enjoy when the rest of his country is not doing so well. His quality of life will be better if everyone’s quality of life reaches high standards.

There is room in Kenya for the individual to thrive and blossom, but his successes will be measurably better if those surrounding the individual are also doing well.

Did President Uhuru Kenyatta have this theory in mind when he decided to extend his hand to Opposition leader Raila Odinga? It seems so.

In March 2018, what were his options? He could continue his tenure as Kenya’s democratically elected leader but without the support of the minority that did not vote for him. Or, he could make decisions that have major impact in the future.

He could shake hands with the leader of the opposition, an insignificant gesture in and of itself, but one of great importance when considering the history between them and what they represent.

For Kenyan politicians, there only exists one herding ground. If the officials we choose by ballot do not decide how best to take advantage of and preserve that herding ground together, then it will not feed us for long. The historic rivalry between Uhuru and Raila can be traced back to their fathers. But they area of a different generation, representing different principles and politics.

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche discussed the importance of shaping a new future while still remaining rooted in the past. We cannot be shackled to history, but we certainly can learn from it. 

In his working relationship with the Orange Democratic Party leader, President Kenyatta lets history guide his decision-making process for even the smallest choices, because they can have a big impact.

By regularly consulting with the leader of the opposition, he is ensuring that Kenyan voices nationwide are heard.

A true leader knows that he is only as strong as his weakest link. If groups of Kenyans do not feel empowered because they lack representation, then the President himself cannot be empowered.

This recognition has allowed us to unshackle ourselves from history, but to simultaneously use it to shape our future.