Category: I went over to a friend’s house earlier this evening. A group of people had gathered to, again, celebrate Advent – Swedish style.
I love these small parties. The hosts had prepared gingerbread cookies, saffron buns, and Swedish quiche, which is basically the same as regular quiche, only you have to mutter “hurdy hurgy gurdy” while you eat it. Better yet, we each had a 1.5L bottle of glögg to finish before the end of the evening.
And finally, the pièce de résistance, we each got to build our own gingerbread house using what I can only assume were pre-fabricated IKEA gingerbread boards and decorate it with little gingerbread people and imagine that they were all living perfectly happy gingerbread lives in socialist gingerbread heaven.
This all would have gone into the books as just another evening with too much alcohol and not enough canoodling (ask Niklas what this means), but just before the gingerbread build-off I was in an inappropriately deep conversation with another friend of mine who’s currently working for a German NGO which aims to open up Chinese minds to the realities of human rights and civil liberties.
So, while installing my little gingerbread friend in front of his little gingerbread fence, I was inclined to ask him “How much gingerbread taxes do you pay? How many gingerbread holidays do you take a year? Does your gingerbread boss actually pay you a decent amount to do your gingerbread job? Does the gingerbread government foot the bill for your gingerbread education and your gingerbread healthcare?”
Unfortunately, I bit off his head before I could ask those questions.
That untimely gingerbread fatality notwithstanding, the issues there were relevant enough to warrant a short visit to Wikipedia and find the proper pop-psych term that I would have used as a rebuttal for my German NGO friend, had I been able to remember it during the conversation.
The term: Fundamental Attribution Error.
I think we tackled this in Managerial Effectiveness. This is basically when you use just a small slice of a person’s behavior and, forgetting the importance of situational context, use that small slice as a representation of that person’s overall personality. So yeah, it’s a pop-psych way of explaining why first impressions are important, or why context is doubly so.
I find it very interesting just how diplomats, speakers, authors and other members of Western Intelligencia can ascribe a number of good, yet ultimately incorrect, guesses with regards to the fundamental attributes and by extension the needs of 3rd World Countries – simply by picking on “apparent” issues like free speech, labor laws, and general health.
In particular, I feel that a scarily large number of well intentioned UN, WB-IMF and WHO policies have, at best, not worked out and, at worst, backfired because policy makers have focused on (Dare I say it?) cultural disconnects.
Just to take the German NGO in China example a step further, what do you suppose would happen when all the goodwill brought in by these Europeans actually takes root and people in this country start hankering for the immediate implementation of democracy and voting rights? Mayhem, I reckon.
The fundamental error in this case would be that democracy = better living, if you don’t have democracy in your country like we do in ours, then your people are not living lives as good as ours.
Not necessarily. No disrespect to our friends in the Sub-Continent, but despite being the world’s largest democracy, on a whole lot of levels India’s not better than China. Not economically. Not socially. 1.6 billion votes, no holds barred. Run that through your Crystal Ball simulation and smoke it.
I really hope that this issue is dealt with in further detail sometime during the next 4 terms. I think it would be an invaluable management skill to be able to determine the best course of action using imperfect information, but still be conscious and aware that you don’t sally forth with half-a$$ed assumptions. It’s ok to play with and murder gingerbread people, but you can’t just be in a position of power and make biased, half-random policy choices that will affect the lives of millions if not billions.
But hey, maybe the world actually does work like that. Maybe in real life we all might as well be gingerbread men.
I agree that Fundamental Attribution Error plays a big role in tunnel vision, that “my way is the right way”. It’s amazingly easy to point out other people’s flaws, or flaws in a different system than your own.
Your example of democracy is playing out in U.S. foreign policy right now. For better or worse, the U.S. is now ingrained in trying to “install democracy” in the Middle East. That’s all fine and good until you step back and say, “Do they WANT democracy?” My opinion on the war as its morphed is that without Iraq having the spirit to fight for democracy, it’s like a gift that they didn’t ask for and don’t need, thus won’t take care of. So is it the ‘correct’ strategy? Probably not. The question becomes, what should be done there?
I’ll leave that alone, but move to your example. So all of the policy prescriptions by the Europeans about “improving” China would create mayhem. Does that mean that human rights, free speech, intellectual property rights, labor laws and such aren’t quality goals in themselves? I agree that you cannot force this change overnight, but would you not agree that each concept individually is something valuable to work towards?
Hey Ian,
I like the thought you put forward. I just wish the western nations (in their eagerness to shape the world to their own tastes) would take a moment and think a little more about this point you make.
The thing is if you give people something on a platter, they have a don’t care attitude towards it. India has been fighting to keep Kashmir for the past 62 years, but the lack of participation by the Kashmiris is stopping India from clearly demarcating the issues from the non-issues and is leading to more encroachment by Pakistan and China, who claim bits and pieces of Kashmir as their own due to the state of flux Kashmir is in.
