Menemani

The Survival of Capitalist Democracies

Capitalism and democracy, can the two co-exist? The question I answered on another forum is indeed provocative.

I believe capitalism and democracy can successfully coexist in the long run only if economic actors become mature enough to police themselves in the way they conduct business, in “exchange” for freedom of market and reduced regulation.

In a democracy the people entrust a government to defend their individual freedom & rights and their interests as a society or nation, and to preserve a social order in a long term perspective.
Capitalism is based on the inalienable right to ownership and profit, and on the principle of a free market.
Conflict between capitalism and democracy occur when the exercise of freedom jeopardizes the rights and interests of the people and the interests of society at large.

In the past 30 years, many economists and management theorists have pushed the concept of freedom of enterprise and free market to a point where any intervention of the state or attempt to regulate the economic, social or environmental field is qualified as “socialism”. At the same time the world has seen more and larger frauds, scandals, crisis, and yoyo bubbles than ever, all in the name of free markets – including wars for democracy-, far from bringing the “equilibrium” expected.

Capitalism and free markets are not to blame here, but rather the behavior of economic actors. A free market does not confer the right to do anything at any cost, regardless of the impacts on people, societies or the generations to come. It can’t be a free ride to grab everything you can as fast as you can. In a democracy, freedom comes with duties and responsibilities. What is true at the individual level is also true for corporate economic actors. For democracy and its social contract to survive in a free market, the economic actors, whether individuals or corporations, must assume their social role (i.e role in society, not “socialistic” role) and take their part of duties and responsibilities. The counterpart of a free market and absence of regulation is the adoption of self imposed rules and principles for the conduct of business as an actor of society, and the accountability thereof. This proactive approach is what I believe Corporate Social Responsibility is ultimately about. When economic actors are not able to police themselves, they misuse the freedom they have been granted, and “the people” will legitimately want to impose more rules, or topple the system.

Proactive Corporate Social Responsibility is the safeguard that will prevent capitalist democracy to fall into socialism, anarchy or the reign of plutocracy…

Sweden -that I had the opportunity to observe for a few years- is probably ahead in its approach of capitalist democracy and practice of proactive CSR. The Swedish democracy is monitored and nurtured. It is the object, together with the cohesion of society, of continuous attentions though a long term engagement in democracy policies, because  nothing is ever to take for granted.

To conclude, I would like to share a quote of Jean Jacques Rousseau that I particularly like:

“What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. If we are to avoid mistake in weighing one against the other, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, which is bounded only by the strength of the individual, from civil liberty, which is limited by the general will; and possession, which is merely the effect of force or the right of the first occupier, from property, which can be founded only on a positive title.
We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty.”
Jean Jacques Rousseau -The Social Contract - Book I, Chapter VIII                                              

Defining Responsibility in CSR

People tend to make business cases for Corporate Social Responsibility or debate the validity of CSR without realizing that each individual probably puts a different meaning behind the words, especially when it comes to defining what this responsibility actually is, and which values it proceeds from… 

One of my respondents on another forum suggested that there was no actual shared and universal definition. He quoted a 2006 white paper by Norwegian academic Dahlsrud who analyzed a total of 37 definitions and found out that none of those actually defined the social responsibility of businesses, but rather described its operational dimensions. While trying to find this paper, I came across the following fundamental principle:

“that a company is responsible for providing more benefits than just profits for shareholders. It has a role to play in treating its employees well, preserving the environment, developing sound corporate governance, supporting philanthropy, fostering human rights, respecting cultural differences and helping to promote fair trade, among others. All are meant to have a positive impact on the communities, cultures, societies and environments in which companies operate.”

Such a loose definition does not serve CSR in my opinion, as it enables its detractors to benefit from the confusion and concentrate their attacks on the elements that are the easiest to dispute. I think in particular of Milton Friedman and his followers who associate CSR initiatives to philanthropy, and restrict responsibility to compliance. By doing so, they obliterate from the discussion what I believe is at the core of CSR: accountability for the impacts corporations may have on societies and environments. 

In my personal view, CSR has a lot more to do with the consequences of doing business freely, and the duties that come with this freedom than with charity and philanthropy…

Wikipedia defines CSR as:

"A concept whereby organizations consider the interests of society by taking responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, communities and other stakeholders, as well as the environment. This obligation is seen to extend beyond the statutory obligation to comply with legislation and sees organizations voluntarily taking further steps to improve the quality of life for employees and their families as well as for the local community and society at large."

