There is increasing recognition that enabling organisations to meet people’s needs through cooperative working is key to solving the many socio-economic problems we face.
But the impetus to promote cooperative ventures can be seriously jeopardised if we allow ourselves to be misled by the notion that cooperation will thrive more if government simply retreats. Reciprocity and cooperation are greatly dependent on the rule of law. Without a democratic government guaranteeing that all participants are accorded equal respect and protection, and that deception and exploitation will be duly curtailed, non-cooperators will take unfair advantage of others, knowing there is no public redress.
If cooperative problem-solving is to become more widespread in every major sphere of life – educational, economic, environmental – then government support is vital. What cooperators need is politicians who pay more than lip service to cooperative values and community co-production. What is required is a genuinely cooperative government that will:
• Publicise and promote the core cooperative values (self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, solidarity); give recognition to groups that put these values into practice; and work with the cooperative sector to prevent any false use of the ‘cooperative’ term that is designed to mislead the public.
• Embody those values in its own policy development so that citizens are given tangible support to: help solve their communities’ problems; hold each other accountable for their actions; participate in collective decision making; be treated as equals in law and all electoral processes; secure social justice; and work together to define and pursue common goals.
• Practise subsidiarity openly and consistently so that problem-solving is carried out at the most feasible level closest to the people affected, which may be at the street or town level for some issues, but at the national or international level for others (such as dealing with transnational financial activities or global impact of climate change).
• Facilitate the development of cooperative practices and organisations by investing in the dissemination of know-how and provision of sector-led advice across all key areas, including education, food, energy, financial services, elderly care, and community land ownership and house building.
Any politician who pretends that more cooperative working will spring from a debilitatingly shrunken state is either ignorant or disingenuous. It is no help to keep loading a greater burden onto cooperators while non-cooperators are allowed to siphon off more resources under the cloak of deregulation.
A cooperative government is one that not only acknowledges that cooperative problem-solving is a more effective and sustainable way to improve people’s quality of life, but it is also one that is visibly committed to creating and maintaining the social and economic conditions that will enable cooperative groups in their diverse form to thrive. It is time political leaders set out how they will make this happen.
Saturday, 1 March 2014
Saturday, 15 February 2014
Anarchy: Dreams & Nightmares
From Washington to Warsaw, I have spoken with many political activists who want to improve government institutions by strengthening their democratic responsiveness. We all share a vision of citizens being empowered to shape public policies to enhance the common good. But any chance of realising that vision is seriously undermined by the proliferation of Pro-Anarchy Proponents (or PAP for short).
PAP come in many forms. And they all have their own reasons for advocating practices that are premised on the virtual extinction of government. Anarchist protestors distrust any collective system that can make binding decisions on everyone, and insist that there should be no rule except for what one has personally signed up to. Free market deregulators never tire of arguing that the ideal world is where businesses and individuals are left to make their own choices without any government intervention whatsoever. Anti-government militia maintain that they have an inalienable right to do what they want, and no government should get in their way. And survivalists believe that people should prepare for life without any form of government, as all such public institutions will inevitably be wiped away.
All these groups are driven by very different motives, but the societal changes they push for have a common destination. Every PAP road leads to a state of anarchy. In place of a pluralist constitution, which combines the basic protection of all individuals from neglect and abuse, with a transparent system of decision-making that is binding on all, what would prevail instead is what each individual manages to secure for oneself.
Dreamers amongst PAP will imagine everyone coming to an amicable understanding without having to invoke the rule of law to settle disputes. For them, life without a government – however democratically responsive it might have been – will be far better when it is down to individuals to sort out their own problems. The nightmare of a reality will be more of a free-for-all contest where might is inevitably right. Some will wield vast economic power; some will have stockpiles of weapons; and some will be bolstered by their ability to stir up crowds through their words and media outlets. Not all those with superior power may seek to advance their own interests regardless – there may indeed be real philanthropists amongst them; but only the most naïve can possibly think that there would not be those who try to impose their will on others.