Sometimes I just wish we give away Kashmir to Pakistan and let them deal with the trouble in the same way they are dealing with the NWFP. My taxes are going towards protecting people who don’t give a damn about being a part of India or Pakistan either ways and want to tom-tom their sovereignty.
Id just like to take one more of your points and ask you: When you speak about India’s system not being much better than China, inspite of being a democracy vs non-democracy, aren’t you mixing the issues?
The reasons for the Indian system not functioning are different from the reasons for the Chinese system not functioning. There are historical shortcomings with India’s bureaucratic setup (modelled on the UK) which allows for corruption at every level to go on unabated. In addition, the law is an ass and justice is often delayed and denied.
India till the early 90s was a closed economy and largely based on licenses given to preferred partners for politicians. We lost a large chunk of time in the 70s and 80s to industrialize due to political mistakes.
What I am coming to is that while India and China may be at the same rung of the ladder, the way they got there has been marked by political choices rather than the brand of politics.
Just my 2 bits worth.
P.S: I enjoy your posts. Keep em coming!
Thanks for the detailed follow-up Naveen!
As an aside…so India is a democracy, but it sounds like there is also a quite a bit of institutional bureaucracy/corruption (the U.S. seems to fit this mold as well!).
Do you feel like democracy in India is a bit of window dressing, meaning that it’s possible for politicians to influence the election results (as in near dictatorship)? Or, is it just the system corrupts the individuals involved, so that politicians are replaceable, but you just replace them with another corruptible person?
Randy:
The things that you mentioned are individually valuable in concept, but as an economist, you should know theory never fully works out in practice. Neither is new, but the ideas of “democracy” and “free speech” still remain in flux. The Greeks had it going for a while, but they also had slave labor and what was then perfectly normal, institutionalised paedophilia.
The American version of “democracy” was out and out corrupt (like 3rd World corrupt) up until the 70s; read up on Tammany Hall. Meanwhile “free speech” is not really free in as much as it is generally allowed. If the Ancient Greeks had access to the internet, the FBI would be crashing through their doric windows and arresting everyone for having paiderastia blogs.
Point is everything is relative, and should be taken in context of situational constraints. The ideas you mentioned are indeed all quality goals, but only if implemented in a prepared, willing society. A lot of Chinese might be willing, but are they the majority? Moreover, even if there was a willing majority, I’d be hard pressed to believe that the country’s currently prepared enough to avoid becoming a “free” but failing state.
Rocky – Any political choice can be made regardless of the current brand of politics the country/area you are in adheres to. The question is, can you bear the consequences? Would you rather be silent and alive, or loud and “disappeared”, as they say in Russia.
“Democracies” can be very dangerous political systems – I would argue, more dangerous than well meaning dictatorships. Singapore is nominally a democracy, but it’s only a democracy as much as China is a republic. On the other hand, India is free, colorful and open. So open that there are even markets for hired political protesters (correct me if I’m wrong there) that will shout and rally en masse for pocket money.
Meanwhile, back home, my also nominally democratic country is having some problems with certain freedoms and rights. The right to bear arms, primarily, as 50 women were gunned down in a Puzo-esque twist to the next election season.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/24/philippines.emergency.hostages/index.html
So, now, the question is… if you had only one of two choices, which would you take?
1.) Well fed, educated, politically inactive yet alive, or
2.) Living hand to mouth, politically active, but living in fear
Randy,
You are welcome.
Whilst there are few booth capturing and rigged wins every election, by and large it is a democratic process wherein people’s choice rules. Now are people making informed choices or not, that debate is up in the air.
But lets just say: no one will become a Prime Minister by rigging the election (ala W ;)
The thing in India is that each political party has its own flavours.
1. Congress: dynastic rulers. Ruled India for more than 45 years out of 62. A single family controls it and the latest generation has made a splash courtesy of their fathers and mothers who are the current rulers.
2. BJP: a collection of hardline right wingers. They promote the Hindutva platform and while it won them 1 election, it has fallen out of favour with voters in recent years. The party itself is disintegrating with many mid-level leaders squabbling for positions and for lack of a clear agenda and direction.
3. Communists: While the states they rule are backward due to their opposition to every form of good reform and capitalist measures possible, the actual people are by and large the most honest and I think they sincerely believe in an equal society. Very violent means to achieve results though. Personally, some part of me admires a few leaders for their personal traits.
4. The Third/Fourth/Fifth… fronts: These are regional parties with local relevance and localized issues/voter bases eg. language, river water etc. Every election, together with the communists, they aim to form an alternative to 1 and 2 above, but fall flat on their faces. They are good partners to keep happy if 1 or 2 want to form a coalition govt. though. So they get a few plum portfolios in the cabinet and a few side deals go their way.
