| Clever work, clever country: an Australian scenario |
| By Jan Lee Martin | |
| July 1999
This paper by Dr Peter Saul gazes into the crystal ball and describes a possible future for Australia as a magnet for leading knowledge workers and creators of intellectual property - the new source of wealth in the new millennium. It attempts to integrate political, industrial and social policy with some of the major trends that are reshaping management and employment practices in the modern workplace. On his 45th birthday in 2008, Arthur Richards reflected that it had been almost ten years since he and Jennifer had left stressful jobs in downtown America for one of the new satellite cities in Australia. His colleagues had said that it was a crazy career move. However, Jennifer and Arthur were fed up with incessant travel, the soul-destroying focus on ever-increasing monthly targets and the declining time available for them to spend together. They knew they could never start a family in that kind of lifestyle.
Arthur’s last promotion in America, and the move it involved, had disconnected him from most of his old friends. People in the new neighbourhood were locked into lives like theirs, making new friendships difficult. But the trigger for their decision had been an item on the internet about a radical new industry policy in Australia. One of the political parties (he could not remember which) had recognised that success as a nation in the 21st century was not going to be based on increases in the production of raw materials, agricultural products or low value-added manufactured goods. It saw that the new scarce resource and basis for economic wealth-creation was going to be intellectual capital. “Australia is committed to being the preferred location when knowledge workers are choosing where to live,” the government had said. “We will design our cities and regional communities to offer a range of safe, sustainable, attractive environments with all the support services needed by knowledge workers to perform at the level of global best practice. “As a nation, we will actively attract and support those industries that reinforce our strategy of being a magnet for the world’s best inventors and designers, scientists, architects, researchers, artists, writers, musicians, film makers, software developers, health care specialists, educators, etc. ‘We will provide economic and social incentives for people with the knowledge and skills necessary to create valuable intellectual property or to create and manage knowledge-based businesses. We know that wealth-creating businesses will have to follow where these people choose to live. Flow-on employment will be created in support fields such as housing; entertainment; restaurants; the arts, etc.” Arthur knew he could do his job from almost anywhere in the world. However, until that moment, ten years ago, he had not realised there was a country committed to becoming an ideal place for people like him to live. When he saw the story, he knew Australia offered the kind of lifestyle he and Jennifer were seeking. It also offered the prospect of being part of a community of like-minded people from other professional fields who could stimulate his professional development and extend his network of contacts. And so Arthur and Jennifer had packed up, quit the rat race and moved to Australia in order to ‘get a life’.
A Typical Working Day On the 15th of March 2008, Arthur began a typical working day. He got out of bed at 6.45, showered, dressed and made school lunches for his two children; he liked doing this because it was a simple ritual of caring that was visible and tangible both to him and his children. He read the newspapers and then checked and answered his emails. His electronic diary reminded him he had a team review meeting today. So today, he would need to travel to the office. Often he would work at home. His current job as leader of an on-line support team in a major insurance company did not require him to be physically present with his team for much of the time. The team meeting began on time and, as with all review meetings throughout the company, it would consider issues in each of the company’s five ’success dimensions’: • Customer Success • Staff Success • Financial Success • Community/Environment Success • Corporate Learning and Renewal These ’success dimensions’ align with the reporting requirements introduced for all publicly listed organisations in the new Corporations Act. In anticipation of the new Act, the accounting profession had reinvented itself and had acquired the skills necessary to assess organisations’ performance in each of the five nationally mandated reporting categories. The government also provided a significant incentive for companies to balance their performance across each of the five success dimensions by linking the corporate tax rate to the achievement of threshold levels of performance in selected ’success dimensions’ (i.e. those where market forces had typically not led to socially desirable outcomes). Companies who met the threshold levels set for the Staff, Community/Environmental and the Learning/Renewal ’success dimensions’ had their corporate tax rate reduced by 3% for each threshold met. Australian voters had been persuaded to support this change by the argument that net ‘takers’ from society should be taxed more than companies that delivered non-financial social benefits. Clearly, it is cheaper to provide incentives for companies to do business in ways that prevent social problems and enhance community welfare than it is to create government agencies to ‘fix’ problems once they have occurred. Arthur wasted no time going over the data relating to his team’s performance - the team had unrestricted access to those so they would all know that the critical issue would be the increasing average time the team was taking to handle customer calls. “What’s changed over the last month or so?” he asked. Arthur knew that his role as a team leader was to maximise the team’s ability to self-organise (this new view of effective leadership roles reflected what we had learned about the forces that contribute to the viability and sustainability of living systems)…. Arthur got home around 3.30 pm, in time to listen to his children talk about what had happened at school. They sometimes asked him to help them with their homework and he really enjoyed being available for this unpredictable ‘quality time’.
