Antigonistically Speaking – the Permeability of Governance

In a world too confused by the economic rise of China to question whether democracy will ultimately produce the best results for humankind; in a world where fighting between Sunni and Shia, between secular and religious, between Dinga and Machar dominates the news as much as Catholic and Protestant did in the UK not that long ago; in a world where the after-effects of the Arab Spring result in a literal chaos; in a world where street demonstrations in Turkey, Brazil, Thailand and elsewhere have threatened the rule of “law” – we need to question how our political institutions work and whether they are robust and durable enough to withstand the constant pressure that we put them under. In a “global” environment, in the so-called “west”, we should also question what political systems we are operating under – as we fit perilously into local, national, regional and global systems.

Around 441BC, Sophocles wrote Antigone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigone -a Greek tragedy that, as a school kid, I could immediately appreciate – not through the tragic figure of Creon but through Antigone herself. She dared to push against the tyrannical rule of a king at a time when no-one else, let alone a woman, would dare to do so and lost her life as a result. Opposing the law that Creon laid down was, in her view, proper if that law was wrong – if it was tyrannical. I liked that as a pupil in a school where teachers could appear to be on the wrong side of tyranny.

In nearly 2,500 years since Sophocles wrote Antigone, humans have learned and unlearned the story many times. Because we focus on economics so much (i.e. how we generate wealth) we seem no longer sure whether there are other questions that we should be asking. As 2014 gets under way, maybe we should be questioning what the world needs in order to be Antigonistic – being able to prod the rule of law when that law or the implementation of that law is wrong and to understand where it is impossible to do so.

This is not just an argument for democracy but for a system of government and implementation that is permeable – allowing for change. We also should be asking how we fit into the various levels of government – local, national, regional and global.

It is also worth looking at how we understand where the permeability does not exist at all and where gentle prodding is not likely to succeed – for it is there that fractures happen.

Permeability

It is the ability of our human systems to be permeable (in normal times) that enables them to evolve as our needs change. It means that old-fashioned notions can be changed and that structures which are worn-out can be thrown away. When permeability does not exist, then tyranny wins out.

The permeability of authority is applicable to any organization or structure: from corporate to national government and beyond. In the 21st Century, as communication systems and capabilities continue to rise, how such structures take in information and change is a critical factor for our social existence.

The change in governmental structures from strong individuals (appointed by the gods) through the tyrannies of dictators and various forms of democracy can be seen in their permeability to new thoughts and to absorb the thoughts of others.

God-given rights to rule (whether Charles I of England or Louis XIV of France) were thought of as indisputable in the same way that the earth was thought of as flat. Such rights were disposed of in the 20th Century by political “truths” such as communism or fascism. These “truths” swapped god-appointed rulers for political dictators. Elsewhere, the “big man” tradition as shown by Idi Amin in Uganda or dos Santos in Angola is similarly impermeable to change or outside thought.

In China, the story of impermeability is writ large. The civilization state (Martin Jacques) has evolved at the top from god-appointed rule to political dictat but the impermeability remains. Whether the excuse is heavenly authority or communist or legalism, the ability of that nation’s leadership to restrict change through the impermeability of its structures remains.

The Permeability Grid

Any organization can be assessed as somewhere on the grid of permeability. At its worst extreme today, North Korea stands out – completely impermeable to any thought of change or even discussion, it embodies the lunacy of not just tyranny but of the inability to listen to any reason. This is not just about governing but also about the basic rights of its people. North Korea would get 0 on the scale of impermeability.

Of course, moving too far towards complete permeability is towards chaos. The other extreme (100 on the scale) would be where every thought is taken on board and acted on. This represents an organization that has no control – which some would find enjoyable even if chaotic – but often leads to mayhem. An example of this may be Waterworld  or some other dystopian view of the future, but the tendency here is that it leads towards strong group asserting themselves and veering back towards 0.