The real challenge is how to get from a compliance approach (compliance to law or pressures) to a voluntary approach (self imposed code of conduct).
Some cultures -I think of Scandinavia that I know quite well- rely as much on the "collective" sense of responsibility and "conscience" as they do on the strict application of the law, and they are already close. Others, where a belief that anything that is not forbidden by law -or subject to risk of litigation and rising insurance premiums- can be done is ingrained, have a longer way to go. The response to external stakeholders' pressure is a step in the voluntary direction. I believe education -from kindergarten to university- has a tremendous role to play, but this is another topic...

What other definitions and views do we have out there?

Internal Entrepreneurs as drivers of change?

I've been focusing a lot on entrepreneurship lately, while reflecting on my own experience as a hired entrepreneur and the consulting practice I have set up, and came across Gurprriet Siingh's answer to a LinkedIn question on the matter. Gurprriet is a consultant in Organizational Development. He describes the gap between the entrepreneurial culture and a traditional organization's culture and outlines the difficulties the Internal Entrepreneur has to face to survive in a large organizations. Gurprriet's analysis is totally in phase with my own observations, this is why I took the liberty to reproduce it in whole, something I don't usually do.

To my experience, it is a question of balance. Every organization I consulted with, wanted their people to be entrepreneurial, unable to realize that doing this would involve certain changes to the fabric of the organization itself.

The challenge of course, is that organizations (or their leaders) do not understand what it takes to be an entrepreneur.

Entrepreneurs are fundamentally rule-breakers or challengers. Organizations survive on conformism.

Entrepreneurs are focussed on finding new ways of doing the same things, most large organizations say, follow my way!

Some organizations I worked with experimented with hiring Entrepreneurs and getting them on board as full time employees. That didn't work either.

Over a period of time, after having tried to inculcate entrepreneurism and having experienced some Internal Entrepreneurs, I realized that to be a successful an entrepreneur INSIDE an organization, requires some competencies that are different from a stand-alone entrepreneur. So I am going to respond from the perspective of the Internal Entrepreneur.

Here's a brief note on what I have learned so far:

1. Internal Entrepreneurs (IE for short) need to be more flexible than their standalone counterparts in their ability to work within constraints and systems. They tell themselves that this is a necessary evil and learn to deal with it. Their standalone counterparts reject this reality and either try to change it (which usually fails because the organization culture is stronger than an individual) or quit the system.

2. They have an ability to leverage the system against the system.

3. They have an acute sensitivity to how much stretch the system they work within can take. And they stretch the system to near-breaking point and then pause there.

4. Networking/Relationships play a critical role in an IE's success. Specifically, their ability to build Allies, to find Executive Sponsors, who in a sense "protect" them while they do some "wild" things, or who give them the legitimacy to do so.

5. IEs have an ability to clearly demonstrate that while their methods may appear to be "illicit" their hearts are in the right place and that they're aligned to the same larger goal of organizational success as everyone else. This is a very powerful process and it leads to a dynamic where most of their detractors begin to see them as necessary allies in getting some things done which would normally not be possible. Kind of like old western towns hiring gunslingers to clean up the town –they didn’t like it, but they knew these guys were needed.

6. They ensure that when they do something outrageous, they have someone "watching their back".

7. They have an acute sense of corporate politics and while they don't get ensnared in it themselves, they understand the minefield and are able to navigate it well.

8. Unlike their standalone counterparts, IEs have more patience. They realize that in order to work within the system, radical things might take a little more time. They have a high emotional resilience and an ability to articulate, communicate and market their strategies and ideas - to the appropriate audience! And that's another key differentiator.

I attended a 3 hours session by Prof. Bala Chakravarty of IMD, Laussane, who gave us this awesome example of an IE. He said James Bond represents all the qualities that are needed. The man is part of the British Civil Service – probably one of the most bureaucratic organizations of all time – and yet continues to defy systems, processes and rules, but survives because his commitment to cause and country is unquestionable. And delivers consistent results. I loved the example!

I also think that in today’s day and age when competition is at warp-speed, we need to cultivate IEs and build the necessary culture to enable them to thrive and not just survive!

