Good Governance, AIDS & Perspectives

In Malawi, about a third of the population are HIV positive. It is decimating their society: many of those whom it is killing are the most productive and valuable members of the community. Many children are AIDS orphans, having lost both their parents to the disease, and many grandparents are having to take on child care in their frail or advanced years.

In the 9 months that I worked in Lilongwe (Malawi’s capital), in 1999 – 2000, two of the 10 engineers with whom I worked, died. Of course, thanks to the stigma that is still associated with AIDS in Malawi, they died from something (anything) else, but not AIDS! But we all knew the unspoken truth.

Although Malawi was nothing like as open and as well organised about fighting AIDS as was Uganda (where I worked the following year), nevertheless these individuals were well educated and aware of the risks. They knew how to avoid getting AIDS. So why did they take such risks? They also had plenty to lose, had families to support and had good, secure, well paid jobs, (unlike so many in that part of the world). Were they crazy?!

I believe that the answer lies in their communities’ perception of time and perspective (and value) of life. In the West, if we know that a certain action now might have serious or fatal consequences in 5 or 10 years time, then we will modify our behaviour accordingly. But telling this to someone who comes from a developing country can be like contemplating that the sun will die out in millions of years time. For most of us, it is simply beyond our perception to make any realistic meaning of this.

We are all products of our environment and cultures and when one is surrounded by death and suffering, where life itself might well be cut short at any time, making decisions based on something that might occur in 5 or 10 years time is almost inconceivable. From necessity, in such circumstance, the focus is on much more immediate needs. So in comparison, living for another 5 or 10 years can seem like an eternity (and certainly a bonus to what we currently expect)!

And (as is the case for us all) our belief system and habits are strong: even when people are put in a position of relative security and affluence, it takes a long time for them to change their fundamental beliefs and habits. It may well take a generation or more to achieve such change, as they are often formed in our childhood. And such change is unlikely whilst the majority all around still endure poverty and suffering, making their own good fortune appears precarious. This is entirely understandable, but it has some interesting and important consequence in developing societies. It can also teach us some important lessons in the West.

Firstly, good governance (an area in which I work) suffers. Regardless of the country, a government needs to be able to focus on the broad, strategic and long-term issues facing the whole community that it is supposed to be governing; and this therefore need to be the focus of those working in government, politicians and other decision makers too. Alas, too often government organisations and politicians make short-term or selfish decisions that have adverse longer term and strategic consequences. But expecting anything else is an alien perspective to the local environments and cultures from which these decision makers originate. After all, even in Western countries, it has taken many centuries for us to develop more strategic thinking.

But there is an important lesson for us too in this: many of the most pressing issues and challenges that we are facing today require us to take a far more strategic perspective than we have usually done in the past. Global warming and climate change, environmental degradation, mass migration, pollution and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction all require us to take both a global and very long term perspective. Globalisation is not limited to economic issues alone! But how often do our societies’ leaders do this (and how often do we ask them to do so, on our behalf)? We continue to think in terms of national interests, and perhaps a few decades into the future. But the results of global warming will affect our children and grand-children, long after we are no long around. And this is a mere blink of an eye, compared to the duration for which nuclear waste remains an issue.

So, although many of the most important problems in developing countries can be traced back to short-sighted and isolated thinking and perspectives, these are exactly the same weaknesses that we in the “developed” West have in facing many of our most important issues. The challenge we face is to somehow transcend this limited thinking, in order that we can tackle these problems with the global, strategic perspectives that they demand from us. If we don’t, not only will future generations judge us poorly (and with some justification), but the environment that we use and abuse will become progressively more degraded – just as is happening already in many parts of Africa and Asia. Sooner or later, we will all have to adjust our thinking and perspectives to meet these new challenges.

This relative short-term and limited perspective also has an important consequence on the “leaders” in many developing countries. I use that word advisedly, for is not “leadership” all about having a broad, strategic vision for the community that they claim to lead? But alas, for it is a very rare individual who is able to transcend the cultural and environmental influences from which they are a product, to take the strategic perspectives that genuine leadership requires. Once again, we are all aware of examples of “leaders” in developing countries whose thinking results in greed, corruption and the long-term impoverishment of their societies.

Unfortunately, Western countries are far from immune to this problem either! But what can any individual do about these big issues, even in a modern democratic country? Well, we usually get the “leaders” we deserve! If we tell them that our own short term, selfish interests are of most importance to us, then we will end up with “leaders” who cater to these short-term, selfish interests. At least in the affluent West, we have the wealth to make such choices: it is surely unrealistic for most citizens living in much more difficult circumstances to have that same luxury?

In a society where life itself is precarious, is it not understandable that one would wish to “make hay whilst the sun shines”? Is it not understandable that those who are in a position to enrich themselves would do so, when at any time their situation may revert back to the grinding poverty and lack of opportunity that they see all around them all the time? Whilst we in the “developed” West might understand the wider implications of this self-fulfilling prophesy, can we really claim that we would be any different, if we had come from such a precarious existence? And should we not also reflect on how our limited perspectives and beliefs are limiting our ability to deal with the problems that our communities face?

The challenge that these societies face (and that the rich countries need to contemplate in their programmes for assistance), is that changing such cultural attitudes and beliefs takes a very long (inter-generational) time. Do we have the commitment or patience for that? And whilst we should not condone the short-term or insular thinking of others, should we not also reflect on the very same limitations within ourselves?

