Trouble With Governance

In my last post I stated that limits needed to be placed on economic activity and that these limits were to be imposed by a governing body of some sort, rather than self imposed by individuals. The reason I state this is that left to their own devises, even the best intentioned individual will see his or her small part in the 6.5 billion whole so insignificant that self interest carries the day. It doesn't matter that I spray chemicals on the weeds that grow in the cracks of my driveway, it is an insignificant amount of harm. Of course, isolated, it would be, but the point is that millions of others think and do the same thing, and billions of others are often engaging in environmentally destructive and ultimately unsustainable behavior out of sheer need for survival. When we are looking at the scale of human economic activity, it will require far more knowledge than individuals often have and far more sacrifice from the developed world than individuals are willing to make.

This brings up a very tricky issue: who makes the decisions? What criteria will be used in setting these limits? How do we balance the liberal idea of personal freedom with the idea of imposed restrictions on economic activity? And, how do we deal with the constant problem that governments are notoriously inefficient and corrupt, even in countries with long histories of democracy?

The various experiments in democracy and capitalism have been going on long enough for us to glean some lessons from them. First, and perhaps most importantly and most difficultly, we can not afford to allow governments to define and pursue narrow nationalistic interests. These interests are rarely in the long term interest of the nation and are of course counter to the goal of sustainability and peace. There are literally thousands of examples of this, of course. The most recent and most obvious might be the American invasion of Iraq. Though it may have served some narrow interests (ideologues wanting to prove their neo-conservative ideas, free marketers wanting same, those who wanted to reform the balance of power in the Middle East, ridding the region of Sadam, guaranteeing access to the large proven oil reserves), the long term consequences for Iraq, for the region and for the credibility of American intentions and American values will no doubt be severe. To prevent these sorts of short-sighted unilateral international action, sovereign nations will have to give up some freedom and strictly adhere to international agreements and a strong internationally recognized governing body, such as the UN. Internationalim should prevail over Nationalism in all actions, including military actions, tariffs, treaties, etc. Nationalism has to be recognized as an impediment to sustainability and environmental protection.

Second, in all governments, especially the most powerful governments (America, China, etc.) absolute transparency must be the foundation of governance and international relations. Secrecy in government breeds mistrust and corruption. National "secrets" are more dangerous as secrets than as knowledge. This sort of transparency needs to be written into constitutions and international agreements. All attempts at secrecy, and all corruption needs to be both publicly acknowledged and prosecuted. There should be no executive privilege of any sort. Also strict term limits can help prevent the sort of election cycle decision making that goes on now.

The sorts of people who are going to make decisions about the limits of economic activity can not be subject to the whims of the political system: they should not be political appointees. They should be economists, biologists, sociologists, physicists, climatologists, etc. They should not be politicians. They should not be tied down by things like constituencies or special interests. They will be civil servants who meet minimum requirements in order to hold their posts.

We already acknowledge that there ought to be limits to economic activity, this is just an expansion of an already accepted idea.