Thank you Gurprriet! This sounds all very familiar!

We need entrepreneurial organizations!

This post is my answer to a question asked by Liz cassidy on LinkedIn: "What is your experience of developing / or dealing with an entrepreneur inside an organisation?" and refers to some of the answers posted by other members.

As an entrepreneur I had the opportunity to experience many configurations, and I must say I especially thrive in entrepreneurial environments or environments that value entrepreneurship. Organizations that don’t value entrepreneurship tend to expect people to fit the mold and follow behavioral patterns where rules and processes prevail and where the system cannot be questioned for improvement. As a consequence they tend to misuse the skills of the entrepreneur and tame his entrepreneurial qualities, or worse let him tilt at windmills like Don Quixotte...

Entrepreneurs are probably the best positioned to bring innovation about because they positively challenge status quo and roll up their sleeves to get things done. I am totally with Gurprriet and Anne here: to keep on top in an increasingly competitive and changing world, organizations need to foster internal entrepreneurship and provide a culture where they will thrive.

Here are some examples to illustrate what entrepreneurs deal with in various kinds of organizations.

Working for an entrepreneur in the packaging industry who hired young entrepreneurs to manage and grow the business was a fulfilling experience. I was in charge of marketing, and two other 25 to 30 year-old entrepreneurs were managing sales and operations. When we started, there was no marketing department, and a first production facility had just been acquired. As a team, we learnt by doing, moved the company forward and accomplished great results with limited resources and time. The founder eventually brought in an OD consultancy to assess the structure in view of future growth. Part of their conclusion: too many young and impetuous managers that needed senior managers above them. Needless to say nobody was hired to create an additional echelon of hierarchy between the boss and his entrepreneurial team. This of course didn’t prevent a five fold increase of sales in ten years, attainment of leadership position, and the strongest profitability in the sector, as well as the recruitment of more young entrepreneurs… The OD consultants had missed something of the company’s culture based on lean, flat and agile organization ahead of time. They perceived the strong personalities and the somewhat “loose” or flexible structure where people were taking and given initiative to improve things as a liability. It was indeed difficult to follow at times, but this was also our strength, and quite unusual in the industrial world. This type of organization however can only function if the leader fully backs the internal entrepreneurs and is fully supported by his shareholders. Something relatively easy when the leader is the owner as in the present case, or when you call yourself Google and base your strategy on an entrepreneurial model.

Leaders of entrepreneurial companies also need to state a clear vision and strategy to point their entrepreneurial teams in the right direction. Many entrepreneurs usually “see” where they want to go in a very pragmatic way, and concentrate on the doing. They imagine everyone understands the strategy and its inflections even without a thorough formulation or reformulation. This was a common trait I noticed in startups during the internet/technology boom. Very often too fast a growth would blur the vision and strategy or make it obsolete. I consulted a few startups were each member of the management team had a different idea of where the business should go, and what the competitive advantage was. The entrepreneurial culture was there, but the “power of entrepreneurs” was not channeled. There has to be a beacon, set by the founding visionary or collectively by the management team.

On another occasion I was hunted by a large pharmaceutical company who wanted to launch an OTC product range, a possibility just opened by new legislation. I went quite far in the interview process as my entrepreneurial profile appealed to the people in place.  My potential boss got promoted abroad during that time, and his replacement did not see things the same way... From the foreseen best “enabler” of this diversification, I became the candidate who would the least know how to “correctly” draft a recommendation and follow the processes because I was not trained the proper way in an entrepreneurial company -I quote-. I must say I wasn’t quite motivated to work for this type of boss either… so we both left it there. Going back to Gurprriet’s and Anne’s points, it is indeed essential as an internal entrepreneur to have allies and protection, but this remains a precarious situation if the whole culture is not entrepreneur friendly.

I had the opportunity to volunteer and spearhead some change initiatives in several non profit settings and collaborate with a versatile group of volunteers. And I encountered very efficient outcomes and fulfilling experiences, as well as situations marred with politics and spanners in the works. Volunteers show different degrees of involvement, they pursue different personal goals and have different ideas of their mission and role or power within the organization. In the absence of actual role descriptions, processes, and decision structures, those who actually fill the void and get things done and moving forward are generally entrepreneurs. Their longevity at the task is often proportional to the room for maneuver they obtain from members of the group who are less involved.