Identifying the Trends This scenario illustrates global trends in the world of work that will affect many Australians; e.g., • A shift from a production and consumption based economy to a services and experience based society where people are defined and valued more by who they are than what they have. • A shift in individual value systems away from the individual, the externally anchored, and the materialistic towards the collective, the internally focussed and the spiritual (i.e. a shift away from ‘You are what you have and what you consume’ towards ‘You are what believe in, stand for and care about’). • Governments legislating to redefine the social contract under which organisations are created and allowed to operate in society and, in particular, providing incentives to focus on the sustainable creation of social and environmental wealth as well as financial wealth. • Creators of knowledge and intellectual property as the new scarce resource, not financial capital. • Replacement of a psychological contract of employment where employees accept a dependent status in return for long-term financial security with a new contract where employees feel motivated and able to choose work. Leadership becomes dispersed throughout diverse communities of contributors (not just employees) and operates with a facilitation mindset rather than a control mindset, ‘control’ having come to be recognised as something of an illusory concept in complex living systems. |
| Who is the organisation? |
| By Jan Lee Martin | ||||||
| February 1998 With boundaries shifting, blurring and growing more porous, how will future organisations define those who are in them and those who are not? How will they define themselves?And how will organisations manage their relationships with the more and more diverse groups of people who contribute to their success? Dr Peter Saul, managing director of the Strategic Consulting Group, invited members of the Foundation to consider these questions at the January meeting in Sydney. He offered a model for discussion which develops the Charles Handy ‘shamrock’ model and defines an organisation as a ‘community of contributors’, grouped under five main headings. Key implications include shifts in attitudes to staffing, people management and career planning and development, and a redefinition of corporate identity.
“Sun Microsystems advertisements carry the slogan: ‘The network is the computer’,” he said. “This is apparently intended to stimulate potential IT buyers to adopt a new mindset in thinking about their computer systems. The ‘computer’, according to Sun Microsystems, is best designed and managed as the totality of an organisation’s PCs, mainframes, communications links, software, and peripheral devices. It is everything that contributes to getting the information processing job done. “In the same way, it is increasingly easy to argue that today’s ‘organisation’ is the totality of a diverse network of dedicated, career oriented core workers; fringe dwelling casuals, part-timers and consultants; business partners (for example, suppliers, banks, joint venture partners); as well as customers themselves, who are increasingly being involved in the value adding activities of many service oriented organisations. This community of ‘contributors’ to an organisation’s success is the organisation and we will not design and manage it effectively if we constrain our mindset to see our ‘organisation’ and our ‘human resources’ as the, typically full-time, employees who appear on an organisation chart or even the slightly broader constituency who are represented on the regular payroll. “Charles Handy describes modern organisations as resembling a shamrock (or clover) with three main ‘leaves’, each representing a different type of contributor to organisational objectives; i.e. a core of full-time, hard-working, highly paid professionals, technicians and executives who ‘own the organisational knowledge’; a contractual fringe of individuals and organisations who provide material and service inputs to the core; and a flexible workforce of part-time or temporary workers to handle peak workloads. “Some management writers have argued that as the boundaries between organisation and environment become more diffuse and ambiguous (in terms of organisational membership, exchange relations, transactions, etc), there is also an increased need for a strong corporate identity,” he said. “In the past, ‘the organisation’ behind a business identity such as QANTAS, Westpac, IBM etc. was a relatively unambiguous reference to the people on the payroll of these organisations. The meaning given in corporate advertising and external communications was generally the same as the one shared by managers and employees within the organisation. People agreed on where the boundaries were, on who was on ‘the team’, and what was meant by our ‘human resources’. Things are not so clear any more. “Organisation builders must, today, plan to draw psychological maps of the boundaries, connecting pathways, and salient features of their organisational communities and communicate these to each of their important stakeholders and contributors. It is likely that the future will be different from the past in that different maps will be drawn for different purposes.
“For example, senior executives may still wish to communicate to customers a view of the organisation as a homogeneous entity that works in a seamless manner to delight them. However, they may promote a disaggregated, multicultural view of the organisation to managers in the strategic core in order to heighten their awareness of the need to respect and value all contributors and to manage differently their diverse contributor roles and relationships.” Finally, Peter Saul drew a parallel between the corporate community and the wider community in the need for an increasingly sophisticated (did he say deconstructed?) view of what a community really is. “This model of enterprises formally acknowledges that the dream of a workforce that is homogeneous in its commitment to corporate objectives and values is now simply an exercise in self-indulgent nostalgia. “Today’s market forces and social values make the modern enterprise much too complex for this homogeneity to occur (or even be desirable) across the entire contributor network. “Perhaps, as seems to be happening with Australia itself, it is time to relinquish our search for a national culture and embrace the multicultural reality which may, in fact, define our uniqueness. “The essence of a vibrant nation or organisation today may be that its culture is multifaceted - displaying a few core commonalities surrounded by a rich - and changing - diversity of hopes, dreams, values, skills and needs. “Modern organisations will start to be effectively managed (and long-term executive remuneration maximised!) when there is a an awareness among managers in the strategic core that terms such as ‘the organisation’ and its ‘human resources’ refer to the whole community of contributors to the organisation’s objectives, not just the core ‘leaf’ or sub-group of that community.”