The balance between tyranny and chaos is commonly held to be democracy and open societies where the key parameters of society allow and enable freedom of thought and opinion with individual and group rights yet within structures that avoid chaos. This is not at the centre politically but may well be at the centre in terms of permeability.

 Slide1

This grid works in a similar way to complexity theory – the way that complex adaptive systems work. The tyrannies occupy the areas of stasis at the opposite end to chaos. In the middle, where real evolution happens, stands the “edge of chaos” – it is reasonable to assume that the best democratic, open societies or organisations exist here or should have ambition to do so. It is at the edge of chaos that real permeability exists – the ability of groups of people to listen, understand and adjust. This is where evolution happens without revolution.

The Common Threads blog has been all about how we are mired in rigid 19th Century establishments – even in democratic nations like the USA and the UK. There are a myriad of examples. Humans have evolved many ways to do itself down and ruling elites, wherever they are, enforce lack of permeability through many devices.  Even in supposedly open societies like the USA and UK, rigidity seems to be the natural default mechanism. This leads to poor voter turnout and reactions to Edward Snowden as we have recently seen.

Of course, these can be considered minor against other nations which vary from terror to corruption. South Africa, for example, has moved decidedly from one extreme – the tyranny of apartheid (terror) – but is in danger of side-stepping back into chaos.

Mandela shined a light into the darkness

The worldwide sadness that accompanies the death of a great man or woman shines some light into the cavernous darkness of those who do not live by the same high principles. This has been the case with the death of Madiba as was witnessed by the South Africa’s President Zuma when he rose to speak in front of his subjects in the memorial event in Johannesburg.

Jacob Zuma has been accused of corruption – millions of Rands of government money allegedly spent on his own property – an excess now termed Nkandlagate after the name of the region. The Guardian reported on this in November.

Yet, both fought the tyranny of apartheid – where a dictatorship of a minority (mainly of whites over blacks) could have been fractured by conflict but was changed by an eventual collapse of belief by the majority (under pressure from the rest of the world and its own black population) and nurtured to a peaceful outcome by Mandela.

Nelson Mandela was not one to overtly criticize those in the ANC that committed corruption. The ANC was his “home” but Mandela’s spirit of understanding and compassion must have been stretched to the limit when seeing his ANC brothers and sisters involved in enriching themselves at the expense of the mass of poor people in his country.

Andrew Feinstein, a former South African MP and ANC member, has written vividly on the post-Mandela corruption in South Africa in his book: “After the Party

Lighting up the shadows

Under Nelson Mandela’s giant shadow, there lies a worldwide web of corruption that is not just within the borders of his home country. As the boos rang out to embarrass Jacob Zuma, the question is whether they sounded loud enough to make a difference. Can the moments of reflection on Nelson Mandela’s life shine a light into the shadow so that those who see the problem act on it?

Throughout the world, corruption exists in many forms. The recent edition of Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index showed that South Africa ranked 72nd (along with Brazil) out of 177 nations evaluated. Jacob Zuma and his compatriates may have corruption issues but there are (according to the Index) 105 countries in a worse state.

Nigeria – which is 144th on the 2013 list – has just recently seen a letter from the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria being sent to the President asserting that $50 billion of oil revenues has gone missing – representing 70% of the value of such revenues since 2012. Mr Sanusi’s letter calls for immediate audits of the oil accounts.

Whether or not the revenues have been misappropriated, the fact that the Governor of the Central Bank believes that they may have, this points to a society that is prone to corruption – and it is known to be on a grand scale.

Corruption can be seen as the brother of tyranny. Instead of terror, it provides a method of keeping the population quiet. Zimbabwe’s use of income from the Marange diamond fields ensures that the political leadership there is relatively secure and that real democracy / open society cannot permeate.

Angola is another example where Sonangol (the State Oil business) serves to ensure that oil revenues find their right place in the hands of the President and his family and retinues.

In both, terror accompanies the corruption of the resource curse and shows the methodology of keeping stasis – maximising the chances of ruling elites clinging to power and power over the resources of a nation.