Without any democratic form of government to redress the balance, the freeriders, the exploiters, and the aggressors will decline to accept or respect any rule that hinders them. They will find ways to eliminate opposition to them, and in time establish their ‘rule’ as absolute. Anarchy is the backdoor to authoritarianism.
Across the world, there is widespread recognition that governments need to be improved, to be made more accountable and democratically inclusive. But PAP talk is not only a distraction, it is ultimately a recipe for surrendering to the most abject arbitrary rule.
PAP come in many forms. And they all have their own reasons for advocating practices that are premised on the virtual extinction of government. Anarchist protestors distrust any collective system that can make binding decisions on everyone, and insist that there should be no rule except for what one has personally signed up to. Free market deregulators never tire of arguing that the ideal world is where businesses and individuals are left to make their own choices without any government intervention whatsoever. Anti-government militia maintain that they have an inalienable right to do what they want, and no government should get in their way. And survivalists believe that people should prepare for life without any form of government, as all such public institutions will inevitably be wiped away.
All these groups are driven by very different motives, but the societal changes they push for have a common destination. Every PAP road leads to a state of anarchy. In place of a pluralist constitution, which combines the basic protection of all individuals from neglect and abuse, with a transparent system of decision-making that is binding on all, what would prevail instead is what each individual manages to secure for oneself.
Dreamers amongst PAP will imagine everyone coming to an amicable understanding without having to invoke the rule of law to settle disputes. For them, life without a government – however democratically responsive it might have been – will be far better when it is down to individuals to sort out their own problems. The nightmare of a reality will be more of a free-for-all contest where might is inevitably right. Some will wield vast economic power; some will have stockpiles of weapons; and some will be bolstered by their ability to stir up crowds through their words and media outlets. Not all those with superior power may seek to advance their own interests regardless – there may indeed be real philanthropists amongst them; but only the most naïve can possibly think that there would not be those who try to impose their will on others.
Without any democratic form of government to redress the balance, the freeriders, the exploiters, and the aggressors will decline to accept or respect any rule that hinders them. They will find ways to eliminate opposition to them, and in time establish their ‘rule’ as absolute. Anarchy is the backdoor to authoritarianism.
Across the world, there is widespread recognition that governments need to be improved, to be made more accountable and democratically inclusive. But PAP talk is not only a distraction, it is ultimately a recipe for surrendering to the most abject arbitrary rule.
Saturday, 1 February 2014
Politics for Outsiders: an educational mission
If a high proportion of people are poor at basic maths, there will be an outcry about deficient numeracy. If large numbers cannot read or write, we will hear of a crisis in literacy. But when the vast majority of people have little grasp of politics, there is barely a murmur about the collapse of democracy.
Politics has been caught in a vicious downward spiral because a few have managed to alienate the majority from the process of public decision-making. Intense lobbying, campaign finance, and tactical threats from the wealthiest 1% (or less) of the population have come to shape the policy agenda for everyone. And this hegemony will continue if most citizens remain ignorant of why and how they must stop being outsiders, and engage in politics to defend their collective wellbeing.
Educators have a vital role to play in clearing this miasma of misunderstanding and kindling instead an appreciation of the importance of taking inclusive political action. There is no shortage of learning resources that can be utilised. The ‘Politics for Outsiders’ collection (along with its companion Learning Guide), for example, brings together what have been developed through academic criticisms and practical policy trials, and provides a coherent set of materials to explain why:
• The concentration of power in a few inevitably leads to the exploitation and oppression of the rest, and it can only be countered by concerted political action;
• The model of inclusive community life provides a basis for consensus-building and provides criteria for critically assessing public policy proposals;
• The dangers of not opposing fundamentalist agendas (be they based on the abuse of wealth, religion, or social differences) must be widely and vividly shared;
• The use of cooperative problem-solving in dealing with social and economic challenges is far more effective than top-down or uncoordinated alternatives;
• The conditions for holding people responsible for the consequences of their actions should not be blurred by sophistry or amoral denials.
