Regulating Religion

One of my favourite questions is whether religion has been a net benefit to humanity.

The argument against is very strong. Most wars have started through religion. Most religion has at times degenerated into exploitation. Religion has often held back social progress, and can also work against action on things like climate change.

Perhaps the greatest and most pervasive example of human exploitation has been the claim of the powerful that people would be rewarded in heaven were they only to accept their lot on earth. What a convenient argument that has been for powerful people for generation after generation!

I read the biography of Jerusalem by Simon Sebag Montefiore a couple of years ago and can still recall the unending tale of horror. Those tempted to think the current evil in the name of that city is a blot on humanity should read that history – that blot has extended since the founding of the city and has often been deeper.

We weep when we read of what is carried out in the name of religion. Islamic State purports to be religiously inspired. Just this week the sectarian killing of over a hundred Christians in Kenya sunk that part of the world to a new low. And of course no religion has a monopoly on hatred. The holocaust was a pogrom in the name of religion as well. So called Buddhists carry out atrocities in Burma and Sri Lanka, while Hindu nationalism is used to justify inhumanity in India.

But the case in favour of religion may be just as strong. The Catholic Church is the most effective NGO in the world, reliving suffering in many lands. Food banks and other necessary charity are often religiously motivated. Great religious leaders can inspire and can heal, and can speak truth to secular power when required.

Religion has also offered great hope and comfort to individuals, and the warmth of a loving community for the lonely. Further, much modern psychological science has its roots in religion, from meditation, counting blessings, reconciliation, twelve steps and much more. The mantra of loving God and loving ones neighbour is as effective life philosophy as exists, at least while God is a reminder of powerlessness and a cause for humility.

Religion has helped me in the last few years, something I would not have thought likely even ten years ago. While I am far from a classical believer, I am happy to accept the rituals as they are (who am I to claim I know better?) and to accept the blessings. Most of the time, these are just nice to have, but there are moments in all our lives when they could be critical.

Religion has longer traditions than most laws, so there are some ways that lawmakers need to allow religious exemptions, and even some anachronistic settlements, such as the role of the Queen as head of state and Church leader in the UK. The furore this month in Indiana and Arkansas about gay discrimination started as an intended religious exception. The Hobby Lobby case is another example of religion being used to effect laws.

So let us pose another question. Let us assume religion was only invented recently. How then would the world choose to regulate it? My conclusion is that it would be rather heavily.

Most of the rituals, and a lot of the literature, would survive. People should be able top belief what they like and partake in different types of service or ritual as they saw fit, so long as this posed no threat to others. Indeed, some existing attempts to stifle religious practices, such as banning burkas or forcing Sikhs to wear helmets, could be argued as overly restricting individual liberty. The burden should be on the state to demonstrate a wider good for such measures.

However, several key aspects of religion would be heavily challenged. First would come any reference to “chosen people” or other innate superiority in any literature or public claims. This would fall foul of discrimination laws or hate speech laws, and quite right too. This belief in superiority has been at the heart of most war and injustice in the world. This stipulation would change more or less every religion in the world, and in my opinion for the better.

This ought to make religions compete more openly with each other. Competition authorities would look at any company with a near monopoly in a market, and in the same way religions would come under similar scrutiny. It is notable how Catholicism has a near monopoly in the Philippines but virtually no presence in neighbouring lands. All other religions have their mini-monopolies, and none of these are healthy.

Regulators would address this in the same way as they address dominant companies. Switching costs would be reduced, and eligibility barriers eliminated (watch out, Jews). Locking minors into one religion for life would be outlawed (I have always though first communion at seven was a blot on Catholicism). States would have to ensure equal provision for at least three religions, with equal support and information available. No doubt it would take several generations for family loyalty and tradition to erode, but the result would be individuals making their own conscious choices using their own brains. This can only be a good thing. In the same way, eligibility and recruitment processes for officers would be examined and changed radically.

The third main challenge would be in the area of exploitation. Financial services firms (belatedly and minimally) have to avoid misleading customers with false claims. Casino operators are heavily regulated to stop them (partially) taking advantage of people who may become addicts. The same scrutiny would be applied to religions.

A result would be greater transparency of finances, and a challenge to unquantifiable promises. We can choose to give 10% of our income to a Church, and we can even choose to believe that our reward will be in heaven. But we would have greater visibility over where (on earth) our 10% ended up. And Church leaders would no longer be able to pressure us into giving based on promises outside our lifespan.

