Democracy, like freedom, is a word which we in the west like to believe is generally synonymous with goodness, justice and success. Our leaders love to feed us this narrative since it tends to breed complacency and satisfaction and to stop us from thinking. Churchill’s quote about democracy being the worst system apart from all the others is often trotted out. Perhaps this is generally correct, but I find myself increasingly troubled but some nagging doubts. As ever, it probably depends on the context and on what exactly we mean by democracy.
This week I heard another great quote, this time one that was new to me. Mike Tomlin, venerable head coach of an NFL American Football team who are in the midst of a difficult transition, claimed that if he would start listening to the fans, then soon he could expect to be sitting among them. I like that concept and it feels true, though a coach who consistently makes decisions that fans dislike is also playing a very risky game. Based on the fan ideas I read online or hear during a game, following the fans would be a sure recipe for disaster. I will add journalists the list of groups whose ideas should be treated with a pinch of salt, despite it being their professional job to offer opinions to improve the performance of a team. In my experience these ideas are quickly proved wrong. A few years ago, a former player and respected pundit, Gary Neville, was given a coaching job, and he crashed and burned within weeks. I believe that most of the journalists I read would be even less effective than him.
There are similar insights available in business. In this case investors and customers have immediate agency. But can you imagine a successful business where the employees, or any other stakeholder group, ran the day to day operation, or took frequent votes to determine direction? It is telling that business leaders, often some of the most vocal proponents of democracy, have the most dictatorial attitude within their own empires. In the business their call is for clarity of responsibility, and in most cases they argue for a single leader to be accountable for most decisions.
That is just as well. I have been involved in various employee engagement initiatives. They have their place, and can provide excellent feedback on matters such as culture, communication, motivation and respect. But don’t ask wide groups of employees to give decisive input on strategy or even for innovative ideas, unless you want to be disappointed and to fail.
Indeed, I believe that my primary business community, strategists, woefully undervalue themselves. Nobody denies that strategy matters; most would agree that it is a great a differentiator as exists in business. But most big businesses do not cultivate a career specialism in strategy. The academic literature is sparse to the point of embarrassment. Senior leadership teams seem to think they can do strategy as well as anybody else, despite usually having few relevant skills. When they need help they quickly call for outside consultants, who charge a fortune yet rarely stay long enough to make a difference and have very different incentives to the leaders they are advising. Can you imagine a leadership team trying their own hand at engineering, or outsourcing the activity to a consultant?
Most organisations demand an organisation chart that offers clarity of role and huge decision-making power to leaders. Churches do not meaningfully consult their congregations about doctrine or practice, and indeed the largest church has a singular leader deemed to be both infallible and chosen by God. Britain has spent the last two weeks mourning somebody with theoretically absolute authority. A military unit is defined first and foremost by a hierarchy of leadership, with subservience and obedience considered key attributes. Even in an artistic pursuit such as a choir or an orchestra, there is little room for dissent: one of my favourite conductors frequently states that choirs should not be democracies.
So there is almost no aspect of life where democracy is considered a smart mode of operation, and for good reason, yet we are supposed to believe that this is the best way to run a country. Every few years the management of the most influential parts of the enterprise is subject to a poll. The entire direction and strategy is subject to very frequent change. Furthermore, in many democracies there are parallel leadership teams, each with limited authority, required to reach agreement among each other for most important decisions.
This method of allocating power is surely superior to a monarchy or a system lacking any accountability, but it has very obvious flaws, ones which would doom any business in a competitive market.
To succeed, an enterprise in any field needs a few tenets in place. These include an agreed purpose, sets of goals covering multiple time horizons, and some priorities. The enterprise also requires talent to be available and effectively deployed, especially in leadership positions, and a sound governance structure for its operation.
How likely is it that a democracy can produce an operation that satisfies these requirements? In many cases, it feels very unlikely. To have a better chance would need very strong institutions acting in parallel with the elected parts of government, guided by a mature and sufficiently independent civil service. The election process practice matters too, enabling high quality, unbiased information to be available to citizens.
These factors help to understand how some democracies can endure while others founder, and how volatile an immature democracy is likely to be. Rating these factors can also show how vulnerable a democracy is at any moment, what needs protecting, and which claims by protagonists should be most closely scrutinised. Where there is gerrymandering, where there are too few or too many parties, where money has an undue influence, and where information can be warped by interested parties, democracy is vulnerable.
The weakest aspect in most democratic platforms is purpose, goals, and priorities. In a well-run company, that is where the leadership team can make most difference. But a typical party platform in many democracies can be reduced to a set of platitudes. The best we can hope for is one or two reasonably well-articulated policies, which can give an indication of competence and values. Often we don’t even get that.
\
Rather than blandly claiming that democracy is always good and other systems always bad, we can assess the other systems to the same analysis. Does the leadership have a defined purpose and multi-period goals that work for the best interest of the citizenry? Does it deploy the talent available to it, and is there some internal accountability? Do those making decisions have sufficient unbiased information?
China is far from perfect, as The Economist and other intelligent commentators are obsessed with pointing out. But, if you view the communist party as a sort of civil service or business organisation, it does not do too badly against my criteria. It can certainly argued that it is better placed to deal with the issues facing its citizenry than most mature democracies. The recent concentration of power is a concern, but over the last twenty years the leaders have certainly got most of the biggest calls right. I can articulate the purpose and the goals quite easily and can see how these can benefit (most of) the citizenry. These goals are reviewed appropriately and translate into decisive and sustained actions.
I cannot be as complimentary towards most autocrats. Sadly, I also struggle to be as positive about most mature democracies, at least those outside northern Europe. If I focus my comparison between China and the USA, I can understand how one has been doing better than the other, and I certainly know where to place my bets for success in the immediate future.
No comments:
Post a Comment