How Do we Want to Live?

The rise of China and our continued reliance on economic growth / GDP as the only measure of our success as humans should give us pause – where “us” includes the Chinese as much as anyone else. If those of us in the democracies of the world believe that open societies are important, how important are they to us? How do they compare with a bit more GDP (knowing how unreliable GDP is anyway as a measure of wealth) and how unreliable is it to see economics as the foundation for the quality of our lives? How threatened are we by the non-democratic regimes elsewhere? Does China’s economic success of the past thirty years) threaten their internal structures or the rest of the world’s? Should we react to other nations’ lack of permeability – statis enforced by terror or corruption or legalism?

Common Threads has been about the impermeability of our legal, political, economic and social structures and changes needed in nations like the UK and USA. With the global economy upon us and with world-wide challenges such as climate change and resource scarcity; with G8 and G20 providing economic mechanisms for mutual dialogue; with Arab nations struggling to maintain the Arab Spring against the drive to stasis in places like Egypt and chaos as in Syria and Libya – how hard should we be pushing the “edge of chaos” – democracy – as the right answer throughout the world, knowing that this may cause us economic harm if the Chinese government, for example, don’t like what we say?

Is the alternative to motivating others to our ideals the fear that we could fall into the trap of impermeable extremism (as Golden Dawn in Greece would extol) or even the trap of Tea Party / Ayn Rand rigidity? China, Angola and many other states need an Antigone but it has to be more than brave students at Tiananmen Square. Antigonism will only work when our governments are brave enough to extol our open government world-wide.

Do Companies Exist? Part II

Quite a bit of feedback from last week’s post, where it has been suggested that companies (because they are made up of people) should not be seen as independent entities at all – especially for tax purposes. Many thanks to all those that took the trouble to comment on the post.

Of course, I do see companies as part of our “ecosystem” and quite independent from those people that constitute its parts – in the same way that people are quite distinct from the billions of cells that make us.

“a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence.”
—A Treatise on the Law of Corporations, Stewart Kyd (1793-1794)

Since Stewart Kyd defined them in 1793, companies (including corporations) have existed as independent entities – on that we are all agreed.

However, many do see companies as simply a bunch of individuals – which is not correct – and this error is what dictates the desire to take away, for example, corporation taxes. Most companies act as independent entities – the decisions of the individuals involved have emergent qualities in most of them that develop a singular aspect as the company. This is clearly evident to its customers, its investors and the people (and other organisations) with which it does business. In such an environment, companies make decisions which are corporate decisions – propelled by the dynamic of the organisation rather than the individually distinct decisions of the individuals concerned.

This is at the heart of the issue over company taxation. Even if we could distinguish the impact of extra taxation on the wide range of individuals that would be hit by the additional taxation on them that would be required if there was no corporate tax, it would not be right to have companies on zero tax.The problem with this is that companies are clearly distinct entities and act as entities within an environment in which they are seen by their staff, investors, customers and others as distinct. Representatives from companies appear in conferences (as representatives, rarely as distinct individuals).

The impact of all corporate decision-making, strategy, impact on society, impact on resources is always at the organisational level and the legalistic distinction that taxing companies is difficult because they can move money around or they don’t really exist (it is really the individuals behind them) is a flawed argument and one that takes no account of the impact of companies on society and the way that society (people) see companies.

The issue for me is that it is the organisation that makes profits (sure, on behalf of investors and using staff and suppliers and satisfying customers – all people). The organisation “thinks” corporately and takes decisions corporately and lobbies corporately and impacts corporately. It makes perfect sense for that organisation to be assessed for taxation corporately. It is also SEEN to be corporate – like any emergent organising entity – just as we divide into nations, states or cities which, similarly, have different laws and taxes, moral codes and ways of living. It brands itself as independent; it advertises and markets itself as independent. Companies are born and die, evolve, grow and diminish. Such organisations are distinct in themselves – not just an amalgam of individuals.