===
What future for government?
Government has been on the retreat for the past decade or more. But there are signs it is staging a comeback. This may be a good thing.
Published: January 2003
Does government have a future? For a public organisation such as the OECD the question seems purely rhetorical and the answer obvious. Does anyone seriously believe that the world could function without government? Yet, the proposition is far from being fanciful.
Only a decade ago, just as we were being told about the end of history, many voices, including some well-known economic and political thinkers, argued that the end of government would be part of the package. The defeat of communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall in October 1989 symbolised the victory of individual freedom, personal initiative and markets over government interference, oppression and authoritarian planning.
In the aftermath of these historical events, which had been dismissed as unlikely dreams just a few months before they happened, the role and function of public authority, even if democratically elected to rule on behalf of citizens, were scrutinised.
Fundamental issues were raised. Why should people go on trusting the wisdom and judgement of those who claim to be acting in the public interest? Shouldn’t everyone have the right to decide for themselves on social, economic or environmental matters and be free to make full use of their own innate potential? Why tolerate restrictions that only cramp creativity and innovation and hold back progress and development? Surely, the pursuit of individual happiness would boost the welfare of us all.
The size of government and public sector waste were criticised, as were the systemic lack of transparency and the potential for corruption.
The management of government came under the spotlight too. Its taxation, expenditure and debt, its laws and regulations: such areas as these were considered as an obstacle to economic growth, dynamism and development, while private sector solutions for previously publicly-owned services, like telecoms and railways, were considered more efficient and responsive to people’s needs. “Small is beautiful” was the mantra of the day, leading to downsizing and other prescriptions in a well-meaning bid to purge society of “big” government.
The revolution in communications technology, in particular the Internet, added another dimension to the “dream” of a world free of governments, since it opened up an uncontrolled – and virtually uncontrollable – private space in which governments would not be able to apply their policies, rules or broader frameworks, even if they wanted to. In the same vein, as the last century drew to a close, the frantic growth of the stock markets around the world was seen as a sign of an unprecedented growth path to a new economy and proof of the supremacy of the market. There simply seemed to be no space left for government.
These were challenging times for those of us who clung to the view that governments would still be needed to help manage the process of globalisation, who believed that markets could not meet all social, environmental or even economic needs, and that the unlimited exposure of the individual to market forces would not necessarily mean prosperity for all, both within countries and between the industrialised world and the developing economies. But the voices that doubted the perfect rationality of markets were lost in the din of the “money machine”, which spat out more growth and more wealth for some and the prospect, however illusory, of riches for many.
But “many” and “all” are not the same thing. Confrontational language re-emerged, like digital divide and anti-globalisation. In fact, the price of this rather heady period was greater awareness of the risk of exclusion for large parts of the planet. A limited backlash occurred in Asia, then Russia and elsewhere, though these were not described as such at the time. In the OECD world, the end of the speculative “bubble” led to requests for government action from stakeholders who had not been heard of for a while. Government institutions like the WTO and the IMF were solicited to extend financial support or arbitration in cases of economic distress and conflict. Producers and consumers in OECD and non-OECD countries suffered from downturns and cried out for new frameworks to help them improve efficiency and survive. Privatised and deregulated industries showed weaknesses, even becoming liabilities to the functioning of whole economies. Whom better to ask for assistance than the government?
Whether this all adds up to a renewed understanding that, to function properly, markets might need strong frameworks, broad and flexible though they may be, it is too early to say. But there does appear to be recognition that efficiency cannot be the sole objective of economic activities, and that values like welfare and sustainability also count. With large corporate scandals and sagging public faith, we have also been reminded that the market alone is imperfect and cannot guarantee its own survival. Good governance, private and public, though with democracy leading by example, is clearly a key ingredient of economic growth and sustainable development.
By the same token, governments will never go back to being the way they were. Public sector efficiency remains a concern, and working methods and management practices in the private sector should be useful points of reference for the daily operations of the public sector. But there is also a growing emphasis on the importance of functioning markets, in other words, enhancing opportunities for individuals through the creation and enforcement of level playing fields within a transparent framework, which serves economic, social and environmental objectives. While the government as owner of productive assets continues its retreat, new forms of public-private partnerships, for example for investment in infrastructure or service delivery, are being explored. And finally, there is much more attention being paid to the participation of stakeholders and community advocacy in public policymaking and implementation.