In closing, I wonder if in the West we are not in fact moving in the wrong direction in this respect? Although we may claim to have a better understanding and appreciation of global issues and the long-term consequences of our actions, we also seem to increasingly seek instant gratification and quick results. In our rapidly changing societies, we put an ever higher value on our time and are less and less willing to wait for results. Patience is supposed to be a virtue, but how virtuous are we really?!

Regulation. Is there a Better Way?

Do you feel that we suffer from over-regulation in our modern societies? Do you ever feel that the state is intruding into more and more aspects of our everyday lives, attempting to control what we can and can not do or say? Have you ever discovered that you have inadvertently broken a law, even whilst you thought that you were acting in good faith, or responsibly? For example, have you ever experienced that uneasy feeling when being followed by a police car: are we breaking a law? Will we be apprehended for something that we are not even aware of?

It seems that every year, more and more legislation comes into force, covering ever more detailed aspects of our existence, whether it is in the area of road rules and legislation, employment and workplace regulations, health & safety, public liability, schooling and parenting, taxation, and so on… and on! Where on earth does all this stop? How tied up do we have to become, before we as a society say enough is enough?

Laws play an important role in any society: they should be designed to reflect the values and interests of the broader community in controlling or limiting the behaviour of the individual. Without laws, our societies could not function properly, and we would all suffer from the resulting anarchy. However, should not these laws and regulations be the refuge of last resort, rather than first resort, as seems to be increasingly the case?

I have already written about the psychological damage that I believe such petty over-regulation and control induces in people (see “Communism’s Most Expensive Legacy”), from my observations of the post-Soviet societies in Central and Eastern Europe. It encourages an abrogation of personal responsibility, relying instead on an increasingly pervasive legal protection from the “State”. We see symptoms of it all around us, from claims that “The government should do something” to an increasing willingness to sue someone (anyone), as it “must be someone (else’s) fault”, when something unfortunate occurs. Individuals, private companies and public institutions seem to live in increasing fear about doing or saying anything, just in case some unscrupulous but competent lawyer is able to induce a novel interpretation of an increasingly complex legal system, to bury them in legal costs and claims. Whatever happened to the spirit of the law? These days, it seems that we must become legal experts in the detailed interpretation of the letter of the law instead.

But is this what we want? Does this not result in a society that runs itself through a negative, fear-driven approach to everything? Does it not discourage innovation (after all, that is risky, and we can’t take risks!)? Do we not want a community of individuals who are willing to take personal responsibility for their own actions? Are we not risking this in our “developed” societies? And are we not in real danger of becoming a sclerotic society, tied up in increasingly complex, more wide-ranging and rapidly changing rules and regulations, looking in fear over our shoulders, rather than forward towards any positive vision of the future? Well, to someone who spends so much time in “developing” countries, where the power and organisation of the “State” is less, and individual liberties are greater, I fear that the answer has to be an emphatic “Yes”!

To those who seldom travel outside of the “developed” Western world, this may appear to be scare mongering and somewhat exaggerated. Perhaps so, but surely few could deny the direction that our “developed” societies are taking. Most of us, at some time, have recognised the adverse consequences that this trend has encouraged. It is only a matter of degree. And it is a gradual, pernicious trend: an evolutionary oppression of individual liberties, rather than a sudden revolutionary oppression by the “State”, albeit one that seems to have accelerated in recent times in the fear driven “war on terror” and the knee-jerk reaction that politicians have so readily adopted to the apparent rise in terrorism. It is perhaps only when one has enjoyed and come to expect the relative individual liberties in a “developing” country, that one becomes aware of just how invasive governments have become in our everyday lives in the West.

Before considering whether there is a better alternative to this incessant bombardment of legislation in our everyday lives, it is worth considering other limitations and problems that this approach has (aside from the adverse psychological consequences highlighted above). It is inherently inflexible and expensive. Laws and regulations must be drafted, discussed and enacted. And because they predominantly deal with what is “right” and “wrong”, they are ill-suited to reflect the shades of grey that is life. They attempt to cater for this by having clauses and exceptions, but these just result in ever more complex legislation (to which anyone dealing with taxation and company law can attest). Enormous industries of highly paid and intelligent people are created in interpreting and modifying these laws and regulations, so that they can keep up to date with our rapidly changing lives and societies. It is doubtful that any of this actually creates any wealth in our communities, but it incurs a huge cost to society. And these laws and regulations then need to be enforced. Law enforcement agencies are forever calling for increased resources in order to do their jobs. This is hardly surprising: not only is there more and more legislation to enforce, spreading into every aspect of our day-to-day lives, but it is ever more complex and changing too. And it is imposed on a population that seems to be unwilling to police itself, handing over responsibility for this to the state instead.

So, if we are not to end up as a society of unthinking, irresponsible individuals, driven by a sense of pervasive fear and buried under a mountain of all-pervading regulation and legislation, what is the alternative? How are we to encourage individual responsibility whilst at the same time, ensuring that we have a properly functioning society, where the broader interests of the community are not lost to individual freedoms and hedonism? Well, I believe that there is a viable alternative, but it is not a ‘quick fix’ (as so much legislation is regarded), nor is it simple. But ultimately, I feel that we will have no choice. And just as the legal system lies at the heart of the current legislative approach, so too can it play a central role in breaking out of this current impasse. It would be based on the current ‘common law’ approach, where precedence is used to determine whether a particular situation is considered reasonable (and therefore acceptable) or not (and therefore incurring some form of societal imposed penalty). And the use of a jury system (to represent society’s values and interests) could be used to determine what is acceptable and what is not. Progressively, many current laws and regulations could be advisory only, rather than obligatory, with the onus on the individual to consider whether his or her actions in a specific situation are likely to be considered reasonable or not. Ultimate responsibility would therefore lies with the individual once again. They would decide, not an arbitrary or inflexible law or regulation. And although the police would probably still play a central role in challenging behaviours that they consider to be irresponsible, any citizen would (if they cared enough about a particular situation) be free to challenge the behaviour of others. And in all cases, the onus is on those bringing the charge to argue that the accused behaviour is unreasonable. And in order to minimise frivolous cases, whoever loses the case could be required to pay all or part of the court costs, unless the judge or jury agree that there should be specific reasons (such as precedence) why they should not.

