When The King Is Deceived: The Folklore Of A Hungry Land -By Isaac Asabor

There is an African folktale about a king who lived in a magnificent palace, surrounded by courtiers who had mastered the art of pleasing him. Whenever he asked about the condition of his kingdom, they bowed and assured him that all was well. Yet beyond the palace walls, farmers complained of poor harvests, traders struggled to sell their goods, and parents went to bed wondering how to feed their children the following morning.

The king believed his kingdom was prosperous because everyone around him said so. His advisers praised his wisdom, his praise singers celebrated his achievements, and his courtiers assured him that his subjects were grateful. Meanwhile, ordinary people struggled to survive.

One day, the king asked an old tortoise, renowned for his wisdom, why he never heard his people complain. “Your Majesty,” the tortoise replied, “the people are complaining. But those who bring you reports have discovered that the easiest way to keep eating from your table is to convince you that everybody else has eaten.”

That ancient lesson speaks to political and economic realities in any age. A leader can be surrounded by advisers and remain dangerously isolated from the people. He can receive daily briefings and still misunderstand the condition of his country, because those responsible for informing him are more interested in preserving their privileges than exposing uncomfortable truths.

The tragedy is not simply that a king can be deceived. It is that those deceiving him may have more to lose from his discovering the truth than from the suffering of his subjects.

Wherever political loyalty is rewarded, it comes with expectations. Appointments, contracts, access to power and other privileges can create incentives for political associates to tell leaders what they want to hear rather than what they need to know.

Under such circumstances, every government policy becomes a masterstroke, every criticism is dismissed as opposition propaganda, and every complaint about economic hardship is explained away as the impatience of citizens who supposedly fail to understand the government’s intentions.

The result is a dangerous echo chamber in which the leadership hears applause while the people outside struggle to make ends meet.

A nation’s economic difficulties cannot be adequately understood through government speeches, party rallies or carefully prepared press statements. They must also be measured against what citizens experience in markets, hospitals, schools, workplaces and on the roads.

When families struggle to afford food, transport fares consume a significant portion of workers’ earnings, small businesses battle rising operating costs, and patients postpone treatment because medicines are too expensive, these are not merely public relations challenges. They are issues of governance that demand honest answers.

The question is not whether the government has announced reforms or whether officials can point to improvements in selected economic indicators. It is whether those measures are translating into tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary citizens.

A government may argue that difficult economic decisions are necessary to secure long-term stability. That argument deserves serious consideration. But the people bearing the immediate costs also deserve transparency, credible relief measures and evidence that the promised benefits are materializing.

A hungry citizen cannot be expected to survive indefinitely on promises of tomorrow’s prosperity. Consider the mother who visits the market with a limited amount of money and returns home with fewer provisions than she bought before. Consider the commercial driver whose earnings are squeezed by fuel costs, vehicle maintenance and other expenses. Consider the civil servant whose salary struggles to cover rent, food, transportation and school fees. Consider the young graduate who continues searching for employment while relatives expect him to contribute to household expenses. These are the realities against which economic policies must be judged.

The danger arises when political associates who enjoy the benefits of government assume that their circumstances reflect those of the wider population. A person whose income comfortably absorbs rising prices may describe the economy as improving without appreciating how the same prices affect a low-income household. Likewise, political supporters who attend rallies and celebrate government achievements cannot automatically speak for citizens who are too exhausted by daily survival to participate in political arguments.

The silence of struggling people should not be mistaken for satisfaction. Sometimes they are too preoccupied with finding their next meal to protest. Sometimes their apparent patience reflects resignation rather than confidence.

Those who report that all is well may simply be listening to the wrong people. This is why a responsible government must actively seek information beyond its immediate political circle. It must listen to market women, farmers, transport workers, teachers, artisans, small-business owners, pensioners and unemployed young people. Their experiences may not always tell the whole story, but ignoring them makes it impossible to understand the whole country.

The most dangerous people in the king’s palace are not necessarily those who openly oppose him. They may be the courtiers who publicly profess loyalty while quietly protecting their own interests.

