The Paternity of Prosperity: A Socratic Inquiry into Economic Miracles
Socratic Dialogue
By Plutonix
In the bustling Agora of ancient Athens, far removed from modern political squabbles yet surprisingly relevant, Socrates – the venerable philosopher, perpetually questioning, with a twinkle in his eye – once again corners the pragmatic businessman Cephalus – a successful Athenian businessman, fond of comfort, practicality, and the occasional well-aged amphora of wine. Their seemingly casual encounter quickly spirals into a profound philosophical inquiry. Sparked by a contemporary political declaration from a distant land of “economic miracles,” Socrates challenges the very notion of singular “fatherhood” for complex societal achievements, dissecting the interplay of vision, sustenance, and political rhetoric in the tapestry of prosperity.
Socrates: Ah, Cephalus! My dear friend, you glide through the Agora, no doubt on your way to some magnificent transaction or perhaps to count your many olives.
Cephalus: (Sighing dramatically, a practised art) Socrates, must you always appear just as I contemplate a moment of productive solitude? My olives, as you so delicately put it, do not count themselves. What pressing philosophical quandary plagues you today that requires my humble, practical mind? Is it the nature of the Good, or merely a quantifiable measure of virtue?
Socrates: Oh, something far more intriguing, Cephalus, and surprisingly… paternal. I was recently privy to a most peculiar pronouncement, made in a far-off land of sugar cane and sapphire seas, regarding an “economic miracle.”
Cephalus: (Raising an eyebrow) An economic miracle, you say? Ah, then it must involve a great deal of commerce, industriousness, and undoubtedly, shrewd investment. I am listening, old friend. This sounds promising, unlike your usual forays into the murky depths of abstract concepts.
Socrates: Indeed. The tale comes from a leader named Ramgoolam, who, in a public forum, declared another man, Bérenger, to be the “true father of the economic miracle” in their nation, citing certain “difficult decisions” made long ago.
Cephalus: (Nodding sagely) “Difficult decisions,” you say? Splendid! That’s the mark of a true leader, Socrates. Taking the hard road. Visionary! No doubt Bérenger laid the groundwork, planted the seeds, and others, later, merely reaped the harvest. A commendable recognition, I must say. Shows a certain humility in Ramgoolam, does it not?
Socrates: Humility, perhaps. Or… something else. For Bérenger, it is said, conceded that a later group, the MSM, “reaped the fruits of his efforts.” So, we have a father, and then, apparently, a group of fruit-harvesters.
Cephalus: (Chuckling) Well, that’s just politics, Socrates! One man builds the vineyard, another drinks the wine. It’s the way of the world. What’s the philosophical knot here? Are you suddenly questioning the very concept of harvesting?
Socrates: Not the act of harvesting, my dear Cephalus, but the paternity of the prosperity. Can an “economic miracle” truly have a single father? And what constitutes this fatherhood? Is it the one who plants the seed, or the one who diligently waters it for decades, or the one who finally brings the plump grapes to the market?
Cephalus: (Waving a dismissive hand) Oh, come now, Socrates. In business, it’s quite clear. The one with the initial capital, the brilliant idea, the strategic vision – that’s the father of the enterprise. The others are merely employees, managers, or, if they’re lucky, inheritors. It’s a matter of cause and effect! Bérenger made the “difficult decisions,” therefore, the miracle is his offspring. Q.E.D. Case closed.
Socrates: Q.E.D., you say? How delightfully definitive. But tell me, Cephalus, if a man plants a fig tree, and then immediately leaves the city forever, never tending to it, and another man comes along, waters it, prunes it, protects it from pests for forty years, and finally reaps a bountiful harvest, who is the “father” of those figs? The planter, or the tender?
Cephalus: (Frowning, rubbing his chin) Hmm. A trickier fig than most, Socrates. One could say the planter is the originator, but the tender is certainly the sustainer. Without the planter, no fig. Without the tender, no harvest. Perhaps they are… co-parents? A joint venture in fig-fatherhood.
Socrates: “Co-parents”! An interesting biological concept for an economic miracle. So, if an economic miracle is like a strong, healthy fig tree, nurtured over decades, can we truly attribute its robust fruit to a single decision made in a single year, however “difficult” it might have been? Does a single difficult decision automatically guarantee a flourishing economy, irrespective of all subsequent decisions, global winds, and the general diligence of the populace?
Cephalus: (Shifting uncomfortably) Well, of course not, Socrates. The market is a fickle beast. One must adapt, innovate, remain competitive. Even the most brilliant initial strategy can be undone by poor execution or unforeseen circumstances. So, yes, the sustenance is crucial. But the initial spark, the foundational difficult decision – that’s still paramount, wouldn’t you agree? A house needs an architect before it needs carpenters.
