March & April 1998
Right from definition stage, the word ‘set-up’ gives signal of
the complexities it is capable of throwing up. In the good old
days, to set-up a man nearly always meant to help him stand.
These days, however, it nearly always means to cunningly
arrange to bring a man down with his own unwitting co-
operation. It is therefore now mostly used in pejorative
contexts where the action stands decried.
The present popular American identification with President Bill
Clinton over the sex scandal allegations has depended largely
on the notion that he was possibly set-up.
Despite the seemingly over-whelming evidence of video clips
and a large number of audiotapes, the possibility that he is
being maliciously targeted is preventing many fellow libidinous
humans from casting the first stone. Remember the case in the
Holy Bible of the woman caught in adultery? It is significant
that Jesus had told her, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go and sin
no more.’ The enormity of the sin had become considerably
mitigated by the ill-will of the prosecutors.
But is it that terribly wrong to target (or set-up) a man, that is,
to artificially craft his downfall? Is it wrong to put a nice worm
on a hook and invite him to swallow it, to dab a piece of dried
fish with rat poison and leave it where the household rat can
steal it? (It is likely you have already read that Miss Lewinsky
took up the internship job in the White House with a clear-
headed intent to exploit Bill Clinton’s fabled weakness for
unconventional sex). My conscience tells me that that would
be to treat the man like a fish and like a rat. That would be
inhuman and ungodly. You would not treat a person you loved
that way. But my intellect tells me that there are times when a
man could be justly treated worse than a fish and worse than
even a rat. The tacit approval of the law of the survival of the
fittest implicit in the fish-and-rat-attempts to eat other
creatures would not, I hope, be lost to you.
There is the story in the Holy Bible of how Ahab, King of Israel,
was set-up from the very throne of heaven. That, you would
concede, was the mother of all set-ups. Ahab was set-up
because, incited by his wife Jezebel, he did what was evil in
the sight of the Lord. The Lord, flanked right and left by the
host of heaven, had then asked: ‘Who will entice Ahab, that
he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?'. Ramoth-gilead was
Israeli territory, which had been under Syrian occupation for
three years and needed to be liberated by battle. A spirit
offered to entice Ahab by becoming a lying spirit in the mouth
of all his prophets. The Lord then said: ‘You are to entice him,
and you shall succeed; go forth and do so’. Ahab’s prophets
therefore assured him of success in the battle but, as designed
by the Lord, he was defeated and slain. When the Lord
himself organizes the setting-up, who are humans to
complain? Human rights apparently end where the Lord
begins. We all know it is blasphemy to talk of the rights of
man, or indeed of woman, when the Lord (or Allah) has ruled
otherwise. After all, Ahab was already evil and therefore liable.
The enticement merely served as an external device to echo
his inner darkness. It is very much like the use of decoys by
the police to induce the criminally-minded to attempt to commit
an offence while they lie in wait to nab him. The decoy could
be a richly-attired lady made to walk the street alone late at
night. She attracts robbers or other miscreants to attempt
attacking her while the police lie in wait. Again, it is very much
like the CID arranging to buy a stolen car and actually paying
for it with marked notes. Yet again, it is like the husband of an
unfaithful woman lying to her he is travelling to make it easy
for her to invite home her lover so they could be caught in the
very act. In all the cases, the pre-discovery of criminal intent or
evil disposition appears to justify the underhanded utilization
of subterfuge and even the seeming complicity in the crime. In
every such case, the sentence comes (implicitly) before the
baiting and the subsequent observation (or videoing) of
culpability.
The CID, since it is principally engaged in fighting crime, cannot
be rationally prosecuted for purchasing the said stolen car. In
the same vein, the criminals cannot plead not guilty just
because they were induced to commit the crime by set-up. A
rapist (or indeed a Lewinskian victim) might win our sympathy
by pleading that he was seduced by a very scantily-dressed or
sexually provocative girl, but this would not make him cease to
be culpable or guilty. A dog accused of eating a piece of meat
it was told to watch over is to be pitied but such a dog could
still be lawfully hanged. So Ahab died, having been incited by
his wife Jezebel to do evil in the sight of the Lord and having
been enticed to go up to Ramoth-gilead and fall. Inducement
to commit a crime or indeed inducement to fall is therefore not
a tenable plea.
A set-up only assumes a diabolical complexion if the person we
seek to indict or destroy is pure and without potential for
harm. In such a case the set-up is not principally and
excusably trying to detect or prevent crime. At the same time,
it is not aimed at eliminating an undesirable Ahab. Instead, it
is aimed at corrupting he who before the diabolical attempt at
incrimination was totally innocent and dependable. This
becomes more obvious if the pure or upright fails to be induced
to go up to Ramoth-gilead and fall. This was the case with
Christ when, taken to a pinnacle by the spirit we call Debono in
these parts, he was invited to fall so that angels would hold
him up. He successfully resisted the temptation and by that
success proved the diabolical nature of the Tempter. Having
passed the litmus test of his true character, angels came and
ministered to him. This marks merited elevation in
consequence of successful resistance to evil. Jesus could now
act in human affairs for the Lord without fears that he could
subvert the transition of men to gods.
While Ahab may be pitied therefore, he is, in more than one
way, responsible for his own downfall. The only set-up man to
be exonerated is that man (or rat) who, before and after the
set-up, nurses no thought of evil, that man (or rat) into whom
evil was wrongfully imputed.