Yes ! No ! Because!

Cognitive science is increasingly interested in the ability people have to dialog and cooperate. Why can’t people understand each other? Why do we favor status quo instead of moving forward? Most of the time, it is because we think along different lines or patterns, and because beyond our differences in opinions, we have different representations of a same reality. The example below is a good illustration: what would you have seen in the following figure?

To effectively establish a dialog and understand each other, we need to realize that each of us uses a different frame of reference and representation system. We need to try and define a shared frame or representation, or at least try and temporarily adopt the other person’s frame of reference in order to understand the reasoning behind her thinking.

Ideologies and dogma are made to prevent any incursion in a different vision of the world. Prejudice has the same effect: they rigidify the frame and representation system. As a consequence, even the idea of difference or change becomes threatening and has a paralyzing effect.

Several techniques have been developed in organizations to facilitate mutual understanding and cooperative problem solving through a dialog intended to free expression and vent out concerns and fears, and where each one tries by “informing” the other to understand the blocking factors and to overcome them. This process contributes to reduce threats and worries. The half empty glass has a chance to become half full.

One particular example of these techniques: the proscription of questions that can be answered by yes or no. These questions indeed offer the possibility for the one who replies to hide behind a small word without a slight incursion in the reasoning. By the same token, why-questions are prohibited as well, because even when they try to get to the causes, they often generate responses that are mere justifications, fruitless to move a debate forward.

To progress not only in the corporate world but also in our societies and the world as well, I would be favorable to teach dialog as a “civic skill” at school! 

References:
Many thanks to my friend Gerald O D'wyer and the Fuzen group, with whom I have shared a few workshop experiences as a participant and as a consultant.
Action Science - Chris Argyris

Kantian reminder

1. We are all citizens of the world, driven by -a few common- universal values
2. It is our responsibility that the world in which we live be in concordance with these values
3. We should determine our actions and behaviors under the light of the potential undesirable consequences of a universal adoption of these actions and behaviors.

Corporate Social Responsibility: how far are we from the tipping point?

Harvard Business Review Jonathan Lash and Fred Wellington devise this month on the effect of climate change on corporations and on their ability to handle the various related risks: regulatory, supply chain, product & technology, litigation, reputational, physical… and turn them into competitive advantages.

Are we seeing a change in economic and management theory embracing corporate social responsibility? Will csr become mainstream as a corporate value any time soon?

Technically, it seems that directors are mandated by law to put their shareholders' interests above the interests of any other stakeholder. Henry Ford himself received a supreme court ruling in 1919 when he vowed to reinvest his surplus profits in cutting the prices of his cars and hiring more workers to "spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes."

In his book The Corporation*, Joel Bakan claims that corporations relentlessly pursue their own self interests regardless of the harmful consequences they may cause to others. A concept promoted by Nobel Prize Milton Friedman who titled a New York Times article in 1970 The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, a stand he confirmed in a 2005 Businessweek interview. For Friedman, Social Responsibility goals are to be pursued exclusively at the individual and personal level, and should be considered as a misappropriation of corporate assets and “fundamentally subversive” if pursued at the corporate level.

The controversy over Friedman's theories also sparked the US academic world. In a remarked white paper, the late management education guru Sumantra Ghosal explained a couple of years ago how the "oversimplifying" sets of ideas that have shaped management theories for the past 30 years have freed students –today's actors- from any sense of responsibility, influenced social and moral behaviors, and have led, in a self-fulfilling process, to the worst excesses -see one of my previous posts on this subject. Ghosal entrusted the academy to promote pluralism and alternative theories and reverse the trend. With success it seems given all the articles white papers, podcasts and conferences on the subject of CSR and global warming.

Has a page been turned since Friedman passed away, and are we close to the tipping point? Large corporations -including Walmart- are starting to embrace the concept,  customer and public pressure have a visible effects, and policy makers are on the job. let's be optimistic.

*Many thanks to Lauchlan Mackinnon for  pointing me to this resource.

The feminization of values...

Whether you call it Yin/Yang –Chinese philosophy- or Animus/Anima –Jung’s archetypes-, the idea of the feminine/masculine nature of things is not new. Because women attach a great importance to social goals in their work: relationships and collaboration, helping others and the environment in which they live, sociologist Geert Hofstede called these goals feminine goals.

