Tainted wit and piety?

Throughout the ages, sages, empathetic individuals and characters who emerged in different times and advocated for positive change have often been idolised and held in high esteem for their selflessness, implied openness to scrutiny, and impact on people's lives.

The same holds, though with frequent letdowns, disillusionments and betrayals in our part of the world today. This is manifested in the sea of characters around us, seemingly echoing and reincarnating Moses, Mandela, Mother Teresa, Nietzsche, Orwell, Galileo, as well as Winfrey, Socrates, Wollstonecraft, Luxemburg, Locke, Hammurabi, Aurelius, Lincoln, Marshall, Mill, Burke, Erasmus, Voltaire, Spartacus, Bismarck, Bingen, Assisi, Avicenna, Cohen and others.

Yet, as they multiply, so does the gravity of the issues they seemingly oppose — a stark paradox that raises questions: Why did relatively few authorities on intellect and humanism thrive during periods constrained by classicism and obscurantism? Why do intellectual pursuits and advocacy often seem at odds with driving meaningful change in an era where gaining attention and public trust isn't that demanding?

First, most reformists of public causes were driven by their conviction and directly led through action, endured oppression, and ultimately weathered the storm afflicting people.

However, today's most ambitious tactfully rely on unquestionable people's support and acknowledgement, implying that they lack faith in and reluctantly practise the ideals and change they tend to seek.

When they succeed in earning public trust, they collude with and complement the oppressive status quo, advance their vested interests, and ultimately act as a check against popular resistance by repeatedly offering the same pledge veneered in different colours.

Second, most influential intellectuals and empaths were shaped by societal aggression in the past. They either had genuine empathy for the aggrieved or had personally experienced suffering, or both, and had confronted the aggression head-on.

Fueled by personal conviction, they worked tirelessly, leaving an enduring legacy that outlasted them. Many champions of various causes are often incidental, inherited or circumstantial, rising to fill the void left by their predecessors' repeated betrayals. Consequently, they pursue personal interests, grow affluent, empower aggressors, and exacerbate the issues they claim to oppose.

Third, due to widespread ignorance in the past, public trust in movements and their advocates often stemmed from the latter's integrity, selflessness and practical actions. However, despite relative awareness today, most trust in our champions stems from past betrayals, exhaustion from systemic aggression, or both.

Moreover, our champions' exploitation of our ignorance, grievances and manipulative schemes makes us prone to repeatedly entrusting them — only to discover trust betrayed for personal gain.

Fourth, most reformers, back in the day, were from among the commoners and aggrieved. They, instead of colluding with the oppressors, struggled for collective welfare. However, most of our champions hail from the socio-economic strata lying at the core of the systematic oppression.

Therefore, despite their claims of advocating for the marginalised, they secretly work to reinforce the status quo. Don't they? Can one seriously believe that a so-called messiah, living in luxury, would genuinely advocate for equality, sacrificing their wealth and privileged lifestyle?

Fifth, unlike in the past, most movements today are divergent and superficial, each promising a different approach to tackling issues in ways that align with their vested interests and ideological leanings. In this manner, public attention is fragmented, leading people to cling to multiple false hopes.

None of these ultimately arrest, let alone resolve, the actual issues. Thus, most media figures, writers, politicians, human rights activists, liberals, feminists, clergy, pirs and jurists effectively betray the cause, much like Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus.

Last but not least, the challenges faced by ordinary people become a lucrative opportunity for the chameleonic champions of the public cause, serving as a stepping stone to joining Orwell's "more equal" class.