13th Century – Magna Carta; 21st – a new “Great Charter”?

‘to no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice’.

Magna carta

On 15th June, 2015, Magna Carta will be commemorated. It will be 800 years since King John of England affixed his royal seal to the document at Runnymede – alongside the Thames in southern England. Magna Carta was an agreement between King John and English nobles that sought to overturn the singular rule by a despotic monarch and set the scene for the gradualist changes that resulted in democracy.

Magna Carta emphasized the rights of the individual over the state (even if those individuals in 1215 were just a few nobles).

That fight between the state (and those who want to capture the state for themselves) and the individual is unresolved 800 years later despite successive waves of change.

While in the West we consider the balance between the State and individuals to be rational and where the rights of individuals are upheld by rules such as The Human Rights Act, there is a perpetual seeking after new balances when threats appear or when certain groups capture more of the State. In the USA, for example, this balancing resulted in the splitting of responsibility between Executive, Legislature (itself into two parts) and Judges – which Fukuyama now calls a “vetocracy” which is more and more in the pay of key sectors that know how to manipulate decisions.

More widely, nations like China and Russia have never allowed significance to a balance between the state and individual rights. China, especially, has for 2000 years emphasized rule by law rather than rule of law – where the State (or those that consider themselves to be the State) is above the law. Xi Jinping’s recent attack on corruption appears to be but the latest attempt by one person and his clique to dominate the state.

More recently, like a laser beam to the head, the murders in France of journalists at Charlie Hebdo, of a Muslim policewoman close by and, later, at a Kosher deli, have highlighted that the individual and the rights of any individual are consistently challenged by states and those purporting to act on behalf of a state (or, in this case, an entity that stood before the state or that, in some cases, acts as a state – here, a religion).

The death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia reminds us of the total submission of individual rights in that country beneath the rule of one family – under the aegis of the Wahhabi sect of Islam.

Individual Rights

The battle between the State (whether represented by an elite or an ideology headed by a group purportedly representing that ideology) and individuals is a battle that clearly still rages. The rights of the individual against such groups are key to the different mindsets that distinguish real freedom from all other forms of government and governance.

The spectrum is a wide one but State (with a wide definition of that word) “ownership” ranges from political or quasi-political (such as China) to dictatorial (Equitorial Guinea, Angola) to religious (ISIS) to monarchic / theocratic (Saudi Arabia) to such “democracies” where voting is rigged (such as Zimbabwe and Afghanistan) to enable elites to maintain themselves in power.

This is not a battle between different nations but one where the rights of individuals are challenged by state or state-like bodies.

Whereas we may not see the actions taken against journalists in Turkey by the Erdogan regime to be in any way similar to extreme violence as has just happened in France, it is on that spectrum. Between states that defend the rights of individuals and those which violently oppress them (and subsume them to the so-called state or a religion) lies many variations – but, all can slide in the wrong way to extremism.

The extremists who claimed to be Islamists are one extreme; Erdogan’s government is dangerously edging in that direction as freedom of the press is a crucial embodiment of individual freedom.

Corruption at the Heart

Sarah Chayes has just published “Thieves of State”. It is an extraordinary book that, through her own experiences as a journalist and then on the staff of various military commanders from the US and in places like Afghanistan, enables her to show clearly how corruption is at the heart of so many national and international upheavals. From Afghanistan to Egypt, from Tunisia to Nigeria, governance has been geared towards corruption and becomes the mechanism of government.

Sarah’s aim is to show how the corruption flow in those countries is not top-down, but bottom-up, where so-called “facilitation payments” lead up the chain to larger corruption at the top – whereby nations recast themselves as mafias but, now, emasculating nations.

She shows how Karzai was able to do this in Afghanistan; how the military do this in Egypt; why this was the norm in Tunisia.

Individualism and the right of individuals to have justice have no place in such states. The state is simply a mechanism to suck the benefits of society through corruption to a few at the top who become extremely wealthy and some further corrupt benefits to those further down to makes ends meet. The vast majority of society suffers through lack of funds and the thieving of funds meant for development – for policing, for security, for health services, for education and for the rest of what we in the West would call normality.

This is why the Arab Spring promised so much but gave so little. Only in Tunisia has the promise started to be met. The strength of people in such a country is to be applauded and the recent election of Beji Caid Essebsi in a free and open election to be warmly welcomed.

Similarly, the people of Sri Lanka made a momentous decision at the ballot box by throwing out President Rajapaska and electing Maithripala Sirisena – a man dedicated to fighting corruption and nepotism.

