i read the news today (oh boy), and i found myself (once again) shaking my head at the antics of our so-called leaders.
The story itself is irrelevant, as the behaviour that had me shaking my head can be read in a dozen stories in the news every single day. Labour propose something, the Tories and the LibDems get a spokesman into the media to declare it the worst thing that has ever happened, that it'll be a disaster of Biblical proportions, and that anyone who would even consider this policy should be drugged, bound in a sack and dumped off a cliff late at night when no-one's around.
Labour did exactly the same thing when they were in opposition; and will do so again immediately they get voted out of government; this isn't a party-political thing; nor is it confined to the UK by a long way.
In fact, it's how "democracy" appears to work. Constant antagonism along fairly arbitrary party lines; divisive, confrontational leadership with as much emphasis on point-scoring against your political enemies as on making life better for those who elected them (which should surely be their *only* concern... that's the life of a 'public servant', no?)
i have spent time on protest sites, a nature reserve run on anarchist principles, and communes of various descriptions... all complicated systems that need direction by those within them.
i have also worked for a large multinational corporation, and witnessed the inner workings of several successful companies. Again; complex systems that need guidance from those within.
What strikes me is that none of these systems use a model of confrontational leadership. Why on earth do we use it to run something as complex as a country, when everyone knows that it would be madness for a company or a protest site to be run that way?
When something needs doing at a site, then everyone with an opinion sits down, discusses the matter, and comes to some form of consensus. Compomise is often required, but that's the nature of collaborative action - and everyone is aware of that.
In a company, when a decision is required, then there's a meeting (at whatever level - board, mid-management, site-crew). All opinions are aired and proposals made. Then the senior person considers them all - takes advice - and decides on the best route.
Now, i prefer the consensus decision-making to the hierarchical system (hence why i quit the corporate world). But they both can clearly achieve results, while containing flaws of their own (consensus-led systems *can* be slow to react on controversial issues; hierarchies *can* end up acting without anywhere near enough consideration, or based on the decisions of a lone madman).
Imagine a meeting of Coca-Cola's Marketing Division (say) at which the executives are screaming at each other across the meeting room; trying to drown one another out; damning company policy to anyone who will listen; and calling for the resignation of anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.
Or a commune run on the same basis (there have been some, but no successes that i know of).
When there are difficult decisions to be made (like, say, on funding for the London Underground) - does it not make sense to get everyone together; experts and people's representatives; and discuss the matter, long and hard; do all the research you need, but with everyone focussed on the one goal of making the tube a better service for Londoners. And nobody gets to leave the meeting until a genuine consensus of opinion has been reached (don't worry we'll send in sandwiches).
The idea that such vital decisions (affecting the lives of millions) should be made by a bunch of fevered egos shouting across a room at one another is just ridiculous (i know that's a simplification of the parliamentary system - but it's confrontational leadership, however you cut it). It's actually childish when you think about it. Don't these people have the emotional maturity to sit down together and decide what's the best course of action?
Probably not, actually. Probably not.
|