Institutionalized!

Will Self’s excellent new book “Umbrella” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Umbrella-Will-Self/dp/1408820145/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348396331&sr=8-1) brilliantly describes the torture of individuals put into “mental institutions” and how (until very recently in the UK) they were appallingly treated.

 

Old people in Care Homes have similarly been shown (one example had a miniature camera secured in the room of a care home) to have been malnourished, beaten and generally abused.

 

Maybe it is improper to use these examples of Institutions that have become uncaring and out of control to symbolize the problems faced regularly by all of us, but it is no coincidence. We have all become “Institutionalized” by the edifices that society has created to carry out the basic functions of society. This is not new. Ossification of institutions is a regular occurrence in society. The reason that monarchs are overthrown, for example, is because the institution of monarchy – the rule of society by one person or clique – becomes, eventually, intolerable to society in general.

 

Cracks in the Institutional Wall

 

We are all confronted by Institutions throughout our lives. From hospitals to school, from government departments to businesses, individuals live their lives working in and being confronted by Institutions.

 

Institutions have been defined as: “An institution is a system of rules, beliefs, norms and organizations that together generate a regularity of (social) behavior” (Greif, Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade).

 

They provide “equilibria” to society as a method or ordering our behavior. Greif also developed notions of dynamic institutions to show how institutions change through time.

 

Common Threads’ focus is that the institutions developed in the 19th Century for politics, economics, education and other key areas of society don’t work well in the 21st Century. The aim has been to generate some discussion of where the problems may be and look at some potential solutions rather than try to develop a theoretical analysis (when this is being done elsewhere – for example, in the area of economics at ESNIE (European School on New Institutional Economics – http://esnie.org/).

 

Major economic dislocations as we have seen since 2007 in the West – the banking disasters leading to huge debt problems leading to depression in Greece and the potential for this throughout Europe – could presage major changes in the way institutions develop. Often, the cracks in the wall have to be very large before we either build a new wall or try to fill in the cracks – which is what is being done now.

 

The changes in our institutions that are being made – small changes in banking (mainly in terms of individuals) are akin to deck chairs being moved around on the Titanic. Whether in our political institutions or our economic ones (or wherever large organizations have been set up to provide societal equilibrium) the danger is that they do not change enough to enable society to prosper – rather, built on the foundations of the 19th Century, they fail to deal with the issues that face them (and us) today.

 

Building Order out of Chaos – Challenging Entropy?

 

Just like the walls of Jericho were built to keep out intruders (subject to the odd trumpet) and we build firewalls in our computer systems to keep our systems secure, society builds our Institutions also to have effective walls against change and to build ourselves a cover against the outside world. Maybe we are genetically primed – our cells work within walls that allow us to withstand the chaos that would otherwise ensue. The Second Law of Thermodynamics essentially describes entropy – the natural tendency for good energy to dissipate into bad (useless) energy. Our life on this planet is a constant grind against the power of entropy and, maybe, our desire to build this equilibrium is a natural and instinctive drive for order within chaos.

 

This natural tendency to build order exists throughout civilization and can produce stability and contentment. But, as Darwin wrote: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” (Origin of Species).

 

The key is that Institutions cannot be left to ossify but have to change to meet the changes in environment that exist externally. New order has to be developed constantly.

 

In business, in relatively free markets, businesses come and go on a regular basis. The FTSE 100 started in 1984 and today only three companies from those 100 remain in the FTSE 100 – GKN, Rolls Royce and Imperial Tobacco. This is because the FTSE 100 reconstitutes itself every three months. The Dow Jones started in 1896 – who remembers American Cotton Oil or National Lead or United States Rubber? That is not to belittle business – there is a tough economic law that works hard to reward success and punish failure. Companies that don’t work hard to change to meet the needs of the external environment simply fail. Apple is a great example of a company that was close to collapse in the 1980’s but (under Jobs) completely redirected itself so that it is now the highest valued company in the world. But, for how long? Most companies fail (70% in the first three years).