When women are empowered, they influence and “feminize” societies and economies in a positive way, and this becomes a virtuous circle. Small entrepreneurship and policy making seem to be the route to empowerment.
As beneficiary of microcredit loans in developing countries, women put particular emphases in developing their communities as a whole.
As part of policy making bodies in Nordic countries (>45% of parliament in Sweden, even more at local community levels), they have contributed to shape a unique collaborative approach.

Interestingly enough –and hopefully for you guys!-, Geert Hofstede points out that what he calls feminine goals and values in the work place are not a female exclusivity, and that differences exist between women and between men across nations. However, differences are narrower between women worldwide than they are between men. –Vikings, if I remember well, turn out to be the most feminine males, and American women, among the most masculine females-.

As the world becomes flatter and corporate social responsibility gains ground the values and goals that drive the corporate world are “feminizing”. Leaders are required to have more social and relationship skills. The increased role of women in management and leadership position will probably follow. It is yet a lengthy process, and will probably not be a landslide, as even countries like Sweden despite their huge percentage of women in policy making have a very low percentage of women in leadership positions. Why they don’t go there although they have the most “gender equal” society, is another story, probably linked to the motivation to exert an influence where they feel it will be the most “useful”…

Brilliant!

Ever wondered when you will be hit by the brilliant idea that no one has ever had before? Does such a thing as “the” brilliant groundbreaking idea really exist? Why is it that when you think you hold a breakthrough, you notice after some research that others had the same idea at the same time?

Well, as ideas are quite related to our environment, they scarcely are revolutionary or unique, most of the time they fall into one of the following categories:

• The logical consequence of existing needs and trends, or knowledge and technology: that’s the obviously next idea. Whether a new technology, a new application or a new product: it’s “in the air”, it’s been floating around for months. You’re probably not the first and only one to grasp it. And if it’s not thought of today, it sure will be thought of soon. That’s when you develop a new product in the greatest secret; you think you will be ahead of your competitors, and hey, here they are, launching the product at the same time! It happened to me quite often. You start blaming leaks from your ad agency, your suppliers, your staff. But you’re probably paranoid: if you thought it was the next thing, others probably thought the same. The most obvious example is fashion: you long to discover what the trendy designers will present on Paris’ catwalks, and discover they all opted for guns & roses… And the most striking example is Internet, a logical integration of telegraph/telephone/radio and computer technology, which initiated in its turn a wealth of new ideas. When you’re the first and fastest one to connect the pieces and bring it to reality: that’s when you hit the jackpot!

• The “now we’re ready” idea: already thought and discussed by many, but waiting for technology or market readiness to catch up. Who never dreamt of a palm/phone or a phone/palm long before the all in one were launched? Who never swore on digital imaging and video streaming limitations until quite recently? The Internet bubble was all about gaps in readiness both ways: technology with no markets or markets without the right technology; just as delayed deployment of 3G is about not having the proper devices to operate. Twenty years ago, I evaluated the French market for a “revolutionary” product: Sony’s Mavica. This camera enabled storage of digital images on a disquette, viewable on a PC. The survey pointed out two major shortcomings: PC penetration and behaviors. While VHS was the mirror image of audiotapes applied to motion, Mavica was something totally different that the market couldn’t possibly project using at that time. Well I recently read the Mavica had been launched a few years ago, and the storage medium is believe it or not… a floppy disk! Today, many conditions are gathered for the Internet to get to the next step with a new take-off both as a tool and a means of expression: penetration, bandwidth, ease of search and content generation. Whatever the market let’s periodically examine our drawers and recycle bins, they might be worth billions…

• A bad idea no one believes in, killed along the way by smart people as infeasible. That’s a real bad idea… or too early an idea, or an idea that people think will never be profitable… That's an idea Hugh McLoad advises you to go for, no matter what others say, if it's really what you believe in! … Maybe even one of Seth Godin’s Purple Cows: the remarkable idea no one wants to risk implementing because of short term views or because it involves too much change in behaviors and thinking, but yet, able to get you the reward you dreamt of if you implement it right…

Eventually this last idea falls back into one of the previous categories, unless you are a real genius! But gee, as all these great guys put it: you don’t need a revolutionary idea nor to be a genius to be successful! Right conjonction, right time, right determination and right marketing seem a pretty good mix.

