A metaphor to ponder. A swamp is quite threatening. No firm ground. One blubbery mess. If you put your foot in it, you will be sucked in. And if you struggle, you will sink faster and deeper till your breath is taken away. And it does not allow for anything stable to be built on it.
Thus the title of this piece - Swampland. A place where instead of growth there is destruction. Instead of fairness, nepotism. Instead of transparancy, below the table dealings, instead of recognition there is suppression and finally instead of freedom there is serfdom.
When I read about the scandals the are posted on the headlines such as the Telecom scandal in India or the Insider Trading scandal with the Hedge Funds in in the US, or the rogue trader at Societe Generale in France, or the pent up demands for political freedon in places like Egypt and Tunisia, I am thinking of the destructive power of corruption.
As individuals, we look at these events of scale and wonder how anything could have gotten that far. But small individual everyday acts, in my opinion, add up to more destruction than these headline grabbers.
Is it possible to take a stand? Will the opportunities for self-improvement and growth over weigh the opportunities to line one's pocket?
The other question I do have is whether a) a corrupt system creates corrupt individuals or b) a corrupt set of individuals make a system corrupt?
I have been very fortunate in my nearly twenty five years of work to not have to confront this harsh reality - but as I peruse the headlines, I wonder who is going to win the race - democratic systems where there is rule of law, everyone has a voice and meritocracy rules or corrupt sytems where only a priveleged few enjoy the perks and the vast majority of individuals are doomed to lives of unrequited desire for freedom and well being?
The race is on......across the world!
4 comments:
Snippet from Madison in Federalist Papers #51 to explain the Founder’s solution to this axiom:
“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. … It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
What should immediately come to mind then is how mistaken is the notion that democracy is simply having elections. As some have noted, elections are only effective as guarantors of liberty if these other civil institutions (limited powers via a constitution, balance of power, free press and freedom of assembly, etc.) are already in place. That is, ideally, it is the last step, not the first.
Democracy: Is this the ultimate political prescription? I believe in democracy for ceratin places. But I can hardly imagine if it would work in the region I live in. The historicity of the foundation of these countries, including its cultural and religious makeup, its size and its economic potential all contribute to what form of governance would provide stability and assurance of progress of the nation. The country I live in, the system probably is best described as benevolent autocracy. In a country where expatriates make up 80 percent of population, the demographic composition adds to the intricacy of governance. Even though this may be very unique to United Arab Emirates, even in the neighbouring Oman the monarchy works. Let me shift to SouthEast. Singapore is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy, but often people would like to think of it as autocracy. With the same party in rule ever since its independence and under its authoritarian leader, this country has been an example of progress. This form of authoritarian democracy has probably best worked for this city state. Back to Middle East. The region, even the world at large is watching anxiously the developments in Egypt. A country I often travel to, I am worried if the autocracy which is being rebelled against would eventually be replaced by democracy as the world would prefer or would it be theocracy that will prevail.
Corruption: In this region, the corruption is not totally non-existent. In Dubai and in the entire country, the government is definitely free from corruption. It is unheard of. But unfortunately in the private construction industry, within the contracting world this happens even though it may not be rampant. What I have to say about one particular large construction company is something weird. This company which executes billions of dollars worth projects around the region is known for its employees approach to subcontract awards. It is impossible to get subcontracts from this company unless due favours mostly cash is paid to the person dealing. Curiously, this happens across all levels, and it would be hard to believe this happens without the knowledge of company’s top executives and perhaps ownership. But equally, this company is also known to deliver quality projects. How do they manage it? While they have unofficially sanctioned bribe, it would be impossible to get a subcontract if you do not meet specifications and if you are not the lowest bidder. They ensure that the subcontractor is fully compliant to the tender and also get a low price. The company somehow has institutionalized bribery as a means of additional incentive for the employee as long as he has protected company's interest. This works for the company, and it is difficult to believe they have such a delicate balance, except that I have managed not to do even a single project for this company so far.
I am tempted to nuance, but let me at least argue for democracy in ALL
instances.
Churchill said, 'Democracy is the worst form of government until you consider
the alternatives.'
The key question comes down, not to us saying that so and so (Singapore)
deserves autocracy or democracy or how they have done economically.
The key question in my mind is this:
Ask any individual, 'would YOU (personally) like to have a say in the rules that
govern your life and your fellow citizens and who gets to implements them?'
I would like to meet the person who answers no.
The average guy on the street wants change in Egypt. But what if the change means a more totalitarian fundamentalist regime?
Iran is much worse off than what it was pre 1979. We all know that it is not just a domestic problem, but it has its regional impact and even holds global threat.
There is also a saying that democracy is not actually the decision of the majority. It is actually the decisions of those who make themselves heard and who vote - which is a different thing.
The passionate few who are better organized and better motivated (for right or wrong reasons) are the ones who prevail over the silent many who are subjugated easily.
What about women under such fundamentalist regime? They would never be heard unfortunately.
I just have a feeling that in this region, it would not be bad if the power rests with a few who are better informed and who for the sake of keeping the order and also staying in power would need the help of big democracies of this world. Is the world a better place that way?
Post a Comment