 

Taking Down the Walls

 

Within the rest of society, change is harder. In our fight against the ravages of chaos, we allow pressure to build up, often learning the wrong lessons. This so often leads to an explosion as pressure gets too much. Society is not very good at understanding where the pressure is building. We defend the status quo for too long and then find ourselves unable to contain the whirlwind that attacks us.

 

In the UK, we have prided ourselves on our ability to change gradually so as to release the pressure before it gets too much. Not since the middle of the 17th Century has England fought a Civil War. This is held up to be the result of the changing democratic scene – from Magna Carta through rule by nobles to rule by the Commons (elected nobles); constant enlargement of the vote from 1832 onwards to women in 1918 (as long as they were over 30 and lived in a decent house) to 18 year-olds in 1969.

 

The walls have been dismantled brick by brick and most democracies follow a similar path.

 

The challenge now is that, in an age where developed societies have reached a decent level of economic wealth, politicians are losing any connection with those they are supposed to represent. Only around 50% of the voting population bothers to vote in general elections. More are now linking up with one-issue groups who they believe will push agendas on their behalf rather than hope that a political party will (by the mere casting of a vote every five years) carry out a manifesto that cannot meet most aspirations.

 

This means that the one issue lobbyists are getting greater powers to influence. Their techniques and ability to make change happen is developing constantly. Originally, such groups were primarily labour organizations (Trades Unions) and, in the UK, this developed into the Labour Party. Now, there are groups within the Third Sector that campaign on any range of issues from the environment to health, from taxation to education, from peace campaigners and human rights to fox-hunting (both sides). Organized campaign groups now operate as a key part of society so that individuals are now useful only at elections.

 

This means that more Institutions have been developed to challenge the political parties (it happens throughout the world). This is not a challenge to the political process – it may even solidify it by shoring up the political process within a wall of campaigning institutions.

 

What role for Society?

 

It is in this context that several have questioned the future in which we grow Institutions to work with other Institutions to govern (or run other aspects of our lives). This response to the walls around politics and government may be a natural one but is questionable as the new Institutions (of the campaigners and lobbyers) are run by a small number of people and funded in many ways. They are not accountable in the same way as political parties are supposed to be (and continue as long as they are funded). Their funds come from a variety of sources and confusion exists amongst society in separating out charitable work from campaigning and lobbying. In the UK, there is no register of lobbying so there is no transparency that is at least attempted in the US (which has its own problems owing to funding regulations that allow companies to fund to whatever level).

 

There is a real danger that the way we are evolving the democratic process is anti-democratic. Democracy is supposed to be government by the people. We have a three-tier system now whereby professional politicians are influenced by a small number (relative to the population) of professionally-run organizations throughout a term of office – remembering the individual citizens only when elections loom.

 

Is this the best we can do?

 

Building the Walls from the Bottom Up

 

In Australia (as I have mentioned in an earlier post), The Centre for Civil Society (under Vern Hughes) – http://www.civilsociety.org.au/ – has developed some new insights and a challenge to the norm in http://www.civilsociety.org.au/CivilSocietyPolitics.htm.

 

This is worthy of investigation as one means of providing greater involvement in our own future.

 

Also critical is the use of technology. Changes in the means of communication have always brought with them the means to radically change society. The printing press, the telegraph, the telephone, the TV, the computer and the internet, the mobile phone, wireless comms – all lead to more and faster information and an enabling of the individual.

 

This is a critical cause of concern for leaders of legalist states such as in China but also offers challenges (and opportunities) to so-called democracies.

 

Individuals are now empowered by technology by dis-empowered by institutions. This means that empowerment is taken up by online shopping or social networking rather much more than for social change or betterment. It means that civil society will continue to be badly served by national and international institutions that meet lobbyists in the corridors of power but are insufficiently grappling with society itself (rather the funneling through funded organizations).