Oui, non, parce que!

Les sciences cognitives s'intéressent à la capacité qu'ont les hommes à dialoguer et à se mettre d'accord. Pourquoi n'arrivons nous pas à nous comprendre et à nous entendre? Pourquoi restons nous figés sur place au lieu d'avancer? Souvent parce que nous raisonnons selon des schémas multiples, parce que, en dehors même de nos opinions, nous avons tous des représentations différentes d'une même réalité. L'exemple ci-dessous est assez parlant: qu'auriez vous vu vous-même dans la figure 1?

Pour dialoguer efficacement et se comprendre, il faut accepter que référentiels et représentations puissent être différentes, tenter de définir un référentiel ou une représentation commune, ou au moins tenter d'adopter temporairement le référentiel de l'autre pour en comprendre le raisonnement. Les idéologies et dogmes sont faits pour empêcher toute incursion dans une vision différente du monde. Les préjugés ont la même conséquence. Du coup toute idée de changement devient menaçante et fait peur.

Des techniques ont été développées pour faciliter la compréhension mutuelle et la solution de problème à travers un dialogue où la parole est libérée, où les inquiétudes et peurs s'expriment, et où ensuite chacun cherche en "informant" l'autre à comprendre les blocages et à les surmonter. Craintes et menaces se retrouvent réduites d'elles-mêmes dans le processus. Le verre à moitié vide a ainsi une chance de devenir à moitié plein...

A titre anecdotique, ces techniques proscrivent du dialogue les questions qui appellent une réponse oui/non lesquelles éliminent de facto toute forme de construction puisque chacun peut se retrancher derrière un petit mot unique qui évite de développer sa pensée... de même les questions type pourquoi sont proscrites car même lorsqu'elles recherchent les causes -qu'est-ce qui a fait que- elles engendrent souvent des réponses sous forme de justification, stériles pour faire avancer un débat.

Quel enseignement peut-on en tirer pour le dialogue politique et démocratique et pour la résolution de nos problèmes de société? Je serais pour ma part assez favorable à l'enseignement du dialogue comme "compétence civique" à l'école.

Lumières du Nord - 5. Eduquer pour vivre en Société

Ceci est un chapitre de l'étude approfondie de la société suédoise menée pendant mes quatre années de vie sur place. Lire le chapitre précédent <<

« De vray, le soing et la despense de nos pères ne visent qu’à nous meubler la teste de science ; du jugement et de la vertu peu de nouvelles… »

Montaigne. Essais, Livre I, ch 25.

L’école suédoise a pour ambition de former des citoyens humanistes et responsables, ouverts au vaste monde, capables de s’entendre et de coopérer, libres de leur propre jugement, capables d’avoir des opinions et de les exprimer, sûrs d’eux et de leur avenir, capables d’influencer leur propre destin, autonomes et capables de se débrouiller dans la vie. En ce sens, elle est « utilitaire » au bon sens du terme. On n’enseigne pas seulement pour connaître et pour penser. On enseigne aussi pour agir, pour vivre, pour s’insérer dans la société et y être heureux. Le niveau de connaissance n’est qu’un des aspects. Ainsi, l’enseignement ne passe pas seulement par la théorie et dans les livres, l’expérience et le dialogue joue un grand rôle. Plus que comme les détenteurs et transmetteurs du savoir, les enseignants suédois aiment se décrire comme des guides qui montrent le chemin, qui donnent les clés pour une utilisation optimale de ce savoir.

Cette politique éducative porte apparemment ses fruits puisque la Suède est selon Henry Milner, un universitaire canadien spécialisé dans la politique comparée, le pays le plus « civiquement lettré » du monde avec la Norvège, c’est à dire, le pays dont la maturité et la participation politique sont les plus développées.[1]

---

[1] Milner Henry, Civic Litteracy, 2002. A titre comparatif, la Suède score à 127, la Norvège à 130, la France à 85 et les US à 45. Cet indicateur reflète la connaissance de la vie politique et des institutions locales/nationales/inrernationales, l'indépendance par rapport aux media de masse, la participation politique.