Security is another reason why government is back. When it comes to the essential need for individual and collective safety, there seems to be no alternative to a strong and efficient government. Private partnerships will be involved, like insurance, security equipment, even some policing. But whether it concerns the security in airports, transborder flows of merchandise, biotechnology or food safety, the public sector is obviously considered to be the guarantor of last resort. That implies, of course, not only a reinforced responsibility of political players and public administrations, it also calls for even greater respect for the principles of accountability, transparency and the participation of stakeholders. Without proper, open government, these values cannot be guaranteed.
Governments will remain in business if they are smart, responsive and efficient, and maintain public trust. Good public governance will secure that confidence. It is a future’s commodity in high demand. And that applies to organisations like the OECD too.
© OECD Observer No. 235, December 2002
정부를 위한 무슨 미래?
정부는 과거 십년간 더 많은 것을 위한 퇴각에 있었다. 그러나 복귀를 상연하고 있는 표시가 있다. 이것은 좋은 것일지도 모른다.
간행하는: 2003년 1월
정부는 미래를 보내는가? 경제 개발 협력 기구와 같은 공중 조직을 위한 질문은 순전히 수사학 그리고 명백한 응답에 보인다. 누군가는 심각하게 세계가 정부 없이 작용할 수 있었다고 믿는가? 아직, 건의안은 기발한에서 멀리 이다.
우리가 역사의 끝부분에 관하여 말되고 있었는 대로 단지 십년간 전에, 많은 음성은, 몇몇 유명한 경제/정치 사상가를 포함하여, 정부의 끝이 포장의 일부분일 것이라는 점을 이라고 주장했다. 공산주의의 패배 및 10월 1989일에 있는 베를린 장벽의 가을은 개인의 자유, 개인 이니셔티브 및 시장 전면 정부 방해, 탄압 및 권위주의적인 계획의 승리를 상징했다.
일어나기 전에 약간 달 다만 일축되었었던 이 역사적인 사건의 여파로, 역할은 및 공권력의 기능은 있을 법하지 않는 꿈으로, 비록 시민의 대신으로 규칙에 민주주의로 선임해, 자세히 조사되었다.
기본적인 이슈는 제기되었다. 사람들은 왜 공공 이익에서 행동하고 있는 것을 주장하는 그들의 지혜 그리고 판단을 신뢰하는 계속해야 하는가? 모두에는 그들의 자신의 타고난 잠재력을 충분히 활용하게 사회, 경제 또는 환경 문제에 그들자신을 위해 결정하고 자유로운가 권리가 있으면 안되는가? 왜 단지 독창성과 혁신만 속박하고 진도와 발달을 후에 보전되는 금지를 관대히 다루는가? 확실하게, 개인적인 행복의 추적은 저희의 복지를 전부 밀어줄 것입니다.
정부와 공공 구역 낭비의 크기는 투명도의 조직 부족 및 타락을 위한 잠재력이 이었다 것과 같이, 강평되었다.
정부의 관리는 스포트라이트에 역시 해당했다. 그것의 과세, 비용 및 빚, 그것의 법률 및 규칙: 이전에 공중 소유되는 서비스를 위한 민간 부분 해결책은, telecoms와 철도 같이, 사람들의 필요에 능률 적이고 대답하는 여겨졌는 그러나, 이로 이 같은 지역은 경제 성장, 동력론에 장애로 고려되고 발달. “작 아름답” 이어 일의 진언은, “큰” 정부의 사회를 깨끗이 하기 위하여 선의 입찰에 있는 소형화 그리고 다른 처방전에 지도한.
통신 기술에 있는 혁명, 특히 인터넷은 그것부터 정부의, 자유로웠던 세계의 “꿈”에, 다른 차원을 열었다 정부가 그들의 정책, 규칙 또는 광범위한 조직을 적용할 수 없을 것입니다 억제되지 않는 -와 실제로 제어할 수 없는 - 비록 원했더라도, 개인 공간을 추가했다. 지난 세기가 끌어 당기는 때 같은 기분으로, 전세계 증권 거래소의 광란적인 성장은 시장의 최고의 새로운 경제 그리고 증거에 전례가 없는 성장 경로의 표시로 보였다. 간단하게 정부를 위해 아무 공간도 이지 않는 것을 좌로 보였다.
이들은 정부가 여전히 시장은 전부 사회, 환경 또는 경제 필요를 충족시킬 수 없었다고, 그리고 시장력에 개인의 무제한 노출은 필요하게 국가 내의 그리고 공업화한 세계와 개발도상 경제 사이에서 둘 다 모두를 위한 번영을, 의미하지 않을 것이라고 믿은, 세계화의 과정을 처리할 것을 돕도록 필요할 전망에 달라붙은 사람들을 위한 도전적인 시간이었다. 그러나 시장의 완전한 합리성은 어떤을 위한 성장 더 그리고 부를 더 밖으로 뱉은 “돈 기계”의 소음에서 분실되었다는 것을 의심한 음성, 및 많은 것을 위한 riches의, 환상 장래성, 아무리.