Yet, as Sarah Chayes has shown, outside of these countries, either corrupt states remain ruled by corrupt kleptocrats or the fight back is via religion. Boko Haram and ISIS claim to be against the ways of the West as they see it – the corruption that is embedded in Nigeria or Iraq. At this extreme, even education is seen as the mechanism by which individuals grab the capability to enter into the corrupt system. Chayes views the connivance of the USA in that corruption (she mentions the suitcases of cash that the CIA provided to Karzai as but one example) as leading to the success of terrorist organisations in gaining credibility amongst many people in countries like Iraq because they see this as the only way out of the corruption that wrecks their lives.

Working on the disease

Yet, it is 800 years since Magna Carta – an agreement between a king that believed in his own divinely-given rights as usurping all others and a group of wealthy noblemen that wished to garner some rights to themselves. From that time, many of us have progressed to where individual rights are now enshrined in law and also in practice.

Yet, as recently as the 17th Century, England was riven with corruption – it was endemic. Samuel Pepys, the renowned diarist of that time, spent six years to work corruption out of the Royal Navy – which was crumbling under the weight of bribery and nepotism – notably, the sale of position and procurement. Although Pepys was not innocent of corruption himself, as his biographer, Claire Tomalin has written, his own honesty went some way to right some wrongs. England gradually, through the 18th and 19th Centuries, eroded corruption from its core but it was not an overnight demolition. Chayes’ example of Singapore and its ability to eradicate corruption almost overnight is a good case of a small nation challenging itself and succeeding. Elsewhere, it takes longer

Chayes focuses sensibly on the role of not just organizations like the military within corrupt nations but organisations outside like the CIA in understanding the drivers against the halting the disease of corruption and the complete erosion of justice. However, as the West (via organisations like the OECD and the US FCPA) progressed after World War II to a consensus on governance and how governance would become part of the stated requirement for development assistance, this has, more recently, been unsettled by the rise of China – which has appeared to care little for such governance considerations – notably in its dealings with African states.

This unsettling of the post-WWII consensus (despite Xi Jingping’s drive to eradicate the disease in China – which many suggest is more politically motivated than anything else) is a major challenge that can be added to Sarah Chaye’s list of issues to be assessed when developing an anti-corruption programme.

A “Great Charter” for the 21st Century

Sarah Chaye’s book puts corruption at the heart of the problem that besets the world.

  • While climate change (with its own problems of solution and understanding) has been seen as a world-wide challenge that has to be resolved;
  • while health concerns are the subject of huge technological research and financial resolve;
  • while economic prosperity is the subject for everyone at all times;
  • while nature conservation and the future of human life on this planet is a central consideration of all;
  • while terrorism is dislocating masses, murdering thousands, displacing millions – often through the guise of extreme forms of religion – and requires regular government action;
  • corruption plays a role in all the world’s key areas of collapse but has far less formal acknoweldgment.

From small-scale facilitation payments to large scale national strangulation, corruption inhibits and destroys.

The world now needs a charter for the 21st Century that marries the rights of individuals and justice (started with the Magna Carta in 1215) to the rights of individuals and communities to be unhindered by corruption. We now need a formal acknowledgement of its central corrosive ability that destroys nations, destroys security and completely disallows individual and community justice to take place.

“To no one will we sell what is not ours to sell”

“From no one will we take what is not ours to take”

 

‘to no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice’.

Advertisements

200 Years of Peace? 200 Years of Rockets and Bombs?

Dec 24, 1814 – Signing of the Treaty of Ghent between USA and UK

Dec 24, 2014 – Arms Trade Treaty

141215_TreatyofGhentpicii

While we have been commemorating the centenary of the beginning of the First World War, it is now exactly 200 years since the UK and USA signed the Treaty of Ghent signaling the end to the War of 1812 and the establishment in British eyes of American equality, firm agreement on borders and freedom to sail the seas and an agreement to seek the end of slave trafficking. The Treaty was deemed to be “an honourable peace” for the United States that many believe was a rallying call to its citizens – honourably exiting the War with firm borders and a fundamental view of nationhood. The UK and USA have been at peace (outside the odd skirmish) for 200 years and “The Star Spangled Banner” (written in 1814 to commemorate the bombardment of Fort McHenry in Chesapeake Bay by the Royal Navy) remains the anthem of the USA to this day – while its lyrics remain constant:

“And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air”

During those 200 years, however, the world has been stricken with world wars and regional conflicts that rewrote borders almost everywhere. We live now with the consequences of borders drawn up by Empires that bore very little resemblance to the needs of the people within them. In many countries in Africa and Asia, nations were brought into being that collected many different peoples. In Africa, these people were then subjected to rulers that grouped them into so-called tribes (that Fukuyama describes as newly created) and have been the cause of much bloodshed since then. Nigeria, for example, was never a nation until it was created by the British and the Muslim north and Christian south are uneasy bedfellows.

21st Century Nationhood

The 21st Century offers both great opportunities and great risks. The nations that have been established during those last 200 years may, in many cases, bear little resemblance even after all those years to the people that live there.