By drawing on ‘Politics for Outsiders’ and the writings by other thinkers and practitioners, educators can design courses that will not only inoculate other citizens from the infectious myths deployed to distort political realities, but also help them cultivate the informed and critical mindset needed to reconnect them to policy making in the public realm.
‘99%’ is a potent term to remind us of the vast majority who are left outside the decision-making establishment. Educators, our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to show them the way back in to reclaim the democratic control that should be exercised, not just by a privileged few, but by us all.
Politics has been caught in a vicious downward spiral because a few have managed to alienate the majority from the process of public decision-making. Intense lobbying, campaign finance, and tactical threats from the wealthiest 1% (or less) of the population have come to shape the policy agenda for everyone. And this hegemony will continue if most citizens remain ignorant of why and how they must stop being outsiders, and engage in politics to defend their collective wellbeing.
Educators have a vital role to play in clearing this miasma of misunderstanding and kindling instead an appreciation of the importance of taking inclusive political action. There is no shortage of learning resources that can be utilised. The ‘Politics for Outsiders’ collection (along with its companion Learning Guide), for example, brings together what have been developed through academic criticisms and practical policy trials, and provides a coherent set of materials to explain why:
• The concentration of power in a few inevitably leads to the exploitation and oppression of the rest, and it can only be countered by concerted political action;
• The model of inclusive community life provides a basis for consensus-building and provides criteria for critically assessing public policy proposals;
• The dangers of not opposing fundamentalist agendas (be they based on the abuse of wealth, religion, or social differences) must be widely and vividly shared;
• The use of cooperative problem-solving in dealing with social and economic challenges is far more effective than top-down or uncoordinated alternatives;
• The conditions for holding people responsible for the consequences of their actions should not be blurred by sophistry or amoral denials.
By drawing on ‘Politics for Outsiders’ and the writings by other thinkers and practitioners, educators can design courses that will not only inoculate other citizens from the infectious myths deployed to distort political realities, but also help them cultivate the informed and critical mindset needed to reconnect them to policy making in the public realm.
‘99%’ is a potent term to remind us of the vast majority who are left outside the decision-making establishment. Educators, our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to show them the way back in to reclaim the democratic control that should be exercised, not just by a privileged few, but by us all.
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
Chinese Pride or Western Prejudice
At the end of this month (31 January 2014), the Year of the Horse begins. The media around the world will undoubtedly take the opportunity once again to make as many sweeping comments about China and Chinese people as they can.
This year we can turn it into a little game and check the accuracy of what’s confidently proclaimed by commentators, with the help of a new book by Ben Chu (The Independent’s Economics Editor) called Chinese Whispers: why everything you heard about China is wrong (Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2013). The book brings together an array of generalisations about all things Chinese, and with wit and considerable analytical prowess exposes old myths and new exaggerations alike.
Two of my favourites are: ‘the Chinese don’t want freedom’ and ‘the Chinese live to work’. Apparently, Chinese people are so obsessed with working hard that they neither mind getting paid a pittance nor being denied the freedom to express their concerns about how they are treated. That would be a convenient excuse for the exploitation of Chinese migrant workers in Britain and America in late 19th/early 20th centuries, and of lowly paid workers in China today. But the reality is that when economically one is given no other option but to take what little is on offer, and politically one can see no real opportunity to challenge the prevailing arrangements, one has no choice but to toil in silence – like billions of non-Chinese around the world.
But have not ‘the Chinese reinvented capitalism’? Have they not come up with a new economic system that, guided by far-sighted planning, and fuelled by congenitally diligent workers, is propelling China to surpass the US to become the largest national economy by 2017? According to Chu, China has merely removed the barriers in a way that countries in Europe and America have done in previous centuries (and in East Asia more recently). It has allowed its workforce to engage in producing what there is a worldwide demand for. But it is already making similar mistakes to other more advanced economies in fuelling investment bubbles; allowing a tiny elite to amass an ever increasing share of the wealth generated by the whole nation; and curtailing the purchasing power of the vast majority of its own population through a combination of low wages and minimalist welfare spending. As people save up in case they are sick and for their old age, the demand needed to sustain domestic manufacturing fails to materialise, and the same old capitalist problems will hit China.