그러나 “많은 것”와 “모두는” 동일한 것이 아니다. 디지털 같이, 재현된 Confrontational 언어는 반대로 세계화 분할한다. 실제로, 이 오히려 무모한 기간의 가격은 행성의 큰 부분을 위한 배타의 모험의 더 중대한 의식이었다. 한정된 반동은 아시아, 그 후에 러시아에서 이들이 그 자체로 당시에 기술되지 않았더라도, 그리고 다른 곳에 나왔다. 경제 개발 협력 기구 세계에서는, 위험한 “거품”의 끝은 잠시 동안 전해 들려지지 않았었던 내깃돈 보관자에게서 정부 활동을 위한 요구로 이끌어 냈다. WTO 및 IMF 같이 정부 기관은 경제 고민의 케이스에 있는 재정 지원 또는 중재를 확장하고 투쟁하기 위하여 요구되었다. 새로운 기구가 그들이 효율성을 개량하고 살아날 것을 돕도록 경제 개발 협력 기구와 비 경제 개발 협력 기구 국가에 있는 생산자 그리고 소비자는 하락을과 밖으로 울어 겪었다. 민영화하고 규칙을 폐지한 기업은 약점, 전체 경제의 작용에 되는 책임 조차 보여주었다. 원조를 요구할 것일 잘 누구 정부 보다는?
이 모두는 일지도 모르다, 제대로 기능에, 시장이, 넓고 그리고 가동 가능하다 강한 기구를 필요로 할지도 모른 경신한 이해까지 추가한ㄴ다는 것을, 밝히기 에는 너무 이르다. 그러나 효율성이 경제 행위의 유일한 목적일 수 없다, 그리고 복지와 sustainability 같이 가치가 또한 센다 승인이 인 것처럼 보인다. 큰 법인 물의 및 처지는 공중 믿음으로, 혼자 시장이 불완전하 그것의 자신의 생존을 보장할 수 없는 우리는 또한 생각나게 했다. 좋은 지배는, 그러나 보기에 의하여 지도하는 민주주의에 개인 그리고 공중, 명확하게 경제 성장 및 지속 가능한 개발의 중요한 성분이다.
마찬가지로, 정부는 인 방법인 등을 맞댄 결코 가지 않을 것이다. 공공 구역 효율성은 관심사에 남아 있고, 민간 부분에 있는 일 방법 그리고 관리 실례는 공공 구역의 매일 가동을 위한 참고 적 유용한 관점이어야 한다. 그러나 또한 작용 시장의 중요성에 성장 강조가 있어, 즉 개인을 위한 기회를 경제의, 사회와 환경 목적을 도움이 되어는 투명한 기구 내의 수평 경기장의 창조 그리고 실행을 통해 강화한. 생산 자산의 소유자로 정부가 그것의 퇴각, 기반 또는 서비스 납품에 있는 투자를 위한 공중 개인 공동체정신의 새로운 모양을, 예를 들면 계속하는 동안, 탐구되고 있다. 그리고 마지막으로, 훨씬 더가 지불되는 공중 정책 입안 및 실시에 있는 내깃돈 보관자 그리고 지역 사회 옹호의 참가에 주의 있다.
안전은 정부가 돌아오는지 왜 또 다른 이유이다. 그것이 개인 및 공동 안전을 위한 근본적인 필요에 올 때, 강한 능률적인 정부에 아무 대안도 이지 않는 것을 보인다. 개인 공동체정신은 보험, 안전 장비, 약간 치안을 유지 조차 같이 연루될 것이다. 그러나 공항에 있는 안전, 상품의 월경 교류, 생물공학 또는 음식 안전을 염려한ㄴ다는 것을, 공공 구역은 명백하게 최후의 수단의 보증인 것 여겨진다. 저것은 함축한다, 당연히, 정치적 플레이어 및 국정, 의 뿐만 아니라 강화한 책임 또한 내깃돈 보관자의 출납책임, 투명도 및 참가의 원리를 위한 동등한 더 중대한 존경을 요구한다. 적당한, 열려있는 정부 없이는, 이 가치는 보장될 수 없다.
정부는 사업에서 똑똑하고, 대답하는 능률적인 경우에 남아 있고, 공유 신탁을 유지할 것이다. 좋은 공중 지배는 저 신뢰를 확보할 것이다. 큰 수요에 있는 미래의 필수품이다. 그리고 저것은 경제 개발 협력 기구 같이 조직에 역시 적용한다.
© 경제 개발 협력 기구 관찰자 아니오 235, 2002년 12월
===
|
||||||
businesses that build on the community’s
strong academic, commercial, industrial, and
cultural resources.
Hamilton is home to a whole new economic
sector based on the cultural and natural
resources of the city. Hamilton Harbour is a
base for nature-oriented tourism and
recreation that includes the Niagara
Escarpment, waterfalls and Carolinian forest
areas of the city. The harbour is a vibrant
centrepiece for the community and is
accessible, clean, and humming with
diversity. Recreation co-exists with use of
the harbour as an essential marine
transportation link. Hamilton’s heritage
sites, farms and arts community complete
the picture, drawing tourists and investment.