Some may say that such a system would be unmanageable, with numerous court cases being brought for every possible eventuality. I do not believe that this would be the case. Much current legislation seems to be enacted to protect the stupid from their own stupidity! But most of us do not need to be told how to conduct ourselves (and indeed, we resent being told what to do or treated like idiots!). Most people in our societies would be happy to take responsibility for ourselves (and this should be encouraged), and would be sensible enough to comply with society’s norms. It is only a small minority of the lunatic or stupid who would end up in court. But society would not need a specific law covering every eventuality, in order to catch irresponsible behaviour. This would not be necessary: if a jury of reasonable people considered that an individual (or organisation) had acted badly, unreasonably or irresponsibly, then they could still be penalised appropriately.

I am not advocating the removal of all legislation. Some is necessary or sensible, where the implications for non-compliance are particularly serious or expensive. But we as a society, need to resist the simple sounding “quick fix” approach that passing a law appears to give. We need to constantly and critically question the need for all these laws and regulations, and be more willing to take personal responsibility for our actions. In life, “shit happens” and we can never avoid all unfortunate eventualities, and it is surely reasonable that we as a society, help those who have been unfortunate. But do we really need to control and regulate every aspect of our individual behaviour? I sincerely hope not, or we are all lost!

What Are the Qualifications Required to Vote?

Now here’s something to consider: what should be the criteria that we use to determine whether someone should be allowed to vote? In the Western countries we all seem to accept without question, that once we reach a certain age, we should be allowed to vote, i.e. have a say in the way that we run our societies through the governments we select. But why use age? And at what age? I am sure that we would all agree that some 15 year olds are more mature and worldly wise or more informed about politics (or whatever other criteria we think is appropriate), than many 20 year olds. So using any age criteria is bound to be arbitrary, suitable for some, and not for others. But is this sufficient to endow anyone with such responsibility?

We also seem to accept that if we want to drive a car or be a plumber or practise many other activities in our societies, then we need to be able to demonstrate our suitability through some form of testing. So why should our participation in the democratic process be any different? Is this not one of our most important responsibilities, where our decisions can have enormous consequences? Why therefore do we not expect voters to also demonstrate some ability or knowledge before we allow them to exercise such responsibility? This might be a radical and confronting idea to many, but that does not necessarily mean that it is invalid or not worthy of consideration.

I am not advocating that society should exclude anyone due to race, colour, creed or any of the other common forms of discrimination. I am merely questioning the seemingly unquestionable issue of universal suffrage, based solely on age and nationality. And if upon reflection, we decide that our current qualifications do indeed need improving, then what sort of criteria should we require before we allow someone to vote? Is age alone sufficient? Or nationality, personal integrity, a demonstration of a certain level of understanding or dedication? And how could we measure these in a way that is open to all members of our societies?

We have all frequently heard complaints about governments, but politicians are often placed in impossible positions, torn between short-term or parochial electoral interests and the long term, strategic interests of the country that they are supposed to be representing. If we as voters, were also made to consider or even be aware of these often conflicting interests before we vote, do you not think that perhaps we might take the due care and consideration that we should in selecting our representatives? And might we not end up with better leaders than the present lot?

There are numerous examples of the limitations that universal suffrage can have all across the globe, but especially in developing countries, where governments are too often run by venial, corrupt and unscrupulous individuals, who are only interested in their own selfish interests, even at the expense of the country who elected them. Yes, the electoral system may have been relatively clean and fair, but these sorts of politicians are still elected. Why is this?

It seems to me that whilst we need to select leaders who can best represent the interests of our whole societies, balancing the often conflicting interests of different groups, etc., when we vote we are too often only thinking of who best might serve our own short term, selfish interests. This is bad enough in “developed” Western countries, but it seems to be much worse in developing countries where voters are (often out of necessity and their cultural background) focussed on their own, immediate needs. Is it reasonable or even realistic to expect someone who has no money, job, food, housing or formal education to consider the big, strategic and often esoteric issues that must be faced by governments? And is it reasonable to give the views of these issues from such an individual the same level of importance as say, someone who has devoted their long life to the same issues? Well, in a democratic system of universal suffrage, we do, and alas, we end up getting the politicians we deserve!

Judge Not, Least Ye be Judged!

In April 1986 I was on the wrong end of the British and American bombings of Benghazi (and Tripoli) in Libya. At 2 o’clock in the morning we were woken by the noise and vibrations of high explosives. We immediately turned on the BBC World Service radio, just in time to hear President Ronald Regan announce that because the Libyan government had (or had not) done something with which they disagreed, he had ordered the military to bomb Libya. And alas, as usual the British government seemed to just go along with the Americans.