Socrates: Indeed, an architect is vital for a house. But if the architect draws magnificent plans, and then a series of incompetent builders, corrupt material suppliers, and indifferent occupants follow, will the house truly be “magnificent” when completed, and shall we still praise the architect without reservation? Or if the house stands for fifty years, and then an earthquake, and then a meticulous restoration occurs, who is credited with its current resilience? The original architect, the restorers, or perhaps even the earthquake for providing the ultimate test?
Cephalus: (Spluttering slightly into his beard) An earthquake, Socrates? Now you’re just being facetious! One credits the builders, and the current occupants for maintaining it! The architect, perhaps, gets credit for the design, but the survival is a different matter.
Socrates: Precisely! So, when a politician, in a public speech, declares another to be the “true father” of a long-term economic flourishing, are they acting as dispassionate historians, meticulously tracing cause and effect over decades, accounting for every tremor and every careful repair? Or are their pronouncements perhaps… influenced by the prevailing winds of the political Agora?
Cephalus: (Clearing his throat) Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. Yes, Socrates, one must always view political pronouncements with a healthy dose of scepticism. They are, shall we say, strategic utterances. To praise an ally, perhaps to mend fences, or even to subtly rewrite history to suit a current narrative. My cousin, who dabbles in public speaking, once told me that a good speech is never about truth, but about persuasion.
Socrates: “Persuasion,” you say? So, the paternity of an economic miracle can be, shall we say, persuaded into existence for political gain? As if a father could be declared by popular vote, rather than by nature?
Cephalus: (Waving his hands in exasperation) Look, Socrates, it’s simply about giving credit where credit is convenient. In the heat of debate, leaders make pronouncements. It reinforces alliances, strengthens messages. It’s the grease that keeps the political cart moving.
Socrates: So, the “truth” of paternity, in this context, is less about an objective biological fact and more about a fluid, politically expedient narrative?
Cephalus: (Muttering) Well, when you put it like that, it sounds rather cynical. But yes, often. Who has the time, in the midst of running a nation, to conduct a rigorous historical inquiry into every economic boom? They need to make a point, and they make it.
Socrates: And who, then, should be the true adjudicators of such paternity? Should the task of definitively naming the “father” of an economic miracle, or any significant societal achievement, be left to the politicians themselves, engaged as they are in the immediate struggle for power and influence?
Cephalus: (Shuddering) Perish the thought! No, no. Not the politicians. They’re too busy, too… interested. One needs distance. A detached perspective.
Socrates: Like a historian, perhaps? One who waits for the dust to settle, for the passions to cool, for all the hidden scrolls to be declassified after, say, fifty years?
Cephalus: (Eyes widening) Fifty years! By the gods, Socrates, that’s an eternity! My business deals would be dust by then. Who would remember who did what?
Socrates: Ah, but that is precisely the point, is it not? The very passage of time allows for a broader perspective, unclouded by the emotions or the political agendas of the moment. It allows for access to varied sources – not just the public pronouncements, but the private memos, the dissenting opinions, the long-term data. It allows for a more objective assessment, insofar as objectivity is possible for mortals. And crucially, it allows us to see the long-term consequences of those initial “difficult decisions.” For a seed planted in 1982 might only truly bear its full, complex fruit many decades later, revealing unforeseen benefits or drawbacks.
Cephalus: (Pondering, then a slow nod) You have a point, old friend. It’s like judging a young wine. You can taste its potential, perhaps even its initial quality, but you can’t truly know its greatness, or its eventual sourness, until years have passed, until it has aged in the cellar and truly matured. And a politician, like a hasty sommelier, might declare a vintage magnificent before its time, for the sake of a quick sale.
Socrates: A delightful analogy, Cephalus! So, while politicians and citizens and journalists may comment on the wine in the bottle today, perhaps the definitive judgment on the true paternity of the vintage, and its ultimate quality, should be reserved for those with the patience, the tools, and the necessary distance: the historians. For they, unlike the politicians, are not trying to sell the wine; they are trying to understand its true origins and its long-term legacy.
Cephalus: (Smiling faintly) Perhaps, Socrates. Perhaps. Though I still prefer to trust my own palate on a good wine, regardless of what the ancient historians might one day say. Now, if you’ll excuse me, all this talk of paternity has made me rather thirsty. I believe there’s a particularly well-aged amphora with my name on it…
Socrates: (Chuckling, watching Cephalus depart) Indeed, my friend. And may its parentage be beyond all dispute. Though I suspect, in the grand scheme of things, even the finest wine is a product of many influences – the soil, the sun, the vine, the vintner, and perhaps, a few timely difficult decisions about fermentation. And to declare a single “father”… that would be a humorous simplification, would it not?
As Cephalus departs for his well-earned wine, the Socratic inquiry leaves us with a compelling thought: the “paternity” of economic prosperity is rarely, if ever, a straightforward matter of a single decision or individual. Instead, it’s a complex tapestry woven from initial vision, sustained effort, countless unseen contributions, and the unpredictable currents of time. Perhaps, as Socrates suggests, it is only with historical distance that we can truly discern the myriad influences shaping a nation’s fortune.
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 4 July 2025
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