Rural Communities
A griculture is supported as a
community resource and a vibrant
part of the local economy which
makes a valued contribution to our overall
quality of life. All citizens recognize prime
agricultural land as irreplaceable. Strong
policies and programs ensure its continued
use for food production. The farming
community is economically viable and
environmentally sensitive, capable of
supporting family farming operations that
are competitive internationally. The farming
community is in harmony with neighbouring
urban areas. Agricultural soils are
continuously improved and water quality is
protected through the widespread use of
sustainable farm practices.
Cooperation
W e all have a role to play. Citizens,
business, academic institutions
and government form
partnerships, work cooperatively and
innovate to achieve the goals that will make
our vision a reality.
Hamilton’s Vision 2020 – A Strong Foundation For A Sustainable Community
Self-determination and the Future of Democracy
By Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein
International Institute for Strategic StudiesJanuary 25, 2001
It is an honour and a pleasure to speak here at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The Institute is certainly one if not the most prestigious private institution that has worked over the decades on security and questions of strategic importance. The Institute has seen different threats to world security emerge and disappear.
After the end of the Cold War the danger of a nuclear or even a conventional World War has almost disappeared. Small conventional wars between states have lost their importance. The high costs and risks involved just do not justify the modest gains even under the most optimistic scenarios, as the recent example of the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea has shown.
Since the end of World War II another threat to security in the world has slowly increased and will probably dominate this century and perhaps the next: the civil wars or the wars of independence. In the past 50 years we saw the collapse of the colonial empires, of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia among others. Some have disappeared peacefully like Czechoslovakia, others through war.
Most people, even historians, usually look at rather short periods of human history and run therefore the risk of missing the elements which influence human history over longer periods of time. When we look at human history on this planet over several thousands of years, we see that states or empires are born, they grow and they disappear. Either they collapse or they are taken over by more powerful states and empires. There have been periods of time, when smaller states or decentralized empires prevailed, and other periods, when larger and more centralized states or empires dominated. If you can find out what elements influence human history over longer periods of time, we are not only in a better position to understand human history but also to make better forecasts about the future of humanity.
Experts say that the dog is one of the oldest and most faithful companion of mankind. The same can also be said unfortunately for another companion and that is war. Throughout human history war was the most important element which influenced the birth, the size and the death of states. It is interesting to notice that when technology favours the aggressor, large and rather centralized states or empires dominate, when technology favours the defender, small or decentralized empires prevail.
When the defender was able to hide behind walls, few people with limited resources could defend themselves efficiently against large armies. Small states survived and large states often broke up in civil wars. When city walls or castles offered little protection large states or centralized empires dominated. In European history we have the examples of Ancient Greece and Medieval Europe for one period, the Roman Empire and the colonial empires for the other period.
It is of course not only military technology which tips the balance in one direction or the other. The success of the Roman Empire was largely dependent on a very efficient transport system. The Romans were able to concentrate enough people and resources even in a very remote corner of the empire, long enough to overcome a fortification like Massada in the desert near the Death Sea.
There have been many speculations of why the Roman Empire collapsed, in this case it was perhaps less a change in military technology in favour of the small states but probably more the incompetence to manage such a large empire. The eastern part of the Roman Empire survived for another thousand years.
After the collapse of the Roman Empire it took at least in Europe centuries to tip again the balance in favour of the large centralized states. Artillery was probably the decisive factor. Turkish artillery destroyed the walls of Constantinople in the 15th century. Artillery destroyed city walls and castles and laid the foundation for the large nation-state and the colonial empires. Like in Roman time improved transportation supported this process. But perhaps the most important influence in tipping the balance in favour of the large centralized state during the 19th and the beginning of the 2Oth century was industrialization. Mass production was much more efficient than handicraft, especially also in the production of weapons. Small countries with limited access to large markets or large decentralized states with all kinds of barriers against domestic trade could not compete any more.
After World War II, the balance started to change again in favour of the small states. Nationalism certainly played a part in the collapse of the colonial empires, but in most cases those people would have chosen independence long before and were usually forced into these empires and large states through military or economic pressure.
Military technology and a different economic environment were probably the more important agents for change. The United States as the most powerful state after World War II had no colonial empire but instead a highly competitive industry. Therefore, it was very much in the interest of the United States to favour a policy of free trade wherever possible. Free trade was not only favourable for the US, but it favoured also those small countries willing and able to open up and to integrate their economy into the world economy.
Also the character of industrialization changed. Profit margins in mass production started to fall, whereas they increased in sophisticated and rather specialized products. This was another reason to tip the balance into the direction of small states with a well educated population.
