Friday 27 May 2011

Obama, burgers and essential relationships


Quote
Our American values are not luxuries but necessities, not the salt in our bread, but the bread itself. Our common vision of a free and just society is our greatest source of cohesion at home and strength abroad, greater than the bounty of our material blessings.”  Jimmy Carter, former US President.

News
President Obama’s state visit to Britain this week has been hailed as a resounding success.  Winston Churchill coined the phrase ‘special relationship’ to describe the mutual regard between Britain and the United States following the second world war.  This week the rather jaded expression was recast as an ‘essential relationship’ – more practical, less sentimental, but still vitally important for both countries.

The heart of the relationship, according to President Obama, is the “values and beliefs that have united our people through the ages,” especially democratic freedom and human dignity.  Out of this flows the present joint commitment to cooperating on Afghanistan, the war on Al Qaeda and supporting the Arab spring uprisings.

It was fitting, then, that the president and the prime minister, together with their wives, personally served the grilled meat and salad to the British and American servicemen and women who were the guests at Wednesday’s barbeque in Downing Street.  In an age of spin and political insincerity, the gesture was genuinely well-received.

These two leaders sign the orders which commit their military personnel into combat around the world, sending them to injury perhaps, or death; yet the gesture of serving some of these ordinary servicemen and women a meal demonstrates the very values which President Obama was citing earlier. 

The head of state is not superior in worth to the soldier who defends its liberty, despite the power and privilege which comes with political leadership.  The human dignity of all is best ensured in a society by reducing the relational distance between prime ministers and privates from time to time.  Eating together, talking face to face and serving each other as happened on Wednesday celebrates another ‘essential relationship’ – our equality and brotherhood as men and women before God.

Read on...
Robert Greenleaf has promoted the concept of servant leadership widely in the business world for 40 years, although it is far older than that (see the Last Word).  For a 3 page article summarising seven practices of servant leaders, click here.

Walk the talk
How easily do we allow power and its associated trappings to increase the relational distance between us and the most junior members of an organisation or institution we are part of?  Do you need to do something to redress the balance, such as making an opportunity to serve authentically, or taking time for conversation outside your normal roles?

The last word
From the Bible, Mark chapter 10, verses 42-44: “Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.’ ”

Friday 20 May 2011

Money, sex and power: a lesson from Mr. Strauss-Kahn

Quote
The consequences arising from the continual accumulation of public debts in other countries ought to admonish us to be careful to prevent their growth in our own.”  John Adams, second US President, 1797.


News
A week ago, Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) was the charismatic head of the IMF, taking a leading role in solving the Eurozone crisis and setting his sights on winning France’s Presidential election in 2012.  Today he is without a job, on bail for $1 million, and facing grave charges of sexual assault.  Yet according to the Financial Times, the alleged incident with a hotel chambermaid may not be DSK’s greatest error of judgment – instead it is his handling of the Eurozone debt crisis. 

As head of the IMF, he chose to treat the financial woes of Greece, Ireland and Portugal as problems of liquidity, not of solvency, bailing them out with huge loans on condition of draconian measures to reduce government borrowing.  He eschewed the options of debt restructuring or possible withdrawal from the euro, which would allow these countries to devalue their currency and increase exports, to offset weaker domestic demand resulting from spending cuts. As it is, the current measures are pushing Greece further into recession, tax revenues are falling and borrowing requirements remain stubbornly high.

What do these two decisions associated with Dominique Strauss-Kahn have in common?  Both are relationship problems, both illustrate how something valuable can turn into something destructive when removed from its relational boundaries.  Sex is good but only in the safe limits of a consensual, committed, socially-sanctioned relationship (which once was called marriage).  When a person’s appetite for sex is stronger than the commitment to express it within these limits, it can wreak havoc.

Similarly with debt.  While the ideal is to avoid debt, it can be useful if kept within secure boundaries governing the relationship between borrower and lender, summed up as follows.  The person who makes the loan should share the risk involved in its recovery; the lender should only burden the borrower with an amount that can be reasonably repaid; the borrower must view the loan as a binding commitment to repay the lender; and finally, the lender must be prepared to cancel debt should the borrower become genuinely unable to repay.  The problem is that financial institutions have moved away from lending within relational boundaries, and treat debt more like a commodity; this is a major root of the financial crisis.

Power can deceive people into thinking that the normal rules of relationship (usually enshrined in law) somehow don’t apply to them.  DSK’s alleged incident with the chambermaid may well have cost him his career and reputation, even before his trial.  It remains to be seen what price will finally have to be paid (and by whom) for the way in which banks and global financial institutions have torn up the relational rule book regarding debt.

Read on...
The economist Paul Mills has written about the current financial crisis from the perspective of the relational principles on debt found in the Bible.  You can read his Cambridge Paper here.

Walk the talk
How seriously do we consider the impact of debt on relationships?  Would it be helpful to review your own lending or borrowing in the light of the relational principles above?

The last word
From the Bible, Psalm 37, verse 21: “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously;” and Proverbs 22, verse 7: “The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is slave to the lender.”

Thursday 12 May 2011

Osama bin Laden and the question of justice

Quote
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”  Cicero.

 

News
The killing of Osama bin Laden has led to a heated debate about the necessity and legality of the action by the US military last week.  There are two underlying questions: first, what was the extent of bin Laden’s responsibility for the indiscriminate killing of thousands of unarmed civilians?  Was he effectively the commander of a military force still at war with America?  If that was indeed the case, then killing him (whether he was armed or not) was justified according to the rules of war – a view widely held in America and supported by the Attorney General.

If there is any uncertainty about the first question, then a second one is this: was it justified to shoot bin Laden in his own home, when he had been indicted for trial?  Could this amount to an extrajudicial killing under civil law, which would undermine the rule of law and right to a fair trial, two of the democratic values which America is promoting in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan?  

From a relational perspective, which was the lesser evil: killing bin Laden unarmed and in front of family members, or capturing him and bringing him to public trial?  Initially one might think the latter – but this would have promoted the terrorist’s cause, inflamed extremist opposition to the West and probably led to Al Qaeda networks taking Americans hostage somewhere round the world and demanding their leader’s release.  Although there is high risk of reprisals by Al Qaeda now, the time for them will pass.  But a lengthy trial would have brought a more insidious risk for a much longer period to a greater number of unarmed people.     

Thinking relationally helps to shed light on the wider dilemma.  Human rights – including the right to a fair trial – should be understood in their relational context.  Rights can only be granted and upheld by means of relationships with other people, acting individually or as representatives of an institution. 

Consequently, a narrow, individualistic concept of human rights, uprooted from its wider relational context, can produce nonsensical outcomes such as society being obliged to uphold the right of an individual to destroy the very society which granted him that right.

Killing as opposed to capturing Osama bin Laden on May 2nd may end up saving thousands of civilian lives and averting relational tragedy for countless networks of families and friends.  On other hand, when an American president authorizes the killing of a man without trial and outside the rule of law, this may legitimize autocratic regimes in disposing of dissidents without recourse to judicial process. 

Such choices are hard, and we would do well to weigh the rights and wrongs of this incident carefully – and relationally.

Read on...
Li-ann Thio, Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore, has reflected on the tension between the rights of an individual and the interests of society in a paper “Constitutionalism in Singapore: through a Relational Lens”.  You can read an extract from the paper here. 

Walk the talk
It can be easy to pass judgment on others whom we scarcely know, on the basis of hearsay and rumour.  
Is there anyone in that category over whom you might suspend your judgment for a while, with a view to getting to know them better first so that your judgment is a more considered one?  

The last word
From the Bible, Proverbs 18:17 “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”