At times such as the Martin Place siege and its tragic aftermath, it
doesn't help to have been trained to think like an economist, to analyse
the situation as coolly and rationally as possible, keeping your
emotions in check. I feel like I'm from Mars, while everyone else is
from Venus.
Nor does it help to be among those who respond to such
events as part of their job. Inevitably, the police, security agencies,
politicians and the media see things differently from bystanders free
from vested interests or responsibility.
I wonder why this event
has attracted so much public attention, concern and outpouring of
emotion. It strikes me that humans have emotional as well as physical
muscles, for which they seek regular exercise.
When we don't have
enough emotion-stirring events in our lives we seek release mainly
through fiction, including crime fiction, but nothing beats the real
thing.
When we express great interest and concern about the
tribulations of others - when we buy flowers to lay on an impromptu
shrine - we see this as heart-warming proof of our empathy and
sensitivity. Our humanity. We're proud of ourselves - we care.
Sorry,
but I'm sceptical. What occurs to my hard head is that had two people
been killed in a car crash on the Sydney Harbour Bridge at the same time
as the siege, this would have attracted little interest and no
sympathy.
Why would the reaction to the events be so different?
One reason is the siege's greater novelty. People die on the roads every
day. Another is its greater suspense. It took 16 hours of continuous TV
broadcasting by the new, just-keep-talking "breaking news" industry
before the outcome was known.
And from the moment the gunman
produced his black flag it became possible to jump to the conclusion the
siege was a terrorist attack, as almost everyone did. This lifted the
event to a new level of menace and excitement, something even people in
other countries were interested in.
But to me this sounds more like
entertainment than compassion.
It proved to be the criminal act of
a disturbed individual seeking notoriety. Yet so invested in the
spurious link to terrorism had so many individuals and organisations
become that many sought to keep the terrorism theme going. Somehow a
common criminal was still a terrorist.
Rather than seeking the
views of security consultants and anti-terrorism trainers, I'd like to
have heard more psychologists and sociologists explain why we react so
emotionally to such events.
Why, since the death of Princess Di, we've
taken to displaying our grief so conspicuously. I feel sorry for the
families of victims - of course I do - but I don't feel I have to
demonstrate it with flowers.
Being in the business, I'm conscious
of how many institutions see a buck to be made, metaphorically or
literally, out of heightened concern about terrorist attacks.
"Security"
must surely be one of our fastest-growing industries, whether within
government, in the private sector or private contracting to government.
Every time we give ourselves a thrill by imagining a terrorist threat we
create the conditions for more ill-judged spending on security.
Humans
are well known to overestimate the likelihood of low-probability
events, and fear of terrorism, or even criminal sieges, is the classic
case.
After the thrill come the inquiries, the righteous
indignation, the recriminations and hindsight wisdom. This is where the
politicians come into the frame. You can be sure their primary motive
will be to shift any blame to others.
The more they push the blame
on to the police or security agencies, the more those outfits will
demand more resources and more power to intrude on the rights of
citizens. And don't think the taxpayer won't be forthcoming.
Politicians
will promise to redouble their efforts to make us all secure. The one
thing they'll never admit is that it isn't possible to ensure no one
ever gets through the net, no matter how tight you make it.
Nor
will they admit that, once you've covered the basics, you quickly get
into diminishing returns - you have to spend more and more to achieve
less and less.
But spend more they will. Why? So they've got
something to point to should a genuine incident ever slip through.
Making it harder for people to get bail will punish many innocent people
and greatly increase prison overcrowding and costs.
Pollies love
creating the appearance of action. Rushing through Parliament laws
giving the security agencies powers they already have is a favourite
trick. So is proving you're on the job by annoying people at airports.
We enjoy a good release of emotion, but don't doubt there'll be a tab for taxpayers to pick up.
