Archiv der Kategorie: Governance

Governance covers regulations and control aspects.

When democracy is actually none

Since the fifties of the last century, the world population tripled to 7.5 billion. At the same time, one-tenth of the world’s population owns more than 85% of private wealth. This creates a tension that requires imposing the majority stable. Over the millennia, the rule of the people, democracy, has prevailed as a clever form of reign. It suggests to the masses that they would have the control of the social development. But what happens if, over time, mechanisms and behaviors have emerged that make out of participation an illusion – when democracy is actually none.

The roots of this development could already be seen in the beginning. Over the years, more pragmatic approaches have been added.

  • Only certain people are allowed to vote
    Already in the cradle of democracy not all people were allowed to vote, but only full citizens – only about 10% of the population. Women and slaves were even not considered. Today, voters are also excluded if, for example, they have not yet reached a certain age, or because they belong to a minority, or by deleting them from the voter’s list, or by exclusion of certain groups of the population due to their physical and mental conditions, or through intimidation, or through misinformation, or even by direct buying of votes.
  • Missing selection of candidates
    If there is only one candidate available, voters have no choice – like in Singapore or Haiti. This can also happen due to competitors without chances, as in Russia or Egypt. An interesting variant is the election of a party, without any candidates, as in Kazakhstan.
  • Preselection of candidates
    As soon as the candidates need admittance for the election, nobody can speak of a free choice. Thus, in Iran, the candidates must be at first approved by the Guardian Council. In Russia, candidates must be over 35 years, not convicted, and nonpartisans need 300,000 signatures to participate at all. A preselection also takes place, if not all candidates make it to the election, because they are intimidated or detained by physical violence.
  • The winner takes all
    In the American electoral system, the president is elected indirectly by so-called electoral delegates. Each state has a certain number. The voters decide by their vote, which party wins the federal state and after the majority vote the winner gets then all electoral delegates. This distorts the election result in a bizarre way. Of the 232 million eligible voters, 123 million actually voted. With 46.9%, the non-voters actually won the election. The current president was able to win the presidency with 59 million or 25.5% of the voters, because of the higher number of electoral delegates, although his counter-candidate was able to bring in 2 million more voters with 25.6%.
  • Unelected coalitions
    The political landscape is fragmented into more and more cultural parallel societies, which moreover open up their own sociotope. In Germany, the former popular parties are no longer able to assemble majorities. The Christian Union has only a slight lead due to an artificial structure that apart from a C has nothing in common. And even that is not enough for an absolute majority. Therefore, after the election, coalitions are decided over the heads of voters. Based on the coalition agreement, the parties determine among themselves, without voters, what they want to achieve together – but the will is not enough to get statements done and more cannot be expected, since it is not agreed. Political discussion will only take place to a limited extent in the following legislative term, since everything has already been decided in advance. Noteworthy is the fact that although only 76.2% of voters have voted, the mandates rose from 631 to 709.

Bottom line: The speed at which some countries, such as China, are moving in an alternative political leadership style should make our hesitant political thinkers think. What does the Western model of democracy, which got stuck in routines and overregulation, need? More participation? Less career politicians? What? If only certain people are allowed to vote, if there is no choice, if candidates are preselected, if uncoordinated coalitions emerge afterwards, or if the procedures of counting votes lead to a distorted expression of the voters will, then, the democratic routines are obsolete. First of all, it takes an idea for how to do it differently. At least a transfer of the “best” political system to an actual representation of the will of the majority is necessary, so that democracy is actually one.

If we regulated, what we regulate

In retrospect, it was always difficult to recognize the valid set of rules in large enterprises. In the best case there was a list of officialized guidelines. In the respective list the first guideline was always the explanation of how to make a guideline. In some cultures it is crucial for the declaration that they are only obeyed, if they are integrated into the official list and are accepted in a meeting with a ritual by the concerned people. However, these regulations are only the tip of the iceberg. Besides, there are a vast number of additional conventions. Wouldn’t it be practical to make all rules visible to everybody? By regulating, what we regulate.

Regulations are continuously revised and simplified. But somehow people forget to abolish the outdated regulations. As a consequence the bureaucracy explodes. Autonomous actions have not enough elbow space, since a violation of existing rules leads quickly to contract termination. How could the regulations of an enterprise become more effective?

  • Clear definition of the rules
    Actually all involved people should have access to all relevant regulations, which they have to follow. That begins with laws, which have the strongest legally binding character. In large companies, which act globally, it is important it to clarify, which laws are valid in which country. Beyond that, the law with the ultimate binding nature has to be defined. The official company guidelines are the next level of bindingness – even if some people believe that they could override the laws. It should be clarified that the laws stand above everything. Anything else is illegal. The next stage is formed by the work instructions, which are specified by the individual areas following their strategy. They must fit to the superordinate ones. However this is rarely checked due to the absence of an overview. The simplest regulations are the algorithms, which are part in IT-programs and operational sequences. The longer they exist, the fewer people know the actual regulations, which are specified by the procedures. In these cases is no more transparency. At the end some programs run like a black box, without anybody being able to change anything.
  • A comprehensive register of all rules
    Today only a few rules are attainable in one directory. If you consider the many levels of specifications, it becomes clear that you act in a bureaucratic corset that you do not have under control. For this reason a first step is to describe them as good as possible and to make all relevant laws, guidelines, work instructions and algorithm available for all employees. At least the laws and company guidelines should be reachable at any time. A smart register of the work instructions is the next step. The algorithms you can only control, if the respective programs are switched off. Anything else would be guessing without guarantee of correctness.
  • Accessibility of the rules
    The accessibility of the rules should be no problem via the appropriate company network, the Intranet. It will be more difficult for the particular user to correctly interpret the rules without an appropriate consultation. At the same time you should be aware that rules, which someone does not understand, do not result in the desired effect. As soon as the employees do not begin to give attention to rules you loose. Compliance remains in this case an unfulfillable desire.
  • Consistency of the rules
    The valid rules should be consistent. No guideline should be written that contradicts a law. No work instruction should violate laws or guidelines. No software should operate algorithms, which contradict the entire set of rules. In principle the top management is responsible that all employees comply with the rules. Since the observation of all employees is not possible, in practice it became generally accepted to publish an instruction that asks the subordinated areas to follow the rules. That way managers feel relieved. But the rising number of law cases between enterprises and its top management shows that this is a fallacy. Therefore the companies should increase their efforts concerning the regulation of their rules and to ensure that the valid rules are consistent.
  • The agile way out
    The unsatisfactory effect of a bad leadership results in the attempt of sneaking out of responsibility by proclaiming agile approaches. That way the responsibility for acting is delegated to the employees. The areas have to become more flexible with self-organization. The fatal consequence is thereby overseen. As soon as the employees take over the control and find their way autonomously, the managers become obsolete – at least the middle levels. And thus the agility works smoothly at all; it needs a platform that makes the valid regulations available in a directory (see above).

Bottom line: The bureaucracy is an interconnected system, whose components become over time invisible, since too many rules were and are developed, without ever abolishing some. In order to be able to act really compliant, it is necessary to describe the existing set of rules, to check its meaningfulness and consistency, and, if somehow possible, to reduce them to what is really needed – regulating, what regulates.