The experience was interesting. The bombings probably only lasted 20 minutes, and as we were living in an area of Benghazi which was next to the airport (which was a key target), we were able to watch the explosions and smoke. As I did so, I recalled that during the Blitz, Londoners would sometimes go under the stairs as this apparently offered greater protection from a hit. However, I figured that if these bombs landed on the building, it wouldn’t really matter where I was! So, I opened the windows (to stop them being blown inwards) and watched the spectacle.

The next day was surreal. There was no traffic on the streets, and no one was outside. The personnel on the project on which I was working, gathered together in the Team Leader’s apartment. I remember wondering what to do that day: I was going to go into work, as that was why I was there, and didn’t know what else to do, but I was quickly dissuaded from this idea! So we just waited, wondering what was going to happen. However, the authorities took no action against us (as they rightly recognised that most of us had come to help their country and were there at some risk to ourselves). Within a few days, life largely returned to normal and we started working again.

The first impression I had was how trivial and unimportant my work seemed to be after such an event. There I was attempting (unsuccessfully) to improve the traffic management in Benghazi, whilst people had been killed and injured in the bombings. But that was only a single event. I can not but wonder how difficult it must have been to settle back into civilian life again for those demobbed after 6 years of war in the 1940’s.

But the overriding and lasting impression from the bombings was the tolerance and acceptance of the local people towards us. I never felt personally threatened and the Libyans remained friendly towards me, often openly discussing the events with me (albeit coloured by their own government’s propaganda). I could not help but wonder how I would have been treated if I had been a Libyan living in the USA (or Britain) after the Libyans had just bombed them.

I did not agree with many aspects of society in Libya and I would not have wanted to have lived there. However, this is not really important, because I realised that “there but for the Grace of Allah, go I”! If I have been born in Libya (and not in England) and raised there, then I too would almost certainly be just like them: I would speak like them, think like them and behave like them, and adhere to their societal norms. So who the Hell do I think I am to judge them by my standards? Who is to say that my value system is any better than theirs? And, how would I feel if they kept coming over to my country and lecturing me about the errors of my country’s ways, based on their values?

It just so happens that in general, I do support many of the values and principles upon which my Western society is built, and I defend these too. However, that does not give me the God-given right to pontificate and lecture about the wrongs of other countries’ ways, just because they are different from my own. I am frequently embarrassed by the moralising that Western politicians direct towards developing countries, interfering in their affairs without any real appreciation of their point of view or their cultural backgrounds. What often impresses me is the tolerance with which these other nations put up with our lecturing and moralising. I am quite certain that we in the West would not be anything like as tolerant if the shoe was on the opposite foot.

This Western moralising is I believe made even worse by the hypocrisy that goes with it. We expect there to be one rule for us and another for them, ranging from trade rules, to nuclear proliferation, migration and weapon sales.

It seems to me that it is high time that the West learned a bit more humility and made greater efforts to understand and accept the views, cultures and values of others. Yes, I do agree with many of the West’s values, but would it not be far more effective to engage others in meaningful discussions about these ideas, rather than trying to use our military and economic might to force them upon others? Surely there are enough examples from history to demonstrate that enduring change never comes about through force (whether it is economic or military or any other type of force)? And when others do not wish to buy into our values, then might it not be more effective to agree to disagree, accept that other societies may wish to run themselves differently and that this is really their affair, not ours? Whatever happened to tolerance and understanding in our apparently free and open societies?

What We Need to Learn from Communism’s Most Expensive Legacy

One of the most striking impressions from visiting the former Soviet countries in Central and Eastern Europe was the surprise that the system lasted as long as it did. Behind the militaristic front, it was a hollow shell, where the economy was collapsing due to inflexible and inefficient allocation and utilisation of resources. The regimes left behind a legacy of acute environmental degradation everywhere, buildings that were unkempt and collapsing, water which was erratic and often undrinkable, electric power (when available) that was of dangerously variable quality and phone systems which were virtually useless. Likewise, the road infrastructure (with which I was usually involved) was collapsing, with poor designs, dreadful quality control and inadequate capacity for the rapid increase in traffic levels that came with the demise of the old system.

However, these were not the worst legacies from the former communist systems. Sure, they were going to take an enormous amount of time and money to fix, but there was a far more expensive and more pernicious consequence from these states’ oppression of their peoples, and it was going to take decades to overcome. It was the psychological damage inflicted over two or three generations (depending on the country) by governments who actively discouraged their people from taking the initiative, making decisions or expressing their own views and creativity. In many of these countries in the 1990’s it was particularly difficult to find staff whom would solve problems and get a job done without continually coming back to ask for even relatively minor decisions to be made, as they felt unable to do so. They seemed to have lost their ability to think for themselves or take responsibility for anything at all.

Changing this attitude will take a long time. I recall discussing this with my translator in Armenia in 1994 (who was perhaps the best exception to this characteristic whom I met there). She said that they would need a generation to change. Yes, quite possibly, but unfortunately the rest of the world was not going to wait for them to catch up!

In our rapidly changing world, and particularly in a free-market based economy, we need people to be creative, to take the initiative, be decisive and take risks. These are the very characteristics which result in innovation and thereby progress. If we discourage these psychological attributes then we will progressively weaken and ossify, falling further and further behind those more innovative societies. This was pretty clear with the communist countries: visiting them soon after the collapse of the old regimes was like stepping back 50 years in time. They might have been relatively current compared to the Western democracies when the communists first took control, but the systems simply did not permit innovation, creativity or change, until they arrived at a point where they were so far out of step with the world around them that they were simply unable to continue without undergoing change. A problem inherent in the communist systems was that it could not just ‘turn on’ the innovation and change, nor manage the necessary change in a controlled manner.

