In a small village, two neighbors brought a disagreement to the attention of a respected elder. Upon hearing the differing accounts from each man, the elder initially sided with both, stating, “You are right,” to each. When the second man’s wife pointed out the contradiction, the elder acknowledged her perspective as well, saying, “You are right too.” While this approach provided validation to all parties involved, it failed to deliver true justice. This scenario illustrates the allure of neutrality, as it can help maintain harmony, control emotions, and position a mediator favorably in conflicting situations. However, when neutrality leads to the equal treatment of truth and falsehood, it ceases to be a virtue and becomes a means of evading uncomfortable truths.
Psychologist Dan Gilbert from Harvard University argues that flawed decision-making often stems from the illusion of objectivity in our judgments. Our minds assess facts, risks, and rewards through subjective filters shaped by past experiences, memories, and expectations. Achieving true neutrality is challenging not because everyone is deceitful, but rather because individuals perceive the same situation through unique perspectives. While it’s easy to identify bias in others, we often fail to recognize our own assumptions, mistakenly viewing them as common sense. The most insidious bias is the belief that we are entirely impartial.
In a place like Bangladesh, neutrality poses an additional dilemma: individuals who remain neutral may find themselves isolated. In a society where allegiance is highly valued, those who do not align with a particular group are often viewed with suspicion. Neutrality is tolerated only as long as it does not interfere with reciprocal favors. A columnist might write fearlessly about various entities such as CEOs, employees, industries, regulators, and public policies. However, once the critique hits close to home, disagreements can quickly turn into personal vendettas, leading to social repercussions such as ostracization and digital disconnection.
This phenomenon extends to the political and administrative spheres, where bureaucrats’ affiliations can significantly impact their careers. Competent officers without visible loyalties may find themselves at a disadvantage compared to less competent colleagues with influential backers. Research indicates that neutrality can incur social costs, with individuals often facing backlash for not taking a side during conflicts. Neutrality is frequently perceived as a lack of loyalty rather than fairness, resulting in strained relationships and missed opportunities.
Despite the potential drawbacks, maintaining neutrality can be a mark of integrity. While it may come at a personal cost, staying impartial ensures independent judgment and credibility. By adhering to principles of evidence, law, fairness, transparency, and public interest, a neutral individual can navigate contentious situations with dignity. It is crucial to remain unbiased between individuals but resolute in distinguishing between right and wrong. Consistency in upholding ethical standards, even in the face of disapproval, is essential for preserving integrity and avoiding compromising one’s values for popularity or convenience.
The village elder’s ability to please everyone stemmed from a lack of firm principles. However, in a broader societal context, such neutrality is unsustainable. When institutions falter and corruption thrives, remaining silent or neutral is not a sign of integrity but rather acquiescence without bravery. While a neutral stance may lead to personal sacrifices, a nation loses its moral compass when individuals are unwilling to stand up against injustice and corruption.
The writer is the founder of BuildCon Consultancies Ltd and BuildNation Ltd.