Needless to say, Chu does not care for the claim ‘China will rule the world’. He has good reasons. Economically, the country’s per capita GDP is two and a half times smaller than that of Greece. Technologically, it is a long way from the top of the league for innovations. In 2009, it registered 1,600 patents in the US, while Spain registered 4 times that with 6,500, not to mention Japan’s 35,000. Culturally, its influence in terms of arts and entertainment is negligible outside its own frontiers. Militarily, it spent in 2012 eight times less than the US on the armed services. Its troops are confined to its own borders, unlike the US which has 500,000 troops stationed abroad. It also has 20 times fewer nuclear warheads than the US.
To the wider world, China neither poses a threat nor offers a special salvation. The Chinese people have their customs, but they also adapt to changing circumstances. In seeking peace and prosperity, they are not that different from anyone else. If anyone thinks they have a snappy phrase to capture the diverse mindsets and inclinations of a billion Chinese people, they should take a look at ‘Chinese Whispers’ first.
This year we can turn it into a little game and check the accuracy of what’s confidently proclaimed by commentators, with the help of a new book by Ben Chu (The Independent’s Economics Editor) called Chinese Whispers: why everything you heard about China is wrong (Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2013). The book brings together an array of generalisations about all things Chinese, and with wit and considerable analytical prowess exposes old myths and new exaggerations alike.
Two of my favourites are: ‘the Chinese don’t want freedom’ and ‘the Chinese live to work’. Apparently, Chinese people are so obsessed with working hard that they neither mind getting paid a pittance nor being denied the freedom to express their concerns about how they are treated. That would be a convenient excuse for the exploitation of Chinese migrant workers in Britain and America in late 19th/early 20th centuries, and of lowly paid workers in China today. But the reality is that when economically one is given no other option but to take what little is on offer, and politically one can see no real opportunity to challenge the prevailing arrangements, one has no choice but to toil in silence – like billions of non-Chinese around the world.
But have not ‘the Chinese reinvented capitalism’? Have they not come up with a new economic system that, guided by far-sighted planning, and fuelled by congenitally diligent workers, is propelling China to surpass the US to become the largest national economy by 2017? According to Chu, China has merely removed the barriers in a way that countries in Europe and America have done in previous centuries (and in East Asia more recently). It has allowed its workforce to engage in producing what there is a worldwide demand for. But it is already making similar mistakes to other more advanced economies in fuelling investment bubbles; allowing a tiny elite to amass an ever increasing share of the wealth generated by the whole nation; and curtailing the purchasing power of the vast majority of its own population through a combination of low wages and minimalist welfare spending. As people save up in case they are sick and for their old age, the demand needed to sustain domestic manufacturing fails to materialise, and the same old capitalist problems will hit China.
Needless to say, Chu does not care for the claim ‘China will rule the world’. He has good reasons. Economically, the country’s per capita GDP is two and a half times smaller than that of Greece. Technologically, it is a long way from the top of the league for innovations. In 2009, it registered 1,600 patents in the US, while Spain registered 4 times that with 6,500, not to mention Japan’s 35,000. Culturally, its influence in terms of arts and entertainment is negligible outside its own frontiers. Militarily, it spent in 2012 eight times less than the US on the armed services. Its troops are confined to its own borders, unlike the US which has 500,000 troops stationed abroad. It also has 20 times fewer nuclear warheads than the US.
To the wider world, China neither poses a threat nor offers a special salvation. The Chinese people have their customs, but they also adapt to changing circumstances. In seeking peace and prosperity, they are not that different from anyone else. If anyone thinks they have a snappy phrase to capture the diverse mindsets and inclinations of a billion Chinese people, they should take a look at ‘Chinese Whispers’ first.
Wednesday, 1 January 2014
‘Question the Powerful’: quincentenary of the 1514 watershed
The progressive tradition of critical thinking and radical reform has been a driving force for intellectual and social improvement for centuries. Although it began to take shape over the first half of the 16th century, the year 1514 marked a notable watershed worthy of commemoration five hundred years on.