But once again, I believe that there are extremely important lessons for us in the West too. In particular, because I spend so much of my time outside of the Western countries, each time I return to a “developed” country, I am frequently aware of the insidious level of control that we allow our governments to have over our lives. We are allowing a progressive, evolutionary rather than revolutionary, state control and oppression by stealth. We are progressively allowing nanny state to micro-manage every aspect of our lives. And because it is so gradual and all around us, most of us are not even aware of what is happening. But in a society where the power and resources of the state are so much greater than those of the individual, this is especially dangerous.

This should be of exceptional concern, mostly because of the psychological consequences that this is having on us. I do not wish to be alarmist, but there are plenty of signs of the changing psychology all around us in the “developed” countries. How often do we hear that “the government should do something about it”, or “someone (else) is to blame” for something? It seems that no longer are people prepared to take responsibility for anything, just in case they are sued or otherwise punished. And we are increasingly risk-adverse, imposing more and more petty regulations about what we can and can not do, just in case there is a one million to one chance that something unfortunate might happen. Hey, life’s like that: shit happens! We pass more and more regulations, often just to protect the stupid or irresponsible for their own stupidity and irresponsibility! One problem with this is that we are all caught up in the same net, regardless of our own circumstances. It won’t be long before we have to call in a registered electrician just to change a light bulb, or a qualified and registered builder or “health professional” to change a toilet roll! Think back 20 or (if you are old enough) 30 years ago and think of how many things in your everyday life you can not longer just get on with and do, without continually seeking permission from some authority of another. Where will this stop? Whatever happened to our individual liberties? Would not our parents and grandparents’ generations be horrified at how many petty and silly little restrictions are now imposed on our lives? They would accept the consequences of their own actions, without feeling any need to blame someone else or seek compensation.

OK, so you may feel that many of these restrictions are so minor, or acceptable given the consequences otherwise, that they are not worth getting all excited or concerned about. Individually, perhaps not, but I fear that collectively, they are contributing to a fundamental change in our approach to innovation, risk taking and individual responsibility, all of which are essential in a healthy and vibrant free community. We are too willing to allow government (in one form or another) to take responsibility for our individual actions, rather than stand up and take responsibility for our own decisions and actions. Thus, “As long as I comply with the law / regulations / policies / etc., then I am ok. I don’t need to think about what I am doing, and if something goes wrong, then I can’t be blamed.”

All these progressive restrictions and regulations on our everyday lives not only strips us of our individual freedoms and ultimately any sense of life itself, but it also comes at a high cost. Imposing numerous laws and regulations requires enforcement and such an approach is inherently inflexible: regulations are either black or white, right or wrong. But life is not like this – it usually consists of shades of grey and we need to use our good judgement in order to respond accordingly to the specific circumstances that we face. This is inherently more flexible and hence more efficient, and it gives us a sense of control over our own lives in numerous small but significant ways. But in an attempt to reflect life’s variety, regulators are forever tinkering with the laws and rules. Not only is this retrospective (shutting the legal loophole after the proverbial horse has already bolted), but it just results in ever more complex laws and regulations. This complexity and ever changing red-tape is a continual challenge for companies, but also for us as individuals. If you ever question this, then ask yourself this: however honest and law abiding you try to be, how do you feel if you are being followed in the car by a police car, or if you are subject to a tax audit? However conscientious you are, I’ll bet that there is always something for which the enforcement authorities can punish you if they so decide. So we are living in constant fear from the state, always aware that if we ruffle its feather too much, or are too unconventional, then they will always be able to find something to use against us. Now, to me, that sounds frighteningly like the former communist regimes!

It is high time for us to recognise what is happening and to retake control and responsibility for our own lives again whilst we are still able to do so! Thank you for your concern about my life, but I will take responsibility for myself, rather than have it controlled by politicians and bureaucrats!

With the Freedom of Choice comes the Burden of Responsibility

It was interesting to observe the behaviour in the former Soviet countries in Central and Eastern Europe, soon after the communist dictatorships collapsed there. In particular, it seemed to me that the more “socialist” the country had claimed to be, the more antisocial was the behaviour of its citizens once the repression was lifted from them. It reminded me of the similar behaviour of ex-Convent girls once they arrived in University (although their behaviour was well, all too social)! On a more strategic perspective, it seems to be depressingly common for the new governments of newly emancipated nations to succumb to the temptation of behaving irresponsibly, often passing legislation that is either self-serving and/or likely to result in far greater problems later on. For those of us who have seen it before, it is like the frustration parents experience trying to get children not to be self-destructive, when they know that the child will go ahead anyway. They seem to need to make the mistakes and learn the hard way, rather than being prepared to learn from our earlier mistakes. And all we can do is stand by and help to pick them up if they do fall.

This relative irresponsibility is often used as an excuse by an oppressor not to let go but to continue the status quo, and this is frequently supported by those who fear the turbulence that any such relaxation might release, (admittedly usually most of all by those who have done well under the current regime, but this is not universally so). It seems that this is just human nature – we are all to ready to embrace the freedoms and choices in our lives, but much less willing to accept that with these choices necessarily comes the burden to use them wisely, to consider the implications of our decisions, and in particular, to accept responsibility for the decisions and actions that we take.