---

Lumières du Nord - 4. La Démocratie en Mouvement

Ceci est un chapitre de l'étude approfondie de la société suédoise menée pendant mes quatre années de vie sur place. Lire le chapitre précédent << et le chapitre suivant >>

La social-démocratie veut que les idéaux de la démocratie marquent de leur empreinte tous les aspects de l’organisation sociale[1] et les rapports entre les individus[2]. C’est en ces termes que débute le premier programme social démocrate rédigé en 1897.

Le modèle suédois a essuyé bien des critiques et connu bien des transformations depuis. Mais les idéaux et les objectifs sont restés les mêmes et sont aujourd’hui partagés par toute la classe politique. Plus que jamais, les notions d’individu, de rapports humains, de société, d’humanité et de démocratie animent la pensée politique. 

Ainsi les suédois donnent à la démocratie un rôle et une substance qu’elle n’a pas forcément au départ. Elle n’est pas seulement un moyen pour le peuple d’exercer sa souveraineté. Comme élément moteur du développement de l’être social et de la société toute entière, elle constitue aussi une fin en elle-même.

Que ses idéaux s’articulent autour des grands principes universels des droits de l’homme n’est pas une grande surprise…Ce qui l’est plus, c’est cette volonté d’imbriquer aussi intimement la politique à la vie sociale, d’associer approfondissement démocratique et progrès social.

Au sein de la Cité, personne publique qui se forme par l’union de toutes les autres[3], la politique est pensée comme une entreprise collective destinée à chercher les meilleures réponses pour bien vivre ensemble et réaliser un objectif commun en harmonisant des intérêts parfois divergents.

Aussi les suédois se sont-ils attachés à susciter et à cultiver, avec une rigueur et une constance tout à fait marquante, la participation et le dialogue à tous les niveaux. Et des méthodes de prise de décision collectives se sont élaborées au fil du temps[4].

La démocratie est vue comme un projet permanent dynamique dans lequel chacun s’investit pour réaliser une vision d’avenir partagée et qui nourrit le sens civique et la maturité politique. Elle n’est plus seulement représentative, elle devient de plus en plus participative et délibérative, renforçant l’engagement réciproque des citoyens et de l’état.

Elle est participative parce que d’abord elle s’attache à associer tous les individus et toutes les générations, communautés, catégories, majorités, minorités, classes sociales, nationalités[5], races, religions…à la vie collective et au processus démocratique. -Les étrangers ont droit de vote et sont éligibles aux élections locales-. Ensuite, les lieux et occasions de contacts, d’information, de discussion et de coopération à tous les niveaux de la société, national, local, société civile et même entreprises se multiplient. Il ne s’agit pas seulement de maintenir des taux de participations élevés aux élections pour une plus grande représentativité du vote et une meilleure répartition du pouvoir, mais aussi de permettre aux citoyens d’exercer leur influence de manière continue.

Elle est délibérative car elle accorde une place primordiale au dialogue grâce auquel se forme le consensus et la volonté collective qui en résulte. Qu’il s’agisse de négociations contractuelles ou des enquêtes préliminaires aux grandes réformes, chacun a la possibilité, au cours d’un débat ouvert et libre, de faire entendre sa voix directement ou par l’intermédiaire d’une organisation. Ce débat permet l’appréciation collective des différentes positions. Le principe repose sur l’idée que tous les citoyens doivent être traités à égalité en terme de pouvoir et d’influence politique et il suppose déjà une certaine participation. Il ne s’agit pas tant de négocier pour trouver un point d’entente à court terme, mais de coopérer et de conserver cette coopération le plus longtemps possible.

L’état est le garant de ce processus démocratique dynamique, gage cohésion social, de progrès et d’adaptabilité et il se donne les moyens de l’entretenir.

Let's think ahead of tomorrow's Dow Jones

We live in a world driven by short term goals and rewards, at the expense of future generations. Do we really want to continue encouraging bad management practices and behaviors?

Day to day variations vs. yield or patrimonial perspective
The fact that capital gain has taken predominance over yield and long term revenue has affected mentalities and changed the relationship between the stockholder and the corporation in quite a cynical way. With a focus on next quarter's bottom line and the share value tomorrow, who sees the overall wealth creation over 5 years? Who is the guardian of a company's perspectives, reputation, liability and potential profits and wealth at say, 10, 20, 50, 100 years?

