Blog

The Trilemma fihavanana, liberté et équité by Hôtel★★★ Restaurant gourmand Coco Lodge Majunga.

The idea of a society where freedom reigns, where equity would dominate, and where would develop the fihavanana is attractive.
But make a such Trinity could well be impossible according to Soamiely Andriamananjara.

As a company, We should regularly take step back and reflect on the soatoavina (values) that we would like to meet. We must ask ourselves what kind of society we want to live. To develop such a vision induces a much needed understanding of the objective. Each d”between us, with his own combinations of values and preferences, would certainly be a different opinion. However, I would like to say that most of us would like to live in a society characterized by [a] how Fihavanana works, [b] rariny sy hitsiny (equity) and [c] ariunaa sy fahalalahana (freedom). I could be completely wrong, but have the indulgence of listen to me.

[a] Most of us would probably like to live in a society which adapts to our Malagasy identity and which strongly enhances the spirit of fihavanana. A society in which, whether by solidarity, by compassion or just by generosity of spirit, people are willing to help each other. A company that focuses on the community and where, Ideally, person would be left for account.

[b] Most of us would probably like to have a fair society. A just society where anyone who works hard can expect to reap the rewards of his work. Where a similar level of work provides similar gains. Where everyone has equal opportunities for upward mobility, from the moment that he is willing to put the effort.

[c] Most of us would probably like a free society, in which each individual has the right to choose what he made of his life. A society where everyone can choose how he earns his living ; to what extent he wants to make a contribution to society ; and how it will use or dispose of its income or wealth, choose to keep or share (and to share).

It all seems very well. The vision of a society where individual freedom, where equity is needed and where prosperous the fihavanana is certainly attractive. It also appears to be at hand. At least, at first sight. Now, If I told you that it is quite difficult (If not impossible) at the same time have these three ideals [a and b and c] ? In fact, I would say to have two, We should renounce the third. Let me introduce you to three simple logical proposals to support my arguments against this problematic Trinity. I could be completely wrong, but there still, Please listen to me.

[If a and b, so no c]. At the outset, in a society where fairness and how Fihavanana works are highly regarded, individual liberty will be somewhat limited. Solidarity and justice generate a strong boost of social equity (in terms of wealth, of income or access to opportunities). This can affect behaviour. This could restrict the freedom of the wealthiest members of society to accumulate (or to share) their fortune, with such pressures on them to share more than they would want. It could also discourage the pursuit of individual earnings, because they could not be well seen by the Malagasy society. Directly or indirectly, freedom would be somewhat limited.

[If c and b, then not has]. Secondly, It is difficult in a free and just society to support how Fihavanana works and be really compassionate, in particular with regard to the poorest. In a just society, people who work hard (and who are qualified) are able to achieve success and to be ahead of others. In a free society, These individuals who succeed decide only what they make of their earnings. Those who have the entrepreneurial may choose to reinvest their products in their own activities. Rich parents may prefer to leave most of their heritage to their children. The most generous souls may decide to support someone, but the recipient will be a loved. In all these cases, the scope of the fihavanana is quite limited. And someone will find themselves distanced.

[If a and c, then non-b]. Thirdly, fairness is difficult to achieve when the fihavanana and freedom are strong. In a society caring or attentive to all, the most prosperous and fortunate members feel a social obligation to help someone else. However, in a society where freedom prevails, such compassion can be targeted to a relatively small circle. Indeed, those who succeed are more likely to help their children, their close relatives or their friends. These privileged few will have an unfair advantage over the rest of society in terms of access to both resources and opportunities. This would be unfair.

[Non (a and b and c)]. This is quite confusing and confused. We could find ourselves in an interesting Trilemma – a situation where we are three attractive ideals (but apparently incompatible) – rariny sy hitsiny, ariunaa and fihavanana – but where we have only two (rather than three) à un moment donné [(a and b) or (c and b) or (a and c)]. Assuming that my logic is correct and that we need to choose two (on three) These ideals, which would you choose ? Would what ideal you be willing to sacrifice ? This is a very difficult Trilemma, can't find you not ?

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure to have fully mastered the logic of this Trilemma. But, at least, He got me scratching my head and made me curious to learn more about our different soatoavina and ideals and how they interact with each other. This type of reflection and conversation can help us to better formulate a clear and coherent vision on the type of society where we live. And we currently have great need of this vision to deliver us from this wandering aimlessly and without a soul – very fanahy Ana velona.

by Hôtel★★★ Restaurant gourmand Coco Lodge Majunga.