 

Yet, power exists. Libya is a exciting example. Just recently, armed militia groups (a powerful central non-government organization) were ousted by people – civil society coming together to say, “thanks for toppling Gaddafi, your work is done!” In Egypt, Tahrir Square was the centre of civil society’s success to overthrow a dictator. Here, the Military Institutions delayed the correct response and we will have to wait to see if the elected President, Morsi, will serve his citizens or other Institutions (including religious).

 

Civil society (we, the people) should see the 21st Century as one where we are allowed to deliver. The forces for 19th Century equilibria often stand in the way of progress – and are standing in the way of serious climate change policies on an international scale. Institutions set up to effect change may be set up for the right reasons but we are now institutionalized and should seriously re-evaluate our reaction to the new Institutions just as we challenge the old ones. If we need a wall, then we should be blowing that trumpet to unsettle the existing ones.

 

Politics and polar bears – the race for extinction

Polar bears evolved into a niche that for thousands of years gave them a status at the top of their local food chain. Global warming is putting paid to that and, swimming from one ice-island to another they give the appearance of a doomed species. It may take some time, but the human race is ensuring that they are no longer suited to the new environment in which they have survived for so long.

Changing Environments

It’s probably less important, but the world is changing for politicians, too. They are suffering from their own form of global warming that shows that they have not sufficiently evolved to meet the demands of the new environment that they face. It is an environment in which the political systems of the 19th century don’t work and the where the fixed mental states of those in politics and who have grown up in politics and nurtured by 19th and 20th Century models no longer have the validity or purpose that they once did. Populations see them incapable of creating the conditions for us to live well and are giving up on them.

Voting is down to 50% in many democracies; in Western Europe, corruption and greed has isolated the political factions from their people. When Mario Monti said in an article in Spiegel recently, “If governments allow themselves to be entirely bound to the decisions of their parliament, without protecting their own freedom to act, a break up of Europe would be a more probable outcome than deeper integration”, then you know the game is up. Politicians and the people are separated and democracy itself us in danger.

When you have evolved into something of no use, then it is time to give way or you erode (or, worse, implode) with time.

Fukuyama believed that politics had evolved successfully and that liberal democracy had won. The problem with that analysis (apart from being plainly wrong, as he now agrees) is that he was providing an answer to the wrong question. The question was not which political system out of communism, fascism or democracy would win. Nor, was it a question about whether capitalism in one form or other would win – we know the market has its place on the winner’s podium already.

No, the question to be asked is more fundamental – what is the role of government in a modern society? Monti would argue that democracy might well not be part of it. There are other, better positions.

“The Gardens of Democracy” by Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Gardens-Democracy-Citizenship-ebook/dp/B0061S3UMA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344783105&sr=8-1) describes, from an American vantage point, the type of new politics (combined with new economics and new citizenships) that could dominate in the future. More a long pamphlet (but no less important for its Tom Paine comparisons) than a major book, it describes the “big what and the small how” of politics in the 21st Century. But, it will require a sea change in politics and in politicians and take us well away from the technocratic (mechanical) notions of 19th Century thinking.

What is different now?

Liu and Hanauer’s work is based on discoveries made in the late 20th Century in places like the Santa Fe Institute (they base much of their work on the Eric Beinhocker’s great book “The Origin of Wealth”) into complexity and the new rules that completely shake the 19th Century idealism of economics doctrine that still rules (mainly through econometrics – the 20th Century form of alchemy) the policies of the 21st Century.

They bind together the new guidelines into citizenship and politics and, probably for the first time, attempt to develop a society-wide thesis based on the new rules. It is a bold attempt and no different to the aims of Common Threads (this blog) – to rid ourselves of 19th Century prescriptions based on Newtonian (they call it “mechanical”) rules and forward to what they call “gardening” – the desire for politics to shape and cajole (and, as necessary, fund and intervene) but not to control or to allow the unfettered invisible hand of the markets to run riot.