There may be other challenges, but I believe these three would be the most impactful. No behaviour tolerated based on perceived superiority over others. Enforced genuine religious competition in all markets with true freedom of choice. And regulation protecting against exploitation of the vulnerable.

Many, even most believers would say these restrictions would cut against the heart of their faith, and damage their religions unreasonably. I beg to differ. Individual faith would not being attacked by this type of restriction. Beyond some censoring of historical literature of dubious provenance about racial or religious superiority, very little would actually change at the individual level. Instead, our choices would be more conscious and more thought through, and religious leaders would need to work harder to build their attraction to us.

I have a sort of answer to my own question about whether religion has been a good thing for mankind. I suspect the question is bigger than religion, in that religion has been a way we have defined our humanity. If religion had not been there, we’d have found other reasons to go to war with each other or exploit each other. We’d still have been obsessed by where we came from and where we might go after death. And, on the other side, we’d probably have discovered reconciliation and charity without the help of religion.

So I think the question resolves into a tautology. Has humanity been good for humanity? Well, I suppose we are still here, despite our many flaws. So it is probably a yes. Thank God for that. 

The Economist back on form

After the horrible hiccup of the first weeks of the new editorship, with that terrible essay about Russia written by unreconstructed cold war intelligence agents, the magazine has come back to form in recent weeks. The five leader columns in the most recent edition showcase what the Economist does best – investigating marginal issues to reach workable solutions that would make a meaningful difference to humanity.

Two of the five leaders were rather traditional, though pertinent and well written. One of those was about the Nigerian election. This election matters to everyone. Nigeria is the most populous African nation with the largest economy, and is home to ethnic tensions, plentiful natural resources, and one of the more scary insurgent groups in the form of Boko Haram. Yet few other publications bothered to report on the election at all, while the Economist had substantial depth in its coverage. The theme of the leader was the election as a high point for democracy in the country, with a relatively free campaign, won by a challenger for the first time ever and enabling the first peaceful transfer for power thanks to the grace of the loser.

The second unremarkable leader was about British foreign policy and its shameful sinking into irrelevance under the opportunistic and shallow guidance of David Cameron. It would have been unthinkable a generation ago that France and Germany would lead talks in Ukraine on behalf of Europe with Britain nowhere to be seen. In the background is the ugly prospect of an EU referendum during the next parliament, a campaign likely to scrape the xenophobic barrel and further cost the nation precious influence. Just like in Scotland, even a close no vote would have far-reaching ramifications, while a yes would be even more damaging. Unlike in Scotland, the campaign will not be dignified and valuable in itself. The Economist rightly pins all this on Cameron the anti-statesman, while showing little optimism for a revival of British foreign policy under Ed Miliband should he win the upcoming election.

The other three leaders were all ground breaking. One researched the phenomenon of special economic zones, a modern favourite of policy makers and one where little previous scrutiny had been undertaken. The article acknowledged some benefits of special zones, at least when compared with an alternative to doing nothing. But the main point was that, if special conditions are considered of benefit to a region, why not simply apply them to the whole country? It is a great question. Usually, special economic zones are an attempt to do something positive by a government too timid to attempt something more far-reaching. If the zones are good, they are harming the residents of their nation who don’t happen to live there. And they also create all sorts of corruption and semi-criminal opportunities exploiting the different conditions in different places.

Then comes a wonderful leader about prenatal care. For many years, we have known that the early environment for young children has a major influence on their life outcomes. A stress free, loving home life and early education pays off in later life. One of the main drivers of persistent inequality of opportunity is that wealthier families tend to be able to offer their children healthier starts in life: that way advantages and disadvantages tend to persist through generations.

Good policy has taken steps to remedy this unfairness. Bill de Blasio’s signature campaign pledge for his role as mayor of New York City was to extend schooling to all children between ages two and four. Barack Obama often campaigns for the same. It is hard to conceive of a better use of public money, but it runs into predictable opposition from conservative interest groups. Better social housing, stronger enforcement of requirements on absent parents, and health campaigns about smoking or even clean air can also help.

Now a new study has shown that environmental factors play a critical role even in the womb. It ingeniously analysed the performance of batches of children from the same country around the time of external catastrophes such as flu epidemics, and also Moslem baby outcomes for those conceived around Ramadan. The results appear conclusive that especially the early months of pregnancy are a predictor of later outcomes.