We may recognise this in others, for example by those who have recently been released from oppression, but does this principle not equally to apply to us all, albeit perhaps, on a different level? Those of us who are fortunate enough to enjoy life in a free market democracy may understand the implications that irresponsible behaviours will have in newly emerging countries, but how often do we apply the same consideration to ourselves? Perhaps we do not yet comprehend the full implications of our actions, but how often do we even try? And with our immeasurably greater freedoms, powers and opportunities, are not the implications of our actions that much greater too? I wonder if we in the affluent West are too readily seduced into the instant gratifications that perpetually surround us, without wishing to consider the longer term implications of our current lifestyles. As human beings, it seems likely that we are. Are we also guilty of not taking a sufficiently long term perspective? And are we able to learn and adapt our behaviours fast enough, before we reap what we have already sown?

We all enjoy greater freedoms, but are we willing to accept the greater responsibilities that come with this? If we are not to abuse the greater freedoms that we seek, then we must accept the greater level of responsibility and maturity that this imposes on us as well. This might appear daunting to many of us (and clearly it seems that it does!), but is this not better than having to exist under the suffocating mantle of constant repression, without having our freedoms at all? If you ever doubt which you prefer, just ask anyone who has had to endure life in a totalitarian state.

Travellers are Unofficial Ambassadors

Do you have an opinion of a country even though you have never visited it? How do you form your views about a particular place, quite aside as to whether it is an accurate or fair perspective?

I came to consider this issue when I was asked to do some work in the former Soviet republic of Armenia in 1994. Armenia is a small, landlocked country in the Caucasian region, bordering Iran to the south, Georgia in the north, Azerbaijan to the east and its longest, (but closed) boarder with Turkey in the south and west. Previously, I wasn’t even sure where it was, but having enjoyed two months of work there in high summer, and another shorter visit in October, I felt very fortunate (indeed privileged) to have been given the opportunity to spend so much time there. The country is exceptionally beautiful, ranging from the relatively arid and flat southern regions, to the stunning mountainous and wet areas to the south and north. The country’s national symbol is the stunningly impressive Mount Ararat, that dominates the country around the capital Yerevan, although thanks to the generosity of Lenin in the early 1920’s (and much to the chagrin of the Armenians) the mountain now lies just over the border in eastern Turkey. The Armenians were proud to tell me that they are the oldest Christian country in the world (predominantly surrounded by Moslems), and the countryside is dotted with many impressive ancient Coptic churches, often cut into inaccessible mountainsides. (They were also proud of reminding me that Winston Churchill was a regular and enthusiastic imbiber of Armenian brandy. I don’t know if this is actually true, but I can certainly understand why: thanks to my time in Armenia, I developed a liking for the stuff, as well as alas, for vodka!)

I found the people in Armenia to be embarrassingly hospitable and friendly. But perhaps uniquely of all the places in which I have worked, I had the immense satisfaction in feeling that not only were they eager to learn about new ideas and concepts, but that they would take away whatever they could and apply it in making their country a better place. It is sad to report that usually, the efforts one makes to help developing countries become stronger and wealthier places is usually wasted: after all the effort and money, things tend to drift on unchanged afterwards. But therein lies another topic for discussion at a later date …

This Armenian determination to succeed was admirable and seems to be based on their history. They are survivors. For centuries they have been surrounded by much larger neighbours, Turks to the west (and east), Persians to the south and Russians to the north. And for several millennia they have battled to retain their independence, with varying levels of success. In the mid-1990’s the country was suffering badly from a triple whammy: the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the ongoing war with neighbouring Azerbaijan over the disputed Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh (compounded by the resulting economic blockade with Turkey), and the after effects from a catastrophic earthquake in the north of the country. The economy was moribund and remained substantially unreformed from the Soviet era, and many major infrastructure projects were suspended in mid-construction. Many still hankered for the illusory certainties of the previous communist times.

So what has all this got to do with being an unofficial ambassador, or one’s views of another country? Well, in my professional capacity there, I was fortunate to travel around the entire country. (Indeed, my translator said that I had probably seem more of Armenia than most Armenians had!) In the course of my travels, I met many local people who had never met someone from the “capitalist, bourgeoisie West”, let alone anyone from Britain. I came to realise that the most enduring impression that these people would have of my country, its culture and its people would be formed by their impressions of me and they way that I treated them. And is this not the case for most of us? Are we not going to make huge sweeping assumptions and form binding impressions about an entire country and its people from our own personal contacts with someone from that place? Sure, the media are also going to have an impression on our perspectives, but I have become convinced that these are likely to be a lot less important that any personal contact that we have with a fellow human being from that country and culture.

And so it is too, when we travel overseas, but in reverse. Whether we like it or not, we are actually unofficial ambassadors, as the people we meet overseas will form opinions of our countries and cultures based on how we interact with them. This is a great responsibility (and privilege) and if we abuse it, others will form negative impressions of us all. Yes, this may be unfair, but it is understandable, for we too are guilty of the same offence! And fortunately, it also works in reverse: leave good impressions and the same will be applied to our entire people! I know that I am not alone in thinking that English football hooligans that claim to be representing their country overseas are in fact a downright disgrace and an embarrassment to the vast majority of their fellow countrymen. Most of us not only wholly disown them, but would be happy for them to be strung up and flogged! I thank others for their tolerance of such behaviour in their countries by these animals and hope that they too understand that we are not all like that, and nor do we condone such idiocy.