On the military side technology gave the defender very efficient weapons. As long as the correct strategy was used, a rather weak defender could inflict heavy losses on a much stronger army. Already the battle of Berlin in 1945 showed that weak infantry forces with rather cheap armor piercing weapons could inflict tremendous losses on the vastly superior mechanized divisions of the Soviet Union. The different Guerrilla Wars after World War II are good examples of the high costs a weak defender can inflict on attacking forces which are far superior in numbers and material.
The colonial empires became a burden, not only because of a changing economic environment but also because the military forces needed to suppress an independence movement willing to fight became too expensive. The very expensive highly mechanized armies proved to be not very cost-efficient in wars like Vietnam, Afghanistan or now Chechnya.
If the assumption is basically correct that over longer periods in human history changes in the economy and military technology influence the size and structure of states, what developments can we expect for the future? More states will split or collapse, some of them peacefully like Czechoslovakia, others probably in warlike conditions. Whenever the balance changed in human history more wars were the consequence, civil wars when the balance favoured small states, wars of aggression when the balance pointed into the other direction.
You may now ask, what has all this to do with self-determination and the future of democracy? In my opinion self-determination and democracy are the only solution how we can handle those processes in human history peacefully. Throughout human history the birth, the growth and the death of states were decided with weapons in the hand. Although it was a rather uncivilized and for the victims often a cruel process, you can argue that humanity was able to afford it up to now. In World War I and World War II millions of people were killed but the world population is higher than it ever was, the battle fields and the sunken battle ships of those wars are visited by tourists today.
Unfortunately, modern technology gives us far more dangerous weapons than in the past. Atomic, bacteriological and chemical weapons have the potential to inflict tremendous destruction on the human environment which can last for generations. Small groups who have the technical background are already now able to produce bacteriological and chemical weapons. Scientific knowledge, especially in biotechnology is accumulating and spreading very rapidly over our planet. It is becoming more and more difficult to make forecasts, what kind of weapons can be developed in 20 to 30 years with this knowledge.
Therefore, we should think now on how to eliminate one of the major causes of war and terrorism in human history. Let us accept the fact that states have lifecycles similar to those of human beings who created them. The lifecycle of a state might last for many generations, but hardly any Member State of the United Nations has existed within its present borders for longer than five generations. The attempt to freeze human evolution has in the past been a futile undertaking and has probably brought about more violence than if such a process had been controlled peacefully. Our task is to make sure that all those inevitable changes are not solved on the battle-field with the weapon in the hand but at the ballot-box with the ballot-paper in the hand.
This can only be achieved if the states of this world are based on democracy. The vast majority of the Member States of the United Nations see democracy today as their guiding principle. Unfortunately, in many states only lip service is paid to this principle, and even in countries with a long democratic tradition the democratic principle is applied in a rather restrictive way. Democracy also means the right to self-determination, and the right of the people to self-determination stands prominently in the UN-Charter as well as in other international documents, but reality looks somewhat different.
In the UN-Charter the right of self-determination is limited by the respect for the integrity and sovereignty of existing states. Many states interpret this to mean that only during the decolonization process does the right of self-determination enjoy precedence over the sanctity of borders. Even states with a long democratic tradition have difficulties to accept the idea that their population has the right to put the existing borders in question. One of the arguments is that earlier generations have already made the choice to belong to this state or this nation and that the following generations are therefore bound by this decision.
To put such restrictions on democracy is in my opinion problematic for several reasons:
1. With few exceptions present borders have not been established in a democratic process.
2. Every democracy accepts the idea that its constitution and laws can be changed in a democratic process.
3. In a democracy the majority decides. History shows that even in well established democracies the majority can suppress a minority. If there is not a clearly defined right of self-determination for a minority, the rule of law and with it democracy can be the first victims. This can easily lead to a collapse of the state either through civil war or some other mechanism.
4. Restrictions on self-determination threaten not only democracy itself but the state which seeks its legitimation in democracy. Restrictions on self-determination cannot be the answer but rather the extension of democracy and self-determination down to the smallest community. Some people believe that such an extension of democracy and self-determination will threaten the political stability of the modern state. I think the opposite will happen.
A restrictive interpretation of the right of self-determination has in the past led to violence, civil wars, ethnic cleansing and the break up of states. The international community is usually only willing, if at all, to apply the right of self-determination to minorities of a certain size, who are different from their neighbours in race, religion, language and culture. One of the main problems is that there are not many states on this planet of a certain size, which are ethnically clean. Where minorities live within a state, there are parts where the minority is only the majority in an ethnically mixed background and other parts where they are again a minority. To split the state according to this interpretation of self-determination creates only new minorities and new problems. Very often we see that minorities are politically split. Some would prefer to remain in the original state as long as they have some autonomy, others prefer independence.
A better solution would be a new interpretation of the right of self-determination in the following manner: The right of self-determination should be given to communities like cities or villages, and independence could only come at the end of a longer process of different levels of autonomy. The communities would have to prove to their population over a number of years that they are able to handle the problems of self-government and self-administration. The advantage would be that such an approach would lead in most cases to the decentralization and not to the collapse of states.