Down to 1514, Renaissance Humanism was still largely preoccupied with recovering ancient learning to quench the growing thirst for knowledge. After 1514, the floodgates opened and the eras of the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Age of Reform rapidly came in subsequent centuries – successively advancing the frontiers of human understanding and democratic cooperation far beyond what had been previously thought possible.
Ideas articulated by a number of thinkers in 1514 cumulatively gave rise to the progressive ethos: never accept that there is no room for improvement; constantly explore alternative options; and be ever ready to question the powerful.
In 1514, Erasmus wrote Julius Excluded from Heaven, a satirical dialogue about papal abuse of power, which mocked the religious establishment for pretending that its greed and ill treatment of people were divinely sanctioned. In the same year, Thomas More, a friend of Erasmus, began writing The History of Richard III, a sharp critique of the tyrannical behaviour of kings. It cast doubt about the structure of hierarchical power as much as his other work, Utopia, questioned the socio-economic distribution of resources in the society of his time.
1514 was also the year when Copernicus wrote his Little Commentary, which challenged the view then held by everyone in a position of authority, namely, that the earth was the centre of the universe, and argued instead for a heliocentric model with the earth moving around the sun. No less revolutionary was Machiavelli’s The Prince, which he completed in 1514 to explain, along with its companion piece, Discourses, why rulers must do everything they can to take control of the apparatus of an authoritarian state, and transform it into a free republic for the common good.
One of the most dramatic exemplars of this new progressive mindset was Philip von Hohenheim, who in 1514 embarked on his medical career. He visited universities across Europe and concluded that it was wholly unacceptable to rely without question on ancient texts such as those by Celsus who wrote about medicine fifteen hundred years previously. Declaring that all texts must be critically questioned no matter how long they had been accepted, von Hohenheim changed his own name to ‘Paracelsus’ (‘beyond Celsus’), and led a movement to transform medicine by relentlessly subjecting its theory and practice to empirical analysis and experimentation.
Of course all the figures mentioned above had their share of shortcomings and intellectual blind spots, but collectively, they helped to inaugurate the progressive tradition, which in the next five hundred years transformed innumerable aspects of life for the better. And as we commemorate the quincentenary of this watershed year, we should recognise the oppressive threats posed in our times by the rise of plutocracy and resurgent fundamentalism, and draw strength from the wisdom and courage of the 1514 pioneers to persist with finding better alternatives and never desist from questioning the powerful.
--
To find out more about the progressive tradition, here is a list of ten books that take a closer historical look at how it has evolved, and what lessons we may draw from its development over time.
Down to 1514, Renaissance Humanism was still largely preoccupied with recovering ancient learning to quench the growing thirst for knowledge. After 1514, the floodgates opened and the eras of the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Age of Reform rapidly came in subsequent centuries – successively advancing the frontiers of human understanding and democratic cooperation far beyond what had been previously thought possible.
Ideas articulated by a number of thinkers in 1514 cumulatively gave rise to the progressive ethos: never accept that there is no room for improvement; constantly explore alternative options; and be ever ready to question the powerful.
In 1514, Erasmus wrote Julius Excluded from Heaven, a satirical dialogue about papal abuse of power, which mocked the religious establishment for pretending that its greed and ill treatment of people were divinely sanctioned. In the same year, Thomas More, a friend of Erasmus, began writing The History of Richard III, a sharp critique of the tyrannical behaviour of kings. It cast doubt about the structure of hierarchical power as much as his other work, Utopia, questioned the socio-economic distribution of resources in the society of his time.
1514 was also the year when Copernicus wrote his Little Commentary, which challenged the view then held by everyone in a position of authority, namely, that the earth was the centre of the universe, and argued instead for a heliocentric model with the earth moving around the sun. No less revolutionary was Machiavelli’s The Prince, which he completed in 1514 to explain, along with its companion piece, Discourses, why rulers must do everything they can to take control of the apparatus of an authoritarian state, and transform it into a free republic for the common good.