While their focus is on the USA (developing a point of attack against both free marketeers such as the Republicans – or, worse, the Tea Party – and the pro-government-does-all wing of the Democrats), this is a model for all nations.

What is different now is that in many countries people are tired of the old left against right philosophies and are reaching (or have already reached) a level of economic “wealth” (at least measured by numbers) that should allow us to turn our minds to what actually matters – Maslow’s self-actualization but on a global scale. More than this, education is sufficient for people no longer to want to be ruled by governments in every sphere of life but educated enough to know that massive income variations should not be the norm and that society is important – it is our position in society that matters more than the material wealth on its own.

As a Brit, nothing is clearer than the genuine pride shown during the 2012 Olympics – a pride of a nation that (despite may problems) has provided a high value games with genuine affection for all nations as well as pride in itself. The pride of the many volunteers that contributed will resound as long as the concerns over the amount it cost. This was a society working together – a form of national self-actualization.

This self-actualization has to take us away from the mechanical drudge of being a cog in a wheel – focused only on what monetary wealth provides – to a society that encourages growth of all its citizens. That growth is whatever we believe to be important and government’s role is to help us understand what that is (not “tell” – this is not a totalitarian regime proposal) and assist in attainment. It means  (according to Liu and Hanauer) the “big what” – i.e. what we aim for – and the “small how” (i.e. not controlling how we get there but aiding the process).

Politicians as leaders not controllers

Society in the developed world is driven (in the main) by money. We count our wealth in dollars or euros or pounds or yen or yuan. But, we all know that there is more to life than that. Our memories of our lives are far more than how much money we make – they are of family, education, learning, books we have read or films we have seen or football matches played in or viewed, pride in our kids, helping loved ones over illnesses or a myriad of other prized mental possessions.

Yet, modern society always seems hell-bent on just monetary gain – “it’s the economy, stupid”. This is a 19th Century concept given heart by 20th Century victories of democracies run on market economics against totalitarianism, communism and fascism. The result was a victory that was far, far better than the alternatives. We now have a chance to modify that victory and show that the 21st Century offers more than the Chinese alternative of a market economy driven by a legalist clique that fears for its life. Competing on those terms is not what we should consider.

The market economy is the best worst option but not as a free (unfettered) one. Government has to play a role and Liu and Hanauer point us towards that role.

The role of government changes in this worldview and the role of politicians, too. Instead of CEO’s in charge of a business, Liu and Hanauer propose that they become gardeners – working out the general landscape and then tilling the soil, weeding and watering the plants, as it needs it. This is a worldview that is consistent with the way the world works – not the way that 19th Century politicians and economists have developed the simulation.

What’s the next step?

I have been interested in complexity and the new findings of this deeper, richer analysis of how the world works since the 1980’s when I attended a lecture in London on complexity in business – with Michael McMasters, then a guru of the subject. Murray Gell-Mann (who found the quark) and Stuart Kauffman were presenters amongst a stellar mix of experts in science and economics. Work done at places like the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have pushed the boundaries of thinking in this area and there are now areas where this new (er) thinking is taking hold. Eric Beinhocker’s recent article in the Independent  (http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/08/new-economic-thinking-and-the-potential-to-transform-politics/) which highlights the Liu and Hanauer book also provides an example of how computing technology is assisting the process – how the difficult arguments of complexity can be made real.

However, in the last thirty years (since I attended that conference), it has been hard to see the visible signs on a macro-scale that complexity has made to make a difference in a society that is driven by simplicity – the drive to count based on GDP and earnings.

Liu and Hanauer have in a large pamphlet done something important in working to make a tough subject easier to understand. Now, we should be shouting like Tom Paine and working to establish such thinking in schools and universities and to challenge our leaders to address the world’s problems through the dose of reality that complexity provides. This is a major challenge of explanation no less important than any other doctrinal assertion over the years but without (yet) the simplistic notions that the Tea Party or labour rights or communism or centralized government (or left vs. right) have.