The Economist points out that this makes generational inequality of opportunity even more entrenched, since wealthier mothers can more easily modify their lifestyle during pregnancy. It also shows some policies to mollify the situation, such as earlier pregnancy tests (to stop harmful alcohol consumption earlier), earlier midwife care and more caring policies by employers. For me, such articles show how far society has progressed thanks to science, and how many opportunities are still to be discovered and then utilized.

The final leader was about tax. The whole debate about tax has become poisoned by the US republicans, arguing essentially that all tax is bad. Well, without tax we can’t have education, or police or an army, leave alone any thoughts of welfare. It is valid to argue about the overall size of government and even about the respective roles of federal and regional authorities, but not that no tax should ever be increased.

The Economist leader argues for an increased taxation focus on land. It is well reasoned. Land cannot be moved, so such a tax is tough to evade even by serial evaders. As urbanization marches forwards, land becomes a critical resource again. Current zoning restrictions are often corrupt, open to special interests and anyway inefficient. Inefficient use of prime land is a key source of waste. Finally, taxing land is an antidote to inequality, since the wealthy tend to have it and the poor not. Piketty argues for a wealth tax, something unlikely to be practical in the near future, but a land tax might be feasible and maybe the next best thing.

It is typical of the Economist to look at an issue from a new angle and come up with a radical but practical solution. For me, the Tobin tax on financial transactions has all the same advantages, and I remain disappointed with the continuing opposition to that in the Economist.

The left often appears to argue for such taxes out of spite or jealousy or punishing success. They often fail to make the positive argument, that taxing these things can enable reducing tax on other things, the things that hinder growth or prevent people moving out of poverty. More taxes on land, financial transactions, property and carbon could finance elimination of income tax on all incomes up to the national median. That is the valuable prize, not squeezing the rich.

So, five leaders create a wonderful, thoughtful agenda. There is an election going on in the UK at the moment, and the usual junk that passes for political debate in the US. I can confidently claim that the five topics for these leaders will have no airing in these debates, beyond puerile posturing on UK foreign policy. Yet decisive action on these five could have more beneficial impact than anything that will be debated. Imagine a manifesto built around radical restructuring of the tax base, social policies centred on prenatal and early care, industrial policy with more than gimmicks, a foreign policy with a global dimension and genuine help to emerging economies? We must dream on, I am afraid.

How can this be changed? That is tough within a broken system, and with an electorate used to being fed the equivalent of TV gossip shows passing as political debate. It all cause me to question our current models of democracy even more. But, if my faith in democracy is currently being questioned, at least my faith in my favourite magazine has been largely restored.   

Lessons from the Legacy of Lee

Something uncanny happened when I took the time this week to look through various obituaries and commentary pieces about Lee Kuan Yew, the legendary leader of Singapore who died last week.

Quite by chance, I found an intimate connection to the three blogs I had posted in March. The piece on ignorance highlighted the downsides of excessive democracy – something Lee felt so strongly about that he stifled democracy in his own nation. Then came the piece about Asia’s chance, with of course Singapore being something of a poster child. The same connection can be made to the blog about ease of doing business, where Singapore has been long established as number one.

True to form, everyone is trying to dissect the career of Lee to see if there are more general lessons available. And true to form, we tend to be rather selective, emphasizing lessons that conform to our own dominant logic and downplaying those that seem to reject it. This learning business is hard.

What is hard to deny is the phenomenal success of Lee and of his country while he was its leader. The graph of GDP per capita in the Economist was one of the most telling charts I can recall. When Lee came to prominence, Singapore languished behind Indonesia, China, Malaysia and pretty well everyone else. Progressively, each of these was overtaken, and eventually Singapore even overtook the USA to become one of the richest countries in the entire world by that metric.

Now, GDP is not everything. But Singapore does pretty well on many other well-being metrics as well, from life expectancy to education proficiency to alleviation of poverty. True, civil rights are far from exemplary. But I am pretty sure that most visitors from other planets would rather accept the living standards of Singapore together with the restraints to liberty, compared with freer, less affluent alternatives.

I found several policies and factors that could have influenced the success of Singapore, that might have lessons for others.

The first is the political system. Lee was ruthless in stressing meritocracy and in protecting his land from what he saw were the vagaries of excess democracy. The result came close to dictatorship. His party has held power continuously for over fifty years. Elections are held, but the boundaries seem to be rigged and the seat allocation set to favour his incumbent party. Within the party, he made sure his own voice held sway. He also harassed dissenters and was highly litigious. The resulting system came much closer to China than to European models of democracy.

