I do not get the impression that the governance of the world is good or that it is getting better. The gap between rich and poor is widening – between countries and within countries. The world’s environment, mankind’s patrimony, is suffering gradual ruin. The main institutions of the world are organized to enhance and protect the wealth and influence of the powerful. How can we accept that these three world – tendencies are bound to continue, inexorably producing what is a greater and greater sum of misery and deprived dependency on earth? Such passivity before the “inevitability” of this sort of globalisation is one of its depressing effects.
I read every day, looking for hope whenever I can find it. I wish to share such hope especially with my children and grandchildren whose century this will be in which to thrive or struggle, exult or tremble. I find I have jotted down in my journal at various times the following thoughts:
• Fashionable economic theory tells us that interference with the operation of market forces – through concern for the poor, the weak and the vulnerable or in the cause of civilized compassion of one kind or another – is misguided and counter-productive. But this is simply untrue and if followed slavishly will lead to increasing misery in the world and the brutalisation of relations between people. Here is what the greatest economist of the 20th century, John Maynard Keynes, wrote in 1926 in an essay entitled “The End of Laissez-Faire.”
“It is not true that individuals possess a prescriptive “natural liberty” in their economic activities. There is no “compact” conferring perpetual rights on those who Have or on those who Acquire. The world is not so governed from above that private and social interest always coincide. It is not so managed here below that in practice they coincide. It is not a correct deduction from the Principles of Economics that enlightened self-interest always operates in the public interest. Nor is it true that self-interest generally is enlightened; more often individuals acting separately to promote their own ends are too ignorant or too weak to attain even these. Experience does not show that individuals, when they make up a social unit, are always less clear-sighted than when they act separately.”
• The erosion of human rights in America, and elsewhere has grown in the powerful wake of the September 11th World Trade massacre years ago. As other major terrorist attacks take place it is inevitable that more and more fundamental human rights will be infringed. After Pearl Harbour perfectly innocent and harmless American citizens who happened to be Japanese were hauled off to detention camps in their scores of thousands. Alas, even the revered land of the free is not immune from very human, though brutal, reactions. In the Federalist Papers, those miraculously perceptive and brilliantly written documents which prepared the way for the United States Constitution and American Independence, Alexander Hamilton described what would always be the case in times of danger:
“Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”
Hamilton’s shrewd words are also very relevant for us locally, and in the Caribbean generally. As violent crime grows and criminals become more indiscriminately brutal and more organized in gangs can one doubt that ordinary citizens will increasingly become quite prepared to see the exercise of their civil rights eroded? “To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.” Yes, I am afraid that is very definitely so.
• I read of the Nolan Committee’s report. This Committee was set up by former UK Prime Minister, John Major, to investigate sleaze in Government and recommend what might be done. As with most such reports, anywhere in the world, this one has been safely pigeon-holed. However, it may live a little longer than most because it enunciated “seven principles of public life” which are now much quoted as setting a benchmark, idealistic no doubt but useful as a reminder, for public service behaviour. These principles are: selflessness (holders of public office should serve the public interest, not seek gains for their friends); integrity (they should not place themselves under financial obligations to outsiders who might influence their duties); objectivity (they should award public appointments and contracts on merit); accountability (they should submit themselves to appropriate scrutiny); honesty (they should declare conflict of interest); openness (they should give reasons for their decisions); and leadership (they should support these principles by personal example).
It is good to be reminded sometimes of how a perfect world might work.