The photos here have been scanned in, as in those days, we didn’t have digital cameras! As you can see, Armenia is a mixture of stunning natural beauty and impressive historical sites, littered with extensive and more recent ugly communist era brutality!

Lessons from the Recent Fuel Riots in Nepal

Ten days ago, people power once again hit the streets of Kathmandu and other major towns throughout Nepal. This time however, it was over the government’s decision to raise the price of petrol (ok, gasoline to you Americans!), from around 67 Rupees (about US$0.90) per litre to 84 Rupees (US$1.14), with most other fuels experiencing similar rises. In a country that ranks as one of the poorest on the planet, this was a substantial rise and took fuel out of reach of many here in Nepal. And so, understandably enough, the locals took exception to this and took their objections onto the streets. However, unfortunately because Nepal must import almost all of its fuel, it must therefore pay the world price for it. It was understandable, but it was also completely wrong, and the government in initiating this rise, completely failed to put its case to its people.

The Nepal Oil Company (NOC), who has a monopoly on fuel imports into Nepal, was haemorrhaging huge amounts of money, requiring substantial financial support from the government. However, after a week-end of demonstrations and with transport brought to standstill, the government backed down and reversed the decision. Petrol has now reverted to its subsidised price of 67 Rupees a litre. This merely compounds the problem for not only do the financial losses continue, but this back down has eroded the credibility of the government and has made it that much more difficult for any future attempt to fix this problem.

This episode has been most revealing in several ways. Firstly, it showed up the incompetence of the government here to make decisions properly: it made no attempt explain why these price rises were indeed necessary, or to make any attempt to soften the impact through phased rises, or by introducing other measures that it would now be able to afford, thanks to the huge savings it would make from these price rises.

Secondly, subsidising prices is not a good nor accurate mechanism to help society’s poorest: the biggest beneficiaries from cheap fuel are those (ex-pats and Donors) with big antisocial 4WD trucks and large thirsty cars – hardly the most needy members of society! Unfortunately for governments, vehicle users tend to be vocal and politically well connected, precisely because of their greater wealth. Cheap fuel offers almost no benefit to society’s poorest. It would be better for the government to direct its limited financial resources directly to these most in need.

The episode also showed how over-interference by government in the operation of the economy distorts the underlying purpose of pricing in the market. It is absurd that any government is interfering in fixing the price of fuel. Why stop there? What about imposing fixed prices for everything else that might be used by society’s poorest, from water and power (it currently does!) to phone calls, bread or rice? This is what the communists tried to do, to the extent that eventually the price of something had no meaning. It simply served no purpose, because it was quite unrelated to the cost of providing that service or product. There was no effective feedback mechanism, adjusting the demand to the supply and the cost of this supply. That is the real beauty of using the market to do this, and it can do it far better than any government can, as the failures of communism conclusively demonstrated. Distorting this mechanism only increases waste and costs to the society as a whole and it is sad that the level of such waste is greatest in those countries who can least afford it.

This is not to say that the government should not influence the retail price of products, for it must do this through the imposition of taxes, and the level of these taxes is a valid area for debate. However, they should be “neutral” in so far as minimising any distortions on the market mechanism at work. Let this mechanism automatically direct this country’s oh-so-limited resources to those areas where it can achieve the greatest benefits overall. It is only through greater economic affluence that people and nations can ever attain greater choices as to how they conduct their lives and societies.

The NOC appears to have a reputation for inefficiency and corruption in Nepal. If this is so, then it is not surprising, given that it is a monopoly and the size of its business. But this also further adds to the level of waste and loss to the community here, for someone here is paying for it. In fact I would guarantee that it is neither efficient nor effective in its operations, for this is the price that we pay for any monopoly. How is the monopolist to know if he is operating well, when he has no one else with whom to compare himself? And what incentive is there to be better? It makes no difference to them, and the customer can only buy their products anyway. Simple human nature should tell us that it is a rare person indeed who is going to seek to change a comfortable status quo or work more when there is no need to do so.

Instead of trying to obsessively construct and control the fuel market in Nepal, the government should get out of it and allow a competitive free market to sort out this hideously expensive mess. Deregulate the importation of fuel into Nepal and let the market set the price of it. Its current policy of interference is a hiding to nothing: it creates a rod for its own back and will sooner or later inevitably fail. Just watch: the government will eventually be forced to abandon its current approach, just as happens everywhere else. But it would be better for the country if it recognised the error of its ways now and avoid the further losses and waste, rather than being forced to change later on.

And finally, this episode has demonstrated the imperfect relationship between the governed and governing. It might once have been possible for the government here in Nepal to impose its decisions without debate or any attempt to justify them to a subservient populace, but this is rightly no longer acceptable to an increasingly emancipated population. But conducting consultations through street demonstrations is not the ideal mechanism for the population to make its views known to the government. Communication is a two way process, and governments are here to serve their populations, but these raise other important issues that I will address in other articles…

Why Travel Broadens the Mind

Do you find that learning another language reveals something more about your own? Do you suddenly become aware of some implicit aspect of your own language, thanks to the explicit exposure of a similar aspect in another language that you are trying to master? It wasn’t until I attempted to learn French (and a few other languages), that I became aware of many aspects of the English language that I had until then, just accepted without any conscious thought or consideration. And in so doing, does this not make our linguistic abilities that much better, even in our own language? How many of you heard something similar at school when confronted with learning Latin?