The real power in India lies with the Indian Administrative Services which is the civil service modelled on the UK system. They are the brains behind our budgets, policies and everything else. The politicians are mere fronts for the brains of these guys. If these guys want to clean up or move the system, they jolly well can. But the rot is so bad that a majority (mind not all) curry favours with the politicians and stay happy with a good govt job and side deals.
There are a few honest, upright guys here though. And they really move and take a city, a society with them. It has happened that many a time disgruntled politicians have transferred such officers, but due to the people rebelling, they have had to rescind orders.
————-
Since politics is dirty in every country, I wouldn’t say India is worse off or better off than other countries. What really gets my goat is those asses sitting in the judiciary and denying justice to the common man.
Justice delayed is justice denied and in India, you will finish your life before you get justice.
There was this case from 1999 called the Jessica Lal murder case: a guy shot a celebrity bar waitress at an event in Delhi coz she refused him a drink. He was a free man till about 2006. The Delhi Police that had conducted the investigation tampered with evidence since the guy was a top politicians son. So the court threw out the case citing tampering of evidence. When the verdict came out, people got angry and forced the same judiciary to convict him by reopening the case and reinvestigating.
This is just one instance. But there are so many such miscarriages of justice that I feel there is no hope for the common man. And that too we are urban Indians. I wonder how will a poor villager pay a clerk 200 rupees to get him to move his file. My uncle had to pay 15000 rupees to a clerk to attest his property papers when he was leaving the city.
But yeah, this is India. Yahaan sab chalta hai (everything goes!) :D
Ian,
The fundamental of what you called a “dangerous” (or flawed) democracy is what is its most potent weapon. The power to make a “choice”.
Yes. There are possibilities where people abuse such a system. The protestors-for-hire you cite being one. But the very same system can also be used for positive purposes e.g student elections in certain universities decide the student leaders who will take up contemporary issues with University chancellors to get a better education or facilities for their constituents.
I agree that things can go wrong. But that is dependent on corrupt human nature and is an offshoot of the freedom of choice inherent in a democracy. I would not call that a flaw in the democratic process. If we had enough able, honest people then the system can do a lot more good things compared to that in which people are not free to choose.
India became free in 1947. Just imagine the power and privilege for me not to be living as a secondary citizen in my own country as a subject of the British Commonwealth. Whatever else the flaws with India, the fact remains that I can stand on a rooftop and abuse my politicians without anyone stopping me. Isn’t that fundamental freedom the very same thing for which people in Russia and China are “disappearing” as you put it?
North Koreans can only defect out of their country. What kind of a life is that?
I, for one, definitely think that the freedom of choice and other assorted freedoms that democracy brings with it inherently are surely more valuable than a non-democratic process. It is just a question of how you use the freedom given to you.
“Point is everything is relative, and should be taken in context of situational constraints. The ideas you mentioned are indeed all quality goals, but only if implemented in a prepared, willing society.”
The point I would counter with is, when does a society become “ready” for something like human rights or freedom of speech and expression? I don’t think you can be “ready”, it just needs “to be”. If we use the beginnings of the U.S. as a parallel, we fought for freedom of speech (your point), but with the Industrial Revolution, the U.S. started introducing worker’s rights, concern for the environment, etc. I would say that China is at the same point in their economic lifecycle; maybe the time is time to start “moving Westward”.
“I, for one, definitely think that the freedom of choice and other assorted freedoms that democracy brings with it inherently are surely more valuable than a non-democratic process. It is just a question of how you use the freedom given to you.”
A famous revolutionary (whose name escapes me at the moment) said “It’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees.” I think we’re in agreement with that.
good points, but i’d be unconvinced if i wasn’t on the same side of the wall. using india as an example for democracy doesn’t exactly bolster your case. this is the country whose lower classes used marxism as a hammer against the upper classes, not really fully understanding what marx was actually saying. democracy works – given the right political context, history, and governing body. which is to say it won’t work for countries like the philippines, china, or india. the social and economical strings just aren’t in place for that kind of thing to work ideally. which means that introducing democracy to china right now just won’t work. you’ll end up with the philippines, only on a grander, more directionless scale.
not that i know of any country where democracy works as it should, ideally.
of course i don’t mean to say that democracy = better living. i’m saying it works for certain people. just as socialism = better living for some people, feudalism for others, and so on. democracy isn’t for china, i agree. right now i’d say their current government works out for them. i think what your friend actually wants for china’s people is to let them be “free thinkers” or something as stupid as that, and he just concluded that democracy would be the best way to introduce this concept to them. just as spreading christianity is a means to spread love (but is misappropriated as a reason for war, which appropriately proves my point.)
anyway, that’s all i have to say about that.