One of the most dramatic exemplars of this new progressive mindset was Philip von Hohenheim, who in 1514 embarked on his medical career. He visited universities across Europe and concluded that it was wholly unacceptable to rely without question on ancient texts such as those by Celsus who wrote about medicine fifteen hundred years previously. Declaring that all texts must be critically questioned no matter how long they had been accepted, von Hohenheim changed his own name to ‘Paracelsus’ (‘beyond Celsus’), and led a movement to transform medicine by relentlessly subjecting its theory and practice to empirical analysis and experimentation.
Of course all the figures mentioned above had their share of shortcomings and intellectual blind spots, but collectively, they helped to inaugurate the progressive tradition, which in the next five hundred years transformed innumerable aspects of life for the better. And as we commemorate the quincentenary of this watershed year, we should recognise the oppressive threats posed in our times by the rise of plutocracy and resurgent fundamentalism, and draw strength from the wisdom and courage of the 1514 pioneers to persist with finding better alternatives and never desist from questioning the powerful.
--
To find out more about the progressive tradition, here is a list of ten books that take a closer historical look at how it has evolved, and what lessons we may draw from its development over time.
Sunday, 15 December 2013
The Author Formerly Hated for ‘The Prince’
When Machiavelli began work in 1513 on The Prince, he was not to know that it would become one of the most infamous books for the next five centuries. Indeed the worst thing anyone could do in trying to obtain or wield power came to be known by that deplorable adjective, ‘Machiavellian’.
Anyone who has actually studied the works of Machiavelli, especially his Discourses, an essential companion to The Prince, would know that Machiavelli was far from being a friend of deceptive and ruthless rule. But before we look at why the common misunderstanding should be corrected, we should consider a current trend that projects an even more perverse interpretation of Machiavelli.
Take the 2013 BBC TV programme, ‘Who’s Afraid of Machiavelli?’. Instead of challenging the view that Machiavelli was seeking to guide people with power to use it immorally, the makers of the programme and all who were invited to speak on it not only reinforced that view, but also claimed that it was to be celebrated. Their take on Machiavelli essentially came down to this: if you’re running a government or a large business, you have to be ruthless; you have to make others fear you; and you have to go with your judgement alone on what should be done, and get it done by whatever means necessary.
For these political insiders and business gurus, Machiavelli should not be denounced for advocating nasty power play, but praised for validating it as essential in getting the business of a ruler or top executive done.
But while some people may revel in imagining that even the most ruthless behaviour (of their own or the leaders they advised) would be endorsed by a world famous thinker, there are three crucial points they should have noted. First, when Machiavelli advised that the ends would justify the means, he was very specific about what those ends were, namely the establishment and development of a free republic – i.e., an association of citizens who collectively have a say through public deliberations over how they are to be governed. The people are, he insisted, “more prudent, more stable, and of better judgment than a prince.” So unless the leader in question is genuinely striving to create and secure a form of governance which spreads power more evenly to all people, nothing is justified; least of all, any action to simply make oneself more powerful and feared.
Secondly, the authoritarian model is only recommended where the option of a free republic is not immediately attainable. Machiavelli’s advice was not that a leader should be authoritarian, but that if one were living in a state where power was concentrated exclusively at the top and rival forces would resort to vicious means to seize the throne (not to mention stopping anyone from democratising power to the citizenry), then one would have to be ruthless in countering those threats and firm in securing one’s own power. But if one were in a free republic, or had managed to transform an absolute monarchy into one, then there would be no excuse for using repressive measures.
Thirdly, for Machiavelli, even when a ruler is steering a course from the prevailing authoritarian conditions to a free republic, it does not mean that anything is permissible. One has to ask if one’s actions are helping or hindering the all important process of bringing about a form of governance whereby people can speak feely about contested issues and jointly secure their safety and prosperity without being dependent on the whims of one individual (or an elite).
If political and business leaders want to learn anything from Machiavelli, they should stop focusing on expanding their personal power as an end in itself, and start devoting themselves to empowering others to share in decision-making so that it is never the elite few but always the people who together determine the common good.
