Mubarak is being called the last pharaoh of Egypt. But we probably only need to wait for the next one. Societies have tremendous persistence. In system dynamics we know 'path dependence': once a path is formed, once a pattern is formed, even from random beginnings, new events tend to follow the same path, the same pattern. The decision to hold to the left at roads is just as natural as holding to the right, but once the pattern is there, it is very difficult to change.
After the Russian revolution, the communist leaders turned into czars, and after the fall of communism, the present leaders turn again into czars. Edward Rutherfurd, who wrote about London through the ages, was struck by the fact that the enormous waves of immigration through the centuries were absorbed without leaving traces. Wherever people came from, they turned into East-enders. Also today you can see a Pakistani boy, a Chinese boy and a Jewish boy walking along the Thames and hear them talk cockney together.
In Brazil, I worked with a group of human resources professionals. We did a constellation to find the core issue of personnel management in Brazil. The representative of the Brazilian HR profession was avoiding all the time to look at the core issue. The representative of the core issue felt heavy and dark and had no idea who or what he was. Then I asked "How old are you?' and he blurted out to his own amazement: "More than 300 years." We found out it was the history of slavery in Brazil, still a shadow over apparently modern HR management. It suddenly dawned on me why, when I was a HR director over there, my policy of "internal mobility" was so resisted in the company, that was in other respects a shining example of modernity. Although everybody could always apply for jobs outside the company, people were not allowed to apply for vacancies inside the company. Managers resisted the freedom of choice of their subordinates.
Systemic role patterns are extremely persistent, therefore, real societal change mainly happens after a country first is going through a dictatorship and then through a lost war. The dictatorship destroys most of the old social infrastructure and a lost war destroys the remaining. Mancur Olson sees that as the main explanation of different speeds in economic development. The longer a period of stability and peace, the more the growth of "collusive" organizations, the more the system calcifies.
We see similar processes in families, where family patterns repeat themselves through the generations. Sometimes we can trace them back to their origin: usually times of war, revolution, famine and pestilence. By the way, the social consequences of epidemics are liberating and the social consequences of famines are stifling, as Pitirim Sorokin demonstrated. Think why.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The War on Terror
The War on Terror cannot be won, I've read many times. That's true, but I can't remember I've read anything more downright stupid.
First of all, the reverse is also true and much more important: they can't win.
And second, it is irrelevant that we can't win. Why?
Remember that other (in)famous statement: The War on Drugs cannot be won. Let me add a third one, that anyone would agree on: The War on Crime cannot be won. How long are we fighting crime? At the very least since the beginning of modern police, almost 200 years ago. And we still have rampant crime. So we lost that war? Let's assume we would stop fighting crime, what would happen? Theft, robbery, fraud, murder, mayhem would multiply. We would have vigilantes and many unsavory types of self-defense.
The only real question is: should we do more? Or could we do better? Is the sum total of all our efforts worth the trouble? We can't win the war on crime, unless we somehow could prevent people having criminal intentions. That seems a long way off, if at all doable. The question is even if that would be desirable. A society without crime may have negative side-effects we could consider undesirable. The only real questions are if we can be more effective and if we can be more efficient in our crime fighting.
That is the same question with the war on terror: are we effective enough and are we efficient enough? Could we direct our efforts better? Should we do more? Can we do better with the resources we are spending? At least theoretically, and probably also practically, the answers to those questions are affirmative.
The War on Poverty and the War on Hunger are not won. Still, a larger percentage of people are not hungry and not poor, compared to where we have been before. We are not doing really good, but we are not doing really bad either. We should seek room for improvement, not give room to despair. We need realism, not fatalism. The road to fatalism is fatal. Even more fatal than the road of Great Expectations.
In fighting the War on Terror, we need also realism, not fatalism. And we don't need absolutism. If we want to be sure that no children would ever be abused in their families, we need a form of control that would bring its own abuse. We shouldn't go there. And, of course, we shouldn't simply accept that children are abused in families. We should always seek to improve on present conditions.
With the War on Drugs, we may also do things that are counterproductive. Therefore, many people advocate legalizing drugs. Those people have a point, I think. Think about the War on Alcohol, that helped institutionalize an organized crime that we are still suffering from. But legalize alll drugs for everybody all of the time? Seems wrong, and worse: counterproductive.
Terror is the ultimate social evil. But we should not forget that terrrorist regimes create much more havoc than terrorist groups. In my book How People Make the World, I consider Terror the oldest and most fundamental of the ten global challenges we are facing. We should go on fighting that war, as smart and as tenacious as can be. And efforts to prevention are an essential ingredient. Let's set realistic goals, let's have an effective strategy, let's have smart tactics (yes Sun Tzu, we are listening!) and let's have efficient execution.
And let's not forget the War on Weakmindedness. Can't be won either.
First of all, the reverse is also true and much more important: they can't win.
And second, it is irrelevant that we can't win. Why?
Remember that other (in)famous statement: The War on Drugs cannot be won. Let me add a third one, that anyone would agree on: The War on Crime cannot be won. How long are we fighting crime? At the very least since the beginning of modern police, almost 200 years ago. And we still have rampant crime. So we lost that war? Let's assume we would stop fighting crime, what would happen? Theft, robbery, fraud, murder, mayhem would multiply. We would have vigilantes and many unsavory types of self-defense.
The only real question is: should we do more? Or could we do better? Is the sum total of all our efforts worth the trouble? We can't win the war on crime, unless we somehow could prevent people having criminal intentions. That seems a long way off, if at all doable. The question is even if that would be desirable. A society without crime may have negative side-effects we could consider undesirable. The only real questions are if we can be more effective and if we can be more efficient in our crime fighting.
That is the same question with the war on terror: are we effective enough and are we efficient enough? Could we direct our efforts better? Should we do more? Can we do better with the resources we are spending? At least theoretically, and probably also practically, the answers to those questions are affirmative.
The War on Poverty and the War on Hunger are not won. Still, a larger percentage of people are not hungry and not poor, compared to where we have been before. We are not doing really good, but we are not doing really bad either. We should seek room for improvement, not give room to despair. We need realism, not fatalism. The road to fatalism is fatal. Even more fatal than the road of Great Expectations.
In fighting the War on Terror, we need also realism, not fatalism. And we don't need absolutism. If we want to be sure that no children would ever be abused in their families, we need a form of control that would bring its own abuse. We shouldn't go there. And, of course, we shouldn't simply accept that children are abused in families. We should always seek to improve on present conditions.
With the War on Drugs, we may also do things that are counterproductive. Therefore, many people advocate legalizing drugs. Those people have a point, I think. Think about the War on Alcohol, that helped institutionalize an organized crime that we are still suffering from. But legalize alll drugs for everybody all of the time? Seems wrong, and worse: counterproductive.
Terror is the ultimate social evil. But we should not forget that terrrorist regimes create much more havoc than terrorist groups. In my book How People Make the World, I consider Terror the oldest and most fundamental of the ten global challenges we are facing. We should go on fighting that war, as smart and as tenacious as can be. And efforts to prevention are an essential ingredient. Let's set realistic goals, let's have an effective strategy, let's have smart tactics (yes Sun Tzu, we are listening!) and let's have efficient execution.
And let's not forget the War on Weakmindedness. Can't be won either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)