|
|
 August, 2003 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Democracy
And Free Markets: Is That All Global Implications (Participant) Earlier I said that we are left with market economy, and democracy, because the alternative –centralized economy, and dictatorship—failed miserably. Douglass responded that market economy, and democracy has failed too. May I insist on my ignorance and ask what are some of the signs, or indications of this failure? I just finished a month-long needs assessment project for a group of teachers from Afghanistan. They were all women, making $30 dollars a month. That’s what I call failure of a system that in the past 25 years, has first deprived women any chance to practice their profession, and now even with regime change can only pay them $1 a day. What is our definition of failure in the West? I need a 101 level quick course! (Participant) I have just returned from an extended trip to California, back to NYC and environs, attended the annual meeting of Garden Club of America where my wife, Beth, was awarded an impressive gold medal, and home last night. I have been reading the conference, but have not had time to join in. Hope to do better from now on. Kip: This is an attempt to add something to both your comments and to Fred's. I recognize that none of the following will seem "realistic" to those with conventional AND PRACTICAL experience in current foreign affairs. But I will suggest that there does not seem to be any realistic suggestions forthcoming from those who have had recent and direct participation in foreign affairs. The world seems to be in more jeopardy today than at any time in my rather long life. I believe that this is a time when new, and even unrealistic sounding ideas need to be discussed in exchanges like those we are having here. We must generate some new ideas, practical or not. Then we must try to select the "least impractical ideas" and see if we can inject them with some practical, albeit new, strategies.. If I read your comments and those of Fred's correctly, there is a gap between the governors and the citizens in both the UN and in most of the middle east nations. And for that matter, I also see an almost equally broad gap growing between the citizens and the governmental power structure here in the United States. These gaps (and corruption) seem rampant today. They are possibly more virulent in the middle east and the UN than here at home, but there are similarities that we should first recognize and study here before we presume to correct them on foreign soil. Now comes my even more "impractical" idea. I see no power short of citizen power that can alter these flaws and corruption in our government and decision making activities. And this leads to my next "way out" series of thoughts. Current structures for governmental and power centered decisions are mired in adversarial debate, Robert's Rules of Order, and the goals of winning preconceived ideas rather than agreeing on a description of the issues and a search for solutions. The new "buzzword" for this is collaborative discussion and decision making. This may also seem hopelessly impractical in international affairs -- but let me suggest just one issue that today may seem less impractical than it would have several months ago: THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY TO DECIDE THAN "WINNING" A WAR. There are, in this connection, a whole new "science" both in this country and in Europe where new ideas can be discussed, , hooked into electronic communications involving large numbers of people rather than back room closed door power holders. These procedures would also be part of my impractical bag of suggestions. I have already discussed the equally difficult question of how much power and under what controls "we the people" should have in the process of reaching critical decisions, and will not repeat it here -- other than to acknowledge its existence. I agree that the UN seems like a weak and faulted structure. I also agree that moving from adversarial debate to collaborative decision making seems impractical. But I haven't seen or heard of any more practical ideas that fit the new conditions (Participant) Over the next 50 years, the odds look good that most of Asia will have lost its competitive stance in manufacturing (a la Japan). Innovation and speed of correct reaction look to me like the next arenas where competition will be fierce. Do we have a leg up on these?(Douglass Carmichael) Japan didn’t lose its competitiveness, it shifted out of manufacturing when it realized it could own factories in the rest of Asia and win on balance. Japan I think still has a positive net flow of cash from the outside and is not in debt to the outside world. During the Asian financial crisis Japan bought up huge productive assets, and the Japanese overseas speak the language of their host country. If China loses its advantage it will because we have lost ours and regained it at a vastly discounted rate. the real opportunity for the US is meeting internal markets, and that is the development I look forward to. (major hypothesis alert) Look at it this way. As we moved manufacturing overseas, we raised the standard of living in those places. Over time, costs will come into balance and as they do manufacturing at a distance is not as economically attractive as *local production *. When that happens the whole logic of globalization shifts. Local and regional economies become the focus of action. Local education for local jobs, local politics and press, and even environmental remediation, all begin to cohere. That is my hope, but it requires a kind of global commons to keep the peace. The difference between this view and that of Bush & Co. is that I want to let American power recede gracefully, they want to fight a last effort for control and dominance. Looked at this way, I have to face the possibility that they are strategically correct because of the problem of perceived weakness. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The International
Leadership Forum is a program of
Western Behavioral Sciences Institute.
Copyright 2003. Western Behavioral Science Institute. All Rights Reserved.