------
BBC Radio did also produce Jonathan Freedland’s ‘Machiavelli: Devil or Democrat?’, which gave some airtime to Machiavelli’s positive influence on the development of democratic republics. However, Freedland still could not resist casting Machiavelli as part ‘devil’ for The Prince. For a scholarly exposition, consult Machiavelli and Republicanism, Bock, G., Skinner, Q., and Viroli, M. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press: 1990.
Anyone who has actually studied the works of Machiavelli, especially his Discourses, an essential companion to The Prince, would know that Machiavelli was far from being a friend of deceptive and ruthless rule. But before we look at why the common misunderstanding should be corrected, we should consider a current trend that projects an even more perverse interpretation of Machiavelli.
Take the 2013 BBC TV programme, ‘Who’s Afraid of Machiavelli?’. Instead of challenging the view that Machiavelli was seeking to guide people with power to use it immorally, the makers of the programme and all who were invited to speak on it not only reinforced that view, but also claimed that it was to be celebrated. Their take on Machiavelli essentially came down to this: if you’re running a government or a large business, you have to be ruthless; you have to make others fear you; and you have to go with your judgement alone on what should be done, and get it done by whatever means necessary.
For these political insiders and business gurus, Machiavelli should not be denounced for advocating nasty power play, but praised for validating it as essential in getting the business of a ruler or top executive done.
But while some people may revel in imagining that even the most ruthless behaviour (of their own or the leaders they advised) would be endorsed by a world famous thinker, there are three crucial points they should have noted. First, when Machiavelli advised that the ends would justify the means, he was very specific about what those ends were, namely the establishment and development of a free republic – i.e., an association of citizens who collectively have a say through public deliberations over how they are to be governed. The people are, he insisted, “more prudent, more stable, and of better judgment than a prince.” So unless the leader in question is genuinely striving to create and secure a form of governance which spreads power more evenly to all people, nothing is justified; least of all, any action to simply make oneself more powerful and feared.
Secondly, the authoritarian model is only recommended where the option of a free republic is not immediately attainable. Machiavelli’s advice was not that a leader should be authoritarian, but that if one were living in a state where power was concentrated exclusively at the top and rival forces would resort to vicious means to seize the throne (not to mention stopping anyone from democratising power to the citizenry), then one would have to be ruthless in countering those threats and firm in securing one’s own power. But if one were in a free republic, or had managed to transform an absolute monarchy into one, then there would be no excuse for using repressive measures.
Thirdly, for Machiavelli, even when a ruler is steering a course from the prevailing authoritarian conditions to a free republic, it does not mean that anything is permissible. One has to ask if one’s actions are helping or hindering the all important process of bringing about a form of governance whereby people can speak feely about contested issues and jointly secure their safety and prosperity without being dependent on the whims of one individual (or an elite).
If political and business leaders want to learn anything from Machiavelli, they should stop focusing on expanding their personal power as an end in itself, and start devoting themselves to empowering others to share in decision-making so that it is never the elite few but always the people who together determine the common good.
------
BBC Radio did also produce Jonathan Freedland’s ‘Machiavelli: Devil or Democrat?’, which gave some airtime to Machiavelli’s positive influence on the development of democratic republics. However, Freedland still could not resist casting Machiavelli as part ‘devil’ for The Prince. For a scholarly exposition, consult Machiavelli and Republicanism, Bock, G., Skinner, Q., and Viroli, M. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press: 1990.
Sunday, 1 December 2013
The Art of Nurturing Communities
Governments like to turn on the rhetoric about helping communities to develop and thrive. But while some politicians genuinely support community development by investing resources in what are known to make a difference, others talk about building a ‘Big Society’ even as they embark on doing the very things evidence tells us would sap communities’ strength and destroy social cohesion.