Lee tried to balance this by making sure he received sound advice. He started many dialogues with the populace, carefully controlled, when an issue called for it. He looked outside his own country for the very best ideas. And most important, he made sure he had the world’s best and least corrupt civil service, ensured by ruthless suppression of corruption and by paying public servants very well.

It will be interesting to see how this system performs now Lee is dead. His son is now in power – always a warning sign – and the leadership is hardly diverse ethnically, so suggestions of cronyism ring true. Even in business, great leaders seldom pay sufficient attention to succession planning.

Of course, Lee’s system is critically dependent on the top leader. When the leader is respected, somewhat humble and benign, success can follow. Having a powerful leader allows a strategy to be defined and followed over many years, not blown off course by the latest fad or statistic, and enabling the tougher actions to be followed through with less compromise than in a more democratic system.

The downside is obvious too. What if the strategy is wrong? What if the leader has quirky ideas that alienate? What if the leader becomes hubristic or greedy or nepotistic? What happens when the leader grows old or dies?

Lee epitomizes both the positive and risky aspects. Most would say the benefits have outweighed the disadvantages, and Singapore has been lucky to have had him as their leader. But that doesn’t mean every country should adopt such a system. Lee’s quirks were also plentiful. His obsession with tidiness lead to draconian laws, famously including one about disposal of chewing gum. He appeared homophobic, and often seemed to favour policies close to eugenics.

It is often written that Singapore has no natural resources. I beg to disagree. The strategic location and the port are fantastic natural resources that Lee exploited to the full. Logistics advantage can be as powerful a resource as any other.

His demographic policy was fascinating, exploiting the small scale of his country and its proximity to ambitious, mobile people. The border was open, and he made Singapore attractive to people of ambition and merit. He tried to make this policy blind to race and privilege and religion, and to a great extent succeeded. Key to this was his housing policy, which ensured inter-mingling of races and affordability for new arrivals. He also made sure the housing stock and other infrastructure kept pace with the growth of population.

Linked to this was a policy to make Singapore attractive to the sort of arrivals he wanted, and attractive not just as a fly-by-night short-term destination but a place to put down roots. A lucky legacy for this were his divorces from first Britain and then Malaysia, which created a loyalty and patriotism that other city states don’t enjoy. He maintained this by continuing with strong armed forces and conscription. You had to buy into Singapore as more than just a place to make lots of money.

So what lessons can be drawn more widely from the phenomenon of Lee Kuan Yew, either for countries or corporations or even individuals?

First, long-term strategy is better than short-term fixing. There are many available good strategies, not all work in all circumstances, but strategy requires intelligence, and usually builds on core strengths.

A consequence is that strategy itself has become an undervalued discipline in corporations, often outsourced to greedy consultants. Further, core strengths are critical, in Singapore’s case the port and the nimble scale. Amazon is an example of a company with a consistent strategy built on core strengths. Rwanda is an example of a country with the same. A further consequence could be that some combination of Asian and Western corporate governance models is best.

Next, execution of long-term strategy requires strong leadership with a mandate. Usually that involves a gifted single leader with a long time horizon.

A consequence is that too much democracy can undermine progress. A dilemma is how to choose such a strong leader – in most cases there is more chance than any selection process involved. And a system with concentrated power but the wrong leader is the worst system of all. In the corporate world, it is possible to define recruitment criteria, incentives and checks and balances – in countries sadly not, at least so far. Wouldn’t it be great if international bodies were so strong as to be able to monitor country leadership?

Next, even a strong leader is rarely perfect. Lee has his quirks. Everyone grows old, and most grow greedy or cynical or nepotistic. Few think adequately of succession. The consequence is for what checks and balances that exist to focus on those areas rather than more short-term factors – again possible in a corporation, impossible so far in a nation.

Next, even a strong leader has to retain credibility. This must be real not the ephemeral credibility from propaganda and fear and short-term wealth. It can come from the luck of loyalty from something like a war, and be supported by policy, in Lee’s case conscription and some humble dialogue.

Finally, a smart strategy identifies key levers. In Lee’s case, these included immigration and housing policy and a well-funded civil service. Actually, those two might be pretty universal, and most governments under-prioritise them.

Rest in peace, Lee Kuan Yew, all humanity, and especially those blessed with Singaporean nationality, have a lot to thank you for and a lot to learn from you.