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