Someone will inevitably ask: what differentiates between effective community development and superficial, or worse, counter-productive, activities that do more harm than good to community life? The truth is that there is a wealth of resources out there. From the Community Development Foundation to the materials produced in relation to the Together We Can programme, there is no shortage of information to guide us. And if one is looking for a one-volume handy guide, there is Community Research for Community Development, ed. by M. Mayo, Z. Mediwelso-Bendek, & C. Packham (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)
This book is particularly illuminating when it deals with the issue of researching what works in community-based activities. By bringing together a group of academics who have actually engaged with community organisations, it has given us a collection of essays which combine analytical clarity with practical understanding.
The editors contributed an invaluable opening chapter that tackled head-on some of the most difficult problems in researching community development. They drew attention to the need for conceptual rigour. Community development is enhanced by state-community sector partnership, but undermined by communities having to pick up the pieces of a dismantled state. Following Alinsky’s focus to organise in localities to attain achievable goals in the “here and now” is quite distinct from Freira’s injunction to understand and challenge the underlying causes of social injustice. Doing one does not guarantee the other.
From the book’s wide range of insights, case studies, and wise counsel, I would like to share three ideas that strike me as most important. First, governments concerned with learning about what impact individual community development programmes are having should avoid pressing for evaluation in narrow, pre-conceived, and often irrelevant terms. Those who only ask how many golden eggs are laid by a flock of geese, so to speak, will never appreciate, as the Romans did, the protective value of geese as ‘guard dogs’.
Secondly, researchers should be given scope to tailor their study to help community groups learn more about their own strengths and weaknesses as a constructive exercise, rather than simply to churn out data to respond to measures drawn up by funders. The former approach would actually often lead to more improvements than the all too frequent use of the latter.
Last but not least, both funders and community-based practitioners should learn to bridge the contrasting ‘languages’ they use by developing at the outset a common understanding of a shared enterprise. An enterprise, all involved would do well to remember, which is likely to resemble less a scientific experiment (where input, output, impact can be measured in precise, pre-defined terms), and more a team-building exercise where people come to discover and celebrate their collective potential as a community.
Someone will inevitably ask: what differentiates between effective community development and superficial, or worse, counter-productive, activities that do more harm than good to community life? The truth is that there is a wealth of resources out there. From the Community Development Foundation to the materials produced in relation to the Together We Can programme, there is no shortage of information to guide us. And if one is looking for a one-volume handy guide, there is Community Research for Community Development, ed. by M. Mayo, Z. Mediwelso-Bendek, & C. Packham (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)
This book is particularly illuminating when it deals with the issue of researching what works in community-based activities. By bringing together a group of academics who have actually engaged with community organisations, it has given us a collection of essays which combine analytical clarity with practical understanding.
The editors contributed an invaluable opening chapter that tackled head-on some of the most difficult problems in researching community development. They drew attention to the need for conceptual rigour. Community development is enhanced by state-community sector partnership, but undermined by communities having to pick up the pieces of a dismantled state. Following Alinsky’s focus to organise in localities to attain achievable goals in the “here and now” is quite distinct from Freira’s injunction to understand and challenge the underlying causes of social injustice. Doing one does not guarantee the other.
From the book’s wide range of insights, case studies, and wise counsel, I would like to share three ideas that strike me as most important. First, governments concerned with learning about what impact individual community development programmes are having should avoid pressing for evaluation in narrow, pre-conceived, and often irrelevant terms. Those who only ask how many golden eggs are laid by a flock of geese, so to speak, will never appreciate, as the Romans did, the protective value of geese as ‘guard dogs’.
Secondly, researchers should be given scope to tailor their study to help community groups learn more about their own strengths and weaknesses as a constructive exercise, rather than simply to churn out data to respond to measures drawn up by funders. The former approach would actually often lead to more improvements than the all too frequent use of the latter.
Last but not least, both funders and community-based practitioners should learn to bridge the contrasting ‘languages’ they use by developing at the outset a common understanding of a shared enterprise. An enterprise, all involved would do well to remember, which is likely to resemble less a scientific experiment (where input, output, impact can be measured in precise, pre-defined terms), and more a team-building exercise where people come to discover and celebrate their collective potential as a community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)