Quebec might be an interesting example of such a new application of the right of self-determination. The different votes on the independence of Quebec were rather narrow, but if one analyzes those votes on a regional level, large areas and the capital Montreal have always voted against independence. If the right of self-determination lies at the community level, those areas, rich in natural resources, and Montreal would remain with Canada. Those communities who had large majorities in favour of independence would find themselves in a small and rather fragmented independent state. There have been surveys which show that in such a situation probably also those communities would change their opinion and vote for autonomy within Canada.
An example where the present approach on the right of self-determination has failed miserably is Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia might well have survived as a very decentralized state without the civil war and ethnic cleansing, had the international community applied, early on, pressure on Yugoslavia to grant the right of self-determination on a community level and to introduce different levels of autonomy before independence. A state which does not respect the right of self-determination on community level could be threatened by the international community that those suppressed minorities who ask for independence might be recognized and supported as in Yugoslavia and now in East Timor.
One might argue that even at the community level there are minorities who could cause a problem, should the community finally reach independence. This can of course not be excluded but the problem is certainly easier to handle. The community will first have to show that it is able to handle this problem during the autonomy stage. More autonomy forces the people to cooperate if they want to succeed. Minorities within the community who cannot accept the idea of independence have more time to move to another community in the neighbourhood during the autonomy stage without the stress of ethnic cleansing.
If this much more liberal interpretation of the right of self-determination is accepted it will change the way how we see the role of the state. The state as we see it today is the product of an agrarian society. Whereas the territory of hunters and gatherers is less well defined, farmers have usually a well defined territory on which they live all the year. The first states which emerged had usually a small city as the political, economical and often religious center which controlled the surrounding territory. The state had and still has basically an unrestricted monopoly on its territory and the people living there. The only threat to this monopoly was war or revolution. Over thousands of years religion was the most efficient legitimation for the political power of the state and its rulers. The Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century, science and the industrial revolution put a question mark behind the religious legitimation of the state.
We like to think that religious legitimation was replaced by democratic legitimation at least in the western world. As mentioned before, democracy has been introduced in a very restrictive way. In practice democratic legitimation was not enough and religious legitimation was replaced to a larger extent through ideological legitimation, like nationalism and socialism. The state replaced God with the expectation that it will create paradise here on earth, reward the good people and punish the bad ones. The last century showed the failure of this approach. Wars and persecution based on ideology killed more people in those hundred years than religion in a thousand years.
Can humanity return to the religious legitimation of the state? I doubt it. Will there be a better legitimation for a future state than democracy? Perhaps, but for the foreseeable future democracy with all its shortcomings is by far the best alternative.
If the international community accepts the concept of democratic legitimation including the right of self-determination at the community level, it would break the monopoly of the state on its territory and its people. The state would have to compete peacefully against other states in offering the best service at the best price to its customers. Those customers would be the communities within its borders and its population. If a state is not competitive enough it will lose customers to other states. This would then not be decided by wars as in the past or by emigration as it is the case today, but by a democratic vote inside the community.
The state will cease to be the product of an agrarian society but will become the product of a service society. The state will have to concentrate on those services which it can deliver better and cheaper than anybody else. This will lead to political decentralization inside those states with more power to the communities, regional organizations like counties or provinces. The private sector will compete for some of these services. There could be states which offer first-class services at a high price and others which compete with standard services at a low price, but states which offer bad services at first-class prices will lose their customers and soon be out of business.
John F. Kennedy, the former US President, once said: “Don’t ask the state what it can do for you, but what you can do for the state”. This is however only one side of the coin. The state and its representatives, either politicians or civil servants, should look at the other side of the coin as well and ask the following question: “Don’t ask what the citizen can do for the state but rather what can the state do for the citizen in a better or more efficient way than any other organization.” This other organization can be a private enterprise, a local authority or an international organization like the European Union or the United Nations.
Humanity is leaving the agrarian age which has shaped societies and states for thousands of years and is moving rapidly through the industrial age to an age which is dominated by services. The states have not even adapted to the industrial society, not to speak to the service society. The states stilL try to preserve the relics of the agrarian age, gentleman farmers with a strong lobby are protected by subsidies paid by the consumer and the tax payer. To move the state from the agrarian age to the service age peacefully, humanity will have to break the monopoly of the state on its territory and will have to accept the democratic principle and with it the right of self-determination. Many people will reject those changes but do they prefer the alternatives which are wars and revolutions?
I am convinced that if the international community accepts the principle of democracy and the right of self-determination, we will be able to eliminate wars and to a large extent the oppression of minorities. We will not be able to create paradise here on earth but at least improve the political and economical situation of most people here on our planet.
“국가의 미래, 민주주의 미래 ” user comments: 0 so far