I’ve often heard the Latin Term “quid pro quo?” It’s meaning often eludes the average reader. Hopefully this editorial will clarify it.
Have you ever bought groceries? We all have been there, right? Well, that’s an example of quid pro quo. You bought food for money. Quid pro quo simply means “to give something, get something.” What about your job? Yup, it is also. You provide a service and receive money for it.
In an attempt to teach our children, we also use it. Have you ever said something like, “Do your chores, and I’ll give you an allowance?” We do it in an attempt to teach our children that there are consequences for their actions. Hopefully, our children will become empowered through the acceptance of responsibility, and for the choices they have made. This is what I call the “good effect.”
We all want our children to learn good habits, especially to eat properly. Children will usually try anything to get out of eating things not favourable to their idea of good food. Most children will eat what’s put in front of them. Occasionally, a child will only agree on terms such as, “I’ll eat the spinach if you give me ice cream first!” If the adult gives in, that very minute the child experiences the power being transferred. As that child grows, the threats may become more powerful. “I will not do my chores until you pay me.” (Perhaps more than the job is worth.) The quid pro quo has quickly developed into manipulative behaviour. This behaviour could continue into adulthood. I call this the “bad effect.”
We have really become apathetic to the use of the phrase “tit for tat.” The more we utilize quid pro quo, the more strength we gather from it, and the more empowered and knowledgeable we feel. The danger is that sometimes it crosses that fine line between the good effect versus the bad effect of quid pro quo. What do I mean by this? I mean the quid pro quo is no longer used for the benefit of all, but rather, for the benefit of one. The desired effect of the latter is dominance, not empowerment.
A quid pro quo becomes dangerous when people in a position of authority look at their position as a form of power. Power is a great motivator. Take, for example, our local government. What is the quid pro quo? The council stood for election on the promise that they would do their best for the people and the people elected them. Then they reward your kindness by granting each member of council a raise, (anywhere between 20 to 30 per cent,) regardless of how people are suffering through a loss of income because of the pandemic. Their needs trump yours, so there!!! Power definitely overrode the desired effect of the quid pro quo. The bad effect prevailed.
After being in power for a few years, a government can become complacent. If it becomes overconfident of its status, weakness can form. There is always someone who wants something.
Quid pro quo can be made to look like no more than a favour for a friend.
Just for fun, let’s examine a little hypothetical situation. Suppose there is a charity that has relied greatly on donations and tax benefits. The executive of this charity is aggressive and sees that a lucrative government contract would be of great benefit. They befriend a young politician. After a few years, the young politician is sold on this company, so much so that the family of the politician, and of fellow politicians, are given gigs for pay. The young politician believes so strongly in this charity’s ideals that he thinks everything must be on the up and up. Now the young politician has become the leader of the party that forms the government. The charity wants payback. Oops! Does this sound familiar?
Quid pro quo is so ingrained in our society that we don’t even give it a second thought. Politicians do it to get elected. You know the old, “If I get elected I promise...” routine. What we, the voters, may not be aware of is what I’ll call the “behind the barn” deals (after all, this is Saskatchewan,) that occur before, during, and after an election. There is a lot of secrecy. No matter how pure their intentions are, politicians can eventually succumb to the power of a quid pro quo. Often it’s a negative tit for tat. To be frank, “I got you elected now I want something in return.” As I said before, it can be so subtle that it can be passed off as a favour for a friend and that’s what makes it so dangerous. This is what gets politicians in deep trouble.
Take a look at another hypothetical situation. I’m going to use the Crown Corporations in this scenario. Let’s say there is a large company (and their investors) that want a bigger share of the Saskatchewan market. The executive of this predatory company has their eye on one of the Crown Corporations. This is a Crown that the executive of that company views as serious profitable competition. What if, unbeknownst to the current government, that executive desires to own the Crown Corporation in a bid to become a mega corporation. To do so, it donates a large amount of money to the government’s reelection effort.
Now the government gets re-elected. Say the governmental party made all kinds of promises to the people of Saskatchewan that are based on projected income. Shortly after the election the economy tanks. The governmental income is now far less than what had been projected. The government finds itself with a large looming deficit. The executive of the predatory company sees their chance. The CEO requests a meeting with the Premier. The Premier, being aware of the corporate donations towards his campaign, agrees to meet. Big surprise!!! The executive is willing to buy its desired Crown Corp to assist the government with their immediate financial needs. The Premier agrees to consider the sale as it is the mandate of his party to privatize as much as possible. After all, he got rid of another Crown Corporation by shutting it down and selling off the property. He did it without consulting the Saskatchewan residents, who were the owners. This time, however, he is met with many, many outcries from the citizens who realize the significant contributions this Saskatchewan Corporation makes to the economy. The Premier then decides to put the sale on the back burner. He believes he’ll be re-elected, especially if he continues to get donations from big companies. The predatory company (and their shareholders) wait in the wings for their next chance to pounce.
Don’t lose focus!!! This hypothetical situation represents the dangers of quid pro quo. This is an attempt to show, whether the quid quo pro is ill-intended or not, we can all be subjected to the bad effect of a quid pro quo. Behind the barn deals are made every day. Most are harmless, but every once in a while, they hurt the very people they have pledged to help.
Returning to the above Crown sale, the Premier decided to sell 49 per cent of the Crown to the predatory company. The government argued that the people of Saskatchewan will maintain control with 51 per cent of the Crown. As with all negative effects of quid pro quo, the executive of the predatory company starts to flex their muscle. If the government wants their continued support, it must play along. The intent of the predatory company is the thirst for power and profits, and nothing else. Remember the goal; to become a mega corporation. Immediately, changes in the Sask Corporation take place; layoffs occur and new management is installed. The government/the people begin to feel the effects. Less revenue flows towards the government coffers. Less income tax is generated from laid off workers. Oh yeah--there is more employment insurance to pay out. This I’ll call the bullying effect. Thank goodness it’s just “hypothetical.” Phew!!!
We all agree to some kind of quid pro quo when we apply for a job. The employment contract states that raises are tied to performance reviews. These are not behind the barn deals, for everyone knows at the onset what is expected. The “good effect.”
Sometimes quid pro quo can be manipulated if one party feels much stronger than the other. This is simply the essence of power at work. We are so acclimatized to “give something, get something” that we have lost the art of doing something (indeed anything) unless we get a return. It causes guilt in the recipient if there is not anything that can be offered in return. When even one of us succumbs to the art of the quid pro quo, it is little wonder that we think we’ve done nothing wrong.
It is easy to jump on the bandwagon of denial. Too often, turning a blind eye allows corruption to seep into the seemingly harmless behind the barn deals. After all, it’s just a way of “doing business,” right?
It is only when we no longer live in an affluent society that we begin to notice or even care about the “bad” effects of the behind the barn deals. It is only when we start to suffer that we are open to the fact that this type of quid pro quo exists; deals that promote the bad effect over the good effect. All we have to do is take a look at our neighbours to the south and at the continued increase in scandals within our own governments..
Life has certainly become “caveat emptor,” or, “Buyer beware!”
-- Fran Miller
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this publication.