Such people understand that a king who discovers the truth may begin asking uncomfortable questions. Why are citizens complaining? Which policies are failing to deliver expected results? Who is benefiting from government decisions? Why are promised improvements not reaching vulnerable households?

These questions threaten the comfort of those who benefit from the existing arrangement. Consequently, they may portray critics as enemies, dismiss public complaints as politically motivated and present every demand for accountability as an attempt to undermine the government.

This tendency can turn legitimate concerns about the cost of living, employment, public services and purchasing power into partisan disputes. Instead of investigating the substance of citizens’ complaints, political loyalists become preoccupied with identifying the party or interest group supposedly behind them.

But the price of food does not depend on party affiliation. The cost of transportation does not distinguish between government supporters and opposition sympathizers. A struggling household cannot pay its bills with political loyalty.

In fact, when economic hardship is treated primarily as a problem of perception, the government risks confusing the management of its image with the management of the country.

The courtiers may believe they are protecting the king by concealing unpleasant realities. In truth, they are depriving him of the information necessary to make sound decisions.

Leadership must recognize that the interests of the governing party are not automatically the interests of the nation. Nor can the enthusiasm of political appointees serve as a reliable measure of public welfare.

A head of government cannot understand the country exclusively through official briefings. Ministers, advisers and spokespersons have important responsibilities, but their reports must be tested against independent evidence, credible economic data and the experiences of citizens. Where official claims of progress conflict with what people experience, the appropriate response is investigation, not intimidation or dismissal.

If economic reforms are producing benefits, government should demonstrate those benefits clearly. If implementation is falling short, officials should acknowledge the shortcomings and explain what will change. If vulnerable households require additional support, the government should examine how assistance can reach them effectively.

There is no shame in admitting that a policy has produced unintended consequences or failed to meet its targets. The greater failure is to defend a policy regardless of evidence simply because acknowledging its shortcomings might embarrass the administration.

This responsibility also extends to the media. Journalism must not become an extension of the palace’s praise singers. Reporters must interrogate official claims, investigate the consequences of public policies and give citizens the opportunity to describe their experiences. Criticism should be evidence-based, just as praise should be earned. The purpose is not to manufacture despair or undermine government for its own sake. It is to establish the truth and make accountability possible.

A leader who welcomes honest criticism is better positioned to correct mistakes than one who rewards only flattering reports.

Let us return to the folktale. One morning, the tortoise persuaded the king to leave his palace, dress like an ordinary traveler and visit the markets and streets of his kingdom. What he encountered unsettled him. He saw traders struggling with rising costs, parents worried about school fees, workers complaining that their earnings could no longer cover essential expenses, and young people searching unsuccessfully for opportunities. When he returned, he summoned his advisers. “Why did you tell me that my people were happy?” he demanded. One adviser replied that he had wanted to protect the king’s peace. Another claimed that the truth would discourage him. A third remained silent.

The tortoise broke the silence. “Your Majesty, they were not protecting your peace. They were protecting their places at your table. They feared that if you discovered the people’s hunger, you might begin asking why they continued to eat so well.”

The king finally understood that his advisers had not merely concealed the condition of his kingdom. They had prevented him from understanding the very people whose welfare justified his authority. The moral is unmistakable.

Those around a nation’s leadership must decide whether they are serving the country or merely preserving their access to power. Their responsibility is not to shield the leader from public dissatisfaction but to explain its causes and help identify solutions.

And the leadership must be willing to hear what its associates may prefer to conceal. It must look beyond political gatherings, listen to struggling households and examine whether its policies are delivering the results promised.

The greatest expression of loyalty is not telling a leader that everything is going well. It is having the courage to tell him when things are going wrong.

African folklore reminds us that the flatterer may not love the king; he may simply love what the king provides. The test of loyalty is whether a person will tell the ruler that his people are hungry, even when doing so threatens the privileges that come with access to the palace. For when the people are hungry and those around the king insist that all is well, the songs may continue and the banquets may remain lavish. But the distance between the throne and the people will keep growing.

A wise king listens to the cries beyond his palace gates. A foolish king listens only to those who profit from his ignorance. And the most unfortunate king is the one who mistakes the applause of his courtiers for the gratitude of his people.