This article questions whether the theory of 'development' as proposed by the UN, World Bank and IMF mostly, has failed. The article makes sense but has a ridiculous notion of development, only focusing on those 3 organisations who though shoot above their weight in some developing countries regarding their influence on policies, really have very little impact at all because they only worked at the governmental level until recently.
Development in its modern sense is about government -yes, in theory good governments lead to their citizens creating their own development by operating in a peaceful society which respects rights and gives the freedom to make the most of the market. Unfortunately most governments in impoverished countries are not like this, and trying to change those governments has (as history has shown) only made things worse. Stability and peace is the most important requirement for development. It would be nice to have functioning education, healthcare etc.. or even a functioning market, but without these, it is necessary to help create them.
If governments cannot create them, then other actors must and this is whether civil society comes in: NGOs, trade unions, co-operatives and of course, individuals. Of course there is a role for business/entrepreneurship too. Development is about all of these actors, and it is not failing; it is struggling to be efficient in overcoming the government deficiencies, the market deficiencies and the instability most developing countries are in.
Secondly development as seen by grass-roots organsiations, individuals themselves, and now even by the UN/IMF/WB is now seen as the opposite of what the article describes: it is about bottom-up, empowerment, skill provision, access to markets and so on. It is about partnership between different societal actors and it is about, eventually, reforming those limiting factors -especially government, through a gradual process. It takes time to educate citizens, train teachers or health workers, or create distribution channels for medicines, credit etc.
Once countries have skilled empowered citizens, they will inevitably be able to enter government or create new (capable) governments. If the WB/UN/IMF model has failed, that is really of little significance to development now, as those actors are now so minor. Much more important are civil society actors, entrepreneurs and 'foundations'. Development has barely even started yet... but in the last decade or more, it is sure that there are enough cases of it working in different ways in different countries to prove it can work. Just give all those actors the chance to do their bit and it will work, from the bottom-up.
Unfortunately development takes a long-time. That must be accepted. Unfortunately there are bad people doing bad things which is continually restricting development's potential. That must be accepted and worked around. There are many exciting examples of development taking off -explore the nextbillion.net, ashoka.org and hundreds more organisations that are connecting technology, people and organisations to create more success and scale-up successes to create greater impact.
Showing posts with label control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label control. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Monday, March 20, 2006
Management problems
When writing my ideas for submitting an essay to the China CSR Map's essay competition I started thinking about CSR in China from an objective, long-term perspective: trying to think about why CSR is growing, is it growing and where is it going...
One of the issues I draw upon is related to the State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China. The largest national ones have all been put under the control of SASAC (State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council) in order to reform and restructure the SOEs. The question I posed was oringnally just about CSR: If the government wants to encourage CSR then it should tell the SOEs and they will do it, or not?
Now ignoring the issue of CSR and just looking at the issue of owners telling the managers to do something, you come to several problems. Key, for me (especially in a CSR context) is that it is likely that some of the instructions will be beneficial to the SOE, but not to the manager. If we presume that implementing CSR has negative short-term implications (financial and human investment required) but positive long-term implications, then the Manager might not care about the long-term. In addition, they might not want to accept more responsibilities or more targets, or anything that makes their life harder, more complicated or more difficult. How much power does the owner wield? For non SOEs, the bigger issue is that short-term investments often lead to lower profits and lower stock (share) prices; both of which managers are measured against to judge their success.
Presuming that current governance models, therefore (either government owned or publicly owned) have these inherent problems (and many more, that I will not delve into right now), what can be done?
There are 2 focus areas. The first is to try to create an organisation that acts responsibly, which can mostly be done through creating such an organsiational culture (as mentioned many times before on this blog), but this is not easy -especially if you have to change the current culture of a large organisation. It would be easier to try to create the necessary processes that create a responsible organisation. This could be creating a reward system that rewards the kind of beahviours or results that you want, or it could be from the 'stick' approach: through governance and reporting systems.
The second is to create individuals who act responsibly which is also tough. Responsible leadership is important: since setting an example and acting as a role model can really make a difference. You need to create people who see what is best for the company, and do that -even if it is not best for them. Create the culture of 'what is best for the company is best for me'. This is not easy though... so there are some little tricks that can be employed.. For example, try creating buy-in from the individual by tapping into their loyalty to the organisations or by instilling a little fear.
At the end of the day, this problem is one that is inherent and wide-spread, with no simple solution. The solution is tough and demanding: the solution is to recruit and employ individuals with an ethical stance, with the sense of responsible leadership. Create the framework and the system for this attitude to thrive and this should mitigate the ownership-manager conundrum.
One of the issues I draw upon is related to the State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China. The largest national ones have all been put under the control of SASAC (State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council) in order to reform and restructure the SOEs. The question I posed was oringnally just about CSR: If the government wants to encourage CSR then it should tell the SOEs and they will do it, or not?
Now ignoring the issue of CSR and just looking at the issue of owners telling the managers to do something, you come to several problems. Key, for me (especially in a CSR context) is that it is likely that some of the instructions will be beneficial to the SOE, but not to the manager. If we presume that implementing CSR has negative short-term implications (financial and human investment required) but positive long-term implications, then the Manager might not care about the long-term. In addition, they might not want to accept more responsibilities or more targets, or anything that makes their life harder, more complicated or more difficult. How much power does the owner wield? For non SOEs, the bigger issue is that short-term investments often lead to lower profits and lower stock (share) prices; both of which managers are measured against to judge their success.
Presuming that current governance models, therefore (either government owned or publicly owned) have these inherent problems (and many more, that I will not delve into right now), what can be done?
There are 2 focus areas. The first is to try to create an organisation that acts responsibly, which can mostly be done through creating such an organsiational culture (as mentioned many times before on this blog), but this is not easy -especially if you have to change the current culture of a large organisation. It would be easier to try to create the necessary processes that create a responsible organisation. This could be creating a reward system that rewards the kind of beahviours or results that you want, or it could be from the 'stick' approach: through governance and reporting systems.
The second is to create individuals who act responsibly which is also tough. Responsible leadership is important: since setting an example and acting as a role model can really make a difference. You need to create people who see what is best for the company, and do that -even if it is not best for them. Create the culture of 'what is best for the company is best for me'. This is not easy though... so there are some little tricks that can be employed.. For example, try creating buy-in from the individual by tapping into their loyalty to the organisations or by instilling a little fear.
At the end of the day, this problem is one that is inherent and wide-spread, with no simple solution. The solution is tough and demanding: the solution is to recruit and employ individuals with an ethical stance, with the sense of responsible leadership. Create the framework and the system for this attitude to thrive and this should mitigate the ownership-manager conundrum.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The media
The media is something I read a lot and think about a lot. Ever since I studied 1 module on the history and role of the mass media in society (and wrote two 5,000+ word essays on it) I have been intrigued in the linkages between various