This column is part of a few which I have entitled " Oversimplifications".

The reason for this is that almost every subject, and indeed everything that I write, almost always merits something significantly longer, if not a book, to explain the complexity and nuances, analyse the pros, cons, and counter arguments... most of which I have considered, having dwelled on many of these issues for years. However, if I did include all of these thoughts, 1) I'd never finish any of these and; 2) there's not enough room in the paper. So remember, below is an oversimplification of a slightly more complex ideas and thoughts. By Petero Okotai, the country’s foremost policy expert.

I didn’t want to write this piece, it was not one of the many I had in mind for this column. And if I’m honest, I’m worried about this being taken the wrong way, that is, as a personal attack rather than a critique of an action and political manoeuvre. But brought about by an incredibly cynical, audacious piece of political chicanery, here we are.

The title of this piece is a (lazy) play on the book by President Barack Obama, but originally was the title of a speech Obama gave in 2004 at the Democratic Party convention called, “The Audacity of Hope”. In that speech, Obama challenges the audience (and the United States constituency) with rhetorical question, “Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?”

Last month, we saw the height of cynical politics, where the PM (Mark Brown) made a bet on hopelessness. That the public, press and people are so apathetic and disinterested in accountability and corruption, that he could re-instate a politician that has been charged with corruption (technically collusion to defraud the crown) and suffer few if any political consequences.

Before we continue, I want to address the counter argument here, that is, “Innocent until proven guilty”. That is true, which is why the Minister (Robert Tapaitau) is not in jail, and I believe gets to retain his salary as an MP (though I am unsure whether he still retains the DPM salary of over $130k plus other perks, including accommodation, the propriety of which is another matter…). We are not prosecuting the case or saying whether he may be guilty or not.

What should be obvious, however, is that it is not a great look, to say the least, both domestically and internationally, when the second in-line to lead the country is not just under a cloud of suspicion but has been formally charged with a criminal offense. If this sort of thing were to happen in a far-off country like, say, New Zealand (or any other country that is not mired in corruption) the minister would immediately step down from the ministerial post (and give up any of the perks that go with it), due to the public and international damage to the standing and legitimacy of the government, and the fact it would be politically unacceptable for that person to continue in that role whilst under suspicion. The person in question, might proclaim their innocence (if they were) and step aside to deal with matter to “avoid being a distraction,” and “clear their name”. I haven’t seen any such proclamations here, though I might have missed them.

But the Member of Parliament from Penrhyn’s removal as DPM has been superficial at best with him still being intimately involved in government dealings on a number of CIIC (Cook Islands Investment Corporation) charter flights up to his home island. The latest move is more of an admission of reality – that he was never really gone. But we ask the question, why would the PM do this now?

Well, apart from the PM, no one can know for sure, but we can divine some rationale to this move. Whilst the DPM was formally charged last year, the case has still not been heard in court (no plea has been entered). Moreover, there is an election looming this year, and legally he can still stand for Parliament unless/until he is formally convicted (we have a couple of recent examples amongst our politicians), and it seems more and more likely that this case won’t be finalised before the election. From all reports with the amount of money spent on Penrhyn hospitals, two cyclone/community centres and other miscellaneous works, he is basically a sure bet to retain his seat (though we’ll look to cover election predictions perhaps next week).

In short, the calculus being made is that ensuring the Penrhyn seat, through this questionable move, will result in little or no political consequence in the wider election. And unfortunately, this may be right, but in essence the PM is making a bet on the cynicism that the people of the Cook Islands are beyond hoping that our politicians will do the right thing, and chose ethics over personal political gain. In the study of ethics, this behaviour is called ‘Justified neglect’. The human mind is skilled at justifying incursions when there is a tangible reward at stake — and when the risk of getting caught, or the consequences, are low. In other words, when we do something wrong or questionable, we tend to be able to explain and rationalise it to ourselves, often settling on the idea of “the ends justifying the means”.

Some might say, “So what? What’s the big deal?” The danger here, and the question we should be asking is, “What is next? What is the next line to be crossed?” This is not an isolated incident with the last few years mired in obvious conflicts of interests, questionable decision making, to charges of fraud. The slide into this decision can be described by another phenomena described in ethics literature, known as ‘the Slippery Slope of Morality’. The best way to think about this is when you are trying to eat healthy, you’re on a diet and have been strict for two weeks, but one day you work late and now you’re starving. You need a quick hit of energy and so you say, ‘Stuff it,’ and grab a chocolate bar. You get home and you’re too tired to cook and the kids want takeaways, so you say… ‘Why not,’ and there goes your diet. It started with a small chocolate bar and now you’ve taken out half a table at your cousin’s aunty’s niece’s wedding.

So what is next for this government? What is the next line they are willing to cross? I’ve had a couple of people approach me over the years asking my advice about running for Parliament – what should they do, what do they need to be concerned about, how should they prepare? I have a stock answer, which is basically asking them a number of questions, but probably the most important is, “What are you not willing to do to be in power?” I ask them to be clear about what lines they’re not willing to cross. Some might say, “the law” but that becomes dicey if 1) no one is enforcing it and/or; 2) you could change the law (which is the job of MPs).

I didn’t want to write an article like this, and I have nothing personal against the MP from Penrhyn or other members of Cabinet, and it is not too late for them to turn it around and make a different decision. If he is able to win his case and clear his name, then yes, there’s no reason why he can’t accede to become a Cabinet member again. However, as it stands, unfortunate as it is for him, he should not be in that position and moreover, the PM should know better.

I’m not deluded into thinking that this will change anyone’s mind, but I am compelled to write this piece (though I’d rather not), to state the obvious. That a wrong has occurred that in a functioning democracy, should not be acceptable.

Come elections this year, we will see whether the audacity of hopelessness pays off and politics of cynicism prevails.

Next week: The (early) political scorecard, who will win (and if any of this likely to matter?)