  • We see this in nations like Ukraine where Russia is attempting destabilization through the indigenous Russian populations in the East.
  • We see this in a country like Nigeria – split between a Muslim north and a mainly Christian south.
  • We see this throughout the Middle East where the so-called Islamic State (IS) calls for a caliphate and an end to the “arbitrary” borders brought in by the British and others after the First World War, where Sunni and Shia are pitted against each other.
  • We see it in many African states, where colonial rulers attempted to develop states which had not existed before and where definition by nation is still hugely misunderstood.
  • We see it in China where Tibet has long wanted its independence and where the Uighurs still rally against Han domination.
  • We see it even in western Europe where, for example, the Scots only narrowly decided to remain in the UK after a referendum, where the Catalans are keen to split from Spain and where many northern Italians yearn to split from the under-developed and relatively ungovernable south.
  • We saw it in the Soviet Union which broke up into states that were better aligned;
  • We saw it as Yugoslavia split.
  • We saw it as Czechoslovakia split.

Multi-National groupings

 

The 21st Century has, however, witnessed a rapid drive to globalism so that the inter-relationships of countries with others are more complicated than ever. Whether it is China in Africa or the USA in Central America, leading economies are progressively more dependent on others.

This is now a world where multi-national companies are in competitive positions with nations. Maybe not in the same way that the British East India Company – which still had its monopoly intact at the time of the Treaty of Ghent in 1812 – but where agreements under way such as TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) between the EU and USA, companies are expanding their rights to take Governments to court under the ISDS – investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. Several countries (such as South Africa and Indonesia) are now opting out of such arrangements  which provide an equality between corporations and governments that could well be said to be anti-democratic.

Beyond companies, nations are increasingly engaged in arenas such as the UN, EU, NAFTA, African Union, ASEAN and multitudes of other multi-national engagement devices.

With the rise of the internet and social media, it is also far easier for individuals from opposite sides of the world to group together and do so within seconds.

Orwell posited three regional groupings with continuous warfare in his “1984”. 66 years on from when that book was written, the bipolar world of the US and Soviet Union became the unipolar world of the USA and now sees the rise of China fighting for prime position economically and others fighting for the next division placings within a world of fast communication and many forms of potential divisiveness and opportunities for engagement.

Big Brother may well be in place but it is more two-way as Snowden recently showed. As long as there remains a free press and the use of the internet is available, this will continue in ways that Orwell did not foresee (outside of states like North Korea and, at a lower level, China).

 

Shifting sands

It is not just in the Middle East that the sands shift as IS is fought by the Kurds and local national forces.

Sands continuously shift throughout the world as people group around a variety of causes, ideas and faiths and behind a variety of organisations and individuals. In a complex world, change is constant as our experiences evolve. However, it is clear that nations can no longer hide within themselves – each nation is exposed externally and internally as communication systems expand.

It took several weeks for the fact that the Treaty of Ghent had been signed to be relayed to those in the USA still fighting and dying.

Now, drones don’t just provide the means to inflict missiles on enemies but also provide data and information within milliseconds. Mobile phones provide instant photos and videos worldwide. The so-called Arab Spring was clearly accelerated by such media and took Middle Eastern governments by surprise as a result of that speed. In Tunisia, the results have been impressive for democracy even if elsewhere the forces for vested interests have re-emerged.

We do not know how humans will be organized in 200 years’ time. Issues like the environment and global warming will take precedence as the real (rather than promised) effects bite. These and other impacts will provide a changing environment that will, as always, require the most from human ingenuity. As we would appear to the world of 1814, the world of 2214 will feel very different to now – even if we can assume that technology will maintain our enjoyment of the planet.

But, what we assume to be stable – the nations that we are part of – will undoubtedly shift over this century and beyond. As rapid and increasingly ubiquitous communications become ever more the norm for most of us, and, after what may be a long period of difficult adjustment, there could be a tendency towards a better understanding of humanity beyond national boundaries and of our place on this planet.

While the Treaty of Ghent is hardly a cause of much celebration and it has been almost forgotten amongst the sounds of WWI commemorations, it was significant in that it signaled friendly relations between the most prosperous nation on earth at the time (the UK) and its wayward child (the USA) – two “united” nations that remain and prosper 200 years later – much of that owing to their “special” relationship that has matured during that time.

Today, 24th December, 2014, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) comes into effect. Could this be the positive event that will be celebrated 200 years from now? That Treaty has been signed up to by 130 nations – not even signed by Russia and China and still to be ratified by one of the signatories to the Treaty of Ghent – the USA. It took several months for the ratification of that Treaty by the US Senate in 2015 – owing mainly to communication delays. There is no such excuse in 2014/15. Let the ATT not be delayed any further – let nations not be swayed by the arms companies.

For now – let’s all enjoy the festive season and my best wishes for 2015!

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.