Short term money in emerging sectors
Ages ago, I learned that long term investments shouldn't be financed by short term money. Huge capital is available in western countries waiting to be invested: short term/volatile capital rushes to finance “hit hot” markets -i.e. most of the time growing markets that require long term investments to consolidate. Of course, everyone wants a share of the same cake, that’s how bubbles build up, making these markets riskier than they should be -see Businessweek Too Much Money-. At the first blip, the rush is to pull back and the whole thing collapses, throwing the baby out with the bath water. I saw this first hand in South-East Asia in 1997, with all its implications on local people's lives. When the IMF stepped in, conditioning its loans to a total and immediate deregulation of what was locally perceived as a social aid -i.e. subsidies on household energy, you got riots and unrest... Joseph Stieglitz explained this very well. Then came the internet... a perfect opportunity to place the cash divested from Asia...

No more investments in infrastructures
The maximization of short term profit is detrimental to long term investment and infrastructure: rare are those who invest in the US railroad or electrical distribution network, ROI is too far away, as a result, the power grid is in a terrible condition -and probably also a cause of energy waste- and the prospects of a Chicago New-York high speed train connection in 3hrs is not for tomorrow. What about the internet, could it have been created by the private sector today? Who will finance the infrastructures needed for its growth tomorrow.

Dilapidating assets and increasing liability
Last, and to put this issue in a financial perspective: our generation happily jeopardizes at no cost the assets of future generations. No "provisions" whatsoever are made today for the risk and cost our children will incur tomorrow -health, environment, natural resources...-. In addition our states live off “leveraged” deficits that future generations will have to finance…

Win/win has to be put into perspective, it's not just here and now...

Lumières du Nord - 3. L'esprit des Lumières

Ceci est un chapitre de l'étude approfondie de la société suédoise menée pendant mes quatre années de vie sur place. Lire le chapitre précédent << et le chapitre suivant >>  

Pour Jörgen Hermansson, professeur de sciences politiques à l’université d’Uppsala, la Suède est le pays qui incarne le mieux les idées des lumières qu’elle a pu expérimenter par la pratique avant même la révolution française et la déclaration d’indépendance américaine et qui ont ensuite mûri dans la continuité de deux siècles sans guerre ni révolution.

Les idées des Lumières n’ont pas toujours eu bonne presse. Elles ont souvent été assimilées, en France, aux « idées bourgeoises », mercantiles, libérales…anglo-saxonnes…même si nos philosophes restent au panthéon des inspirateurs de la Révolution Française.

Il n’empêche, dans leur dimension philosophique, sorties du contexte matériel de l’époque et adaptées aux évolutions de nos démocraties modernes, elles méritent que l’on s’y penche à nouveau.

Change this!

Pour suivre le débat sur le changement aux US.

Change this, la plateforme pour diffuser les nouvelles idées et changer les manières de penser, est en train d'être réactivée,parceque "fundamentalist beliefs, irrational exuberance, and unfounded opinions have taken over and ended the constructive debate years ago".

Ci-dessous un extrait de leur présentation. Constat à mettre en perspective avec nos débats en France et auquel jéadhère totalement. Quelles sont les tribunes qui affichent les mêmes intentions chez nous? La forme du manifeste est intéressante car elle permet de dépasser le côté éphémère du fil d'un blog...

Are you an optimist?

Sometimes it seems as though our disagreements—over everything from politics to business to the designated hitter rule—are more serious and more divisive than ever before.

People are making emotional, knee-jerk decisions, then standing by them, sometimes fighting to the death to defend their position.

And yet, we’re optimists.

People call the team at Change This optimists because we don’t believe it has to be this way. We don’t believe humans evolved to be so bad at making decisions, so poor at changing our minds, so violent in arguing our point of view. We’re well aware of how split our country and our world have become, but we don’t think the current state of affairs is built into our very nature.

The problem lies in the media.

In the old days, we had the time and inclination to consider the implications of a decision. Everyone wasn’t in quite so much of a hurry. At the same time, most conversations (and most arguments) were local ones, conducted between people who knew each other.

Today, it’s very different. Television demands a sound bite. A one hundred word letter to the editor is a long one. Radio has become a jingoistic wasteland, a series of thoughtless mantras, repeated over and over and designed to fit into a typical commute.