And so too it is with a foreign culture: it is not until we really experience the way that other countries and peoples live that we are forced to face the assumptions that we have carried around with us all our lives, (usually without even being aware of them). This probably won’t happen when we take a two week holiday somewhere, when we can isolate ourselves in smart hotels and tourist hotspots. But it will happen if we ever have to live or work somewhere where we are confronted with local ideas and customs. Without such psychological confrontation, we simply won’t be able to operate in that local environment. And it will happen all the time, often in almost imperceptible ways. We may assume that someone will behave in a particular manner, based on a thought process with which we are familiar and comfortable, only to discover that they don’t! Usually, this can just be inconvenient, embarrassing or funny, but sometimes not as anyone who has driven in another country will tell you! But do not such experiences make one a better, more defensive driver? I believe so.

I remember after one of my trips to Libya, sitting in a pub in London, with a good friend of mine, who had yet to experience life in a culture so unfamiliar to us. He asked me what one piece of advice I would give to anyone travelling to such places. After some thought, I replied: “Assume nothing!” I still think, 20 years later, that this applies. For it is our inherent assumptions that get us into trouble with others!

But this overt questioning of own assumptions and values is most worthwhile to us. Is it not important that we always do this? Although we are only able to manage life’s infinite complexities through making assumptions, this also restricts our thinking and hence our options. It risks limiting our views of life, making us less tolerant and accepting of something that doesn’t fit our own perceptions and views.

And so, just as it is when we learn another language, or drive in another country, so too it is with our exposure to other cultures. Such experiences force us to question our own values and cultures. And through an appreciation of how others think, behave and live, we are able to look at ourselves in a more balanced, fuller light, perhaps helping us to formulate new approaches to help us solve our own problems and issues. Either way, such immersion should help us to become more tolerant and accepting of the many differences that enrich our world. Vive la difference!

The Hash House Harriers Contribution to World Peace!

Yesterday, I went on a hash run here in the Kathmandu Valley. As some of you may know, the Hash House Harriers is now an international institution that has spread around the world, since it was first conceived by a bunch of mad Britons in Malaya (as it was in the 1950’s). Apparently, this hash here in Kathmandu is quite famous, and certainly the countryside around Kathmandu is conducive to good trails, combined with plenty of suitably mad ex-pats (and quite a few locals) to participate in it!

I first came across the Hash in Benghazi, Libya, when I worked out there in 1985-6 (yes, I know, I don’t look that old, but alas, I am!). In those days, the country claimed to be one of these “socialist paradises” and had close political ties with the former Soviet countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In fact the office in which I worked in Benghazi had a number of Bulgarians in it, and the Hash (which was basically the only social event in town in those days) was always well attended by many nationals, including those from Bulgaria, Poland and Czechoslovakia (as it was then). (In fact, the only main country which was not represented was the USA, who at that time, banned their citizens from visiting Libya, although there were an unusually large number of “Canadians” there instead!)

Back in 1985, it was the first time that I had ever met anyone from the Soviet countries, and there were several things about the Hash events in Libya which particularly struck me. Firstly, the lingua franca was English! Everything was conducted in English and even those who had never visited an English speaking country (including those trapped from Soviet countries) all communicated with other nationals in English. Even the resident French spoke to us in English! Since then, this trend has become ever more pronounced, in virtually every part of the world. It puts us English speakers at a natural advantage, and this is a real privilege for us, which we should always respect. I always try and be sympathetic to others who must communicate (verbally or in writing) in a foreign tongue. I never laugh at their attempts to speak my language. I avoid idioms and slang, am conscious of not dominating the conversation, and give them the time they need to say what they must.

The second thing that really struck me about the Hash in Libya is that underneath all the often acrimonious politics, we are remarkably similar, regardless of our backgrounds. We all enjoy similar things and without the politics, we can all get on well with people from any other cultural background. (That is not to say that we will not still dislike some individuals, but this is predominantly for personal reasons, not cultural nor political.) And it is through our personal contacts with others from different countries and different cultures that we develop an understanding for them, their views and values, and thereby, a greater tolerance and acceptance for their differences. And of course, this works the other way round too. The Hash House Harriers is just one excellent way in which we can all promote this greater tolerance, something which is sadly lacking from the international stage these days. Long may such a wonderful institution thrive and prosper throughout the world!

Kathmandu's Hash can been seen at their web site: http://aponarch.com/hhhh

Alas, for this is me!

Well, off we go....

Hello everyone! This is my first attempt at this blogging lark, and with lots and lots to say (well, I AM a bloody consultant, for all my sins, so I should never be short of a word or 10!), I thought that I should give this blogging a go!

Actually, I hope to raise lots of interesting issues (well, I think that they are interesting anyway!), and I hope that some of you poor sods out there, who clearly have very sad lives (if reading this is the best that you can do with your life!) will be suitably motivated to reply, comment on my thoughts, ideas and so on, and perhaps even encourage me to say more!!

Once I have figured out how on earth this all works, I will post up a profile, so that if you are suitably interested, you can see what I am, in terms of where I come from and what I do! And for the particularly brave, I will even post a photo!! (Oh no! Oh yes!)

Suffice to say at this stage that I have a somewhat unusual background and range of experiences (although surely we could probably say that about everyone to some extent?!), which I hope will encourage me to offer some unique (or at least unconventional) thoughts about some of the issues that face us today.

I am truly a citizen of the world!

And my motto in life has (after many year of consideration) become:

I don't really care what you think, just as long as you think!

I hope you folks will come to enjoy this place and yes, please let me know if there is anyone out there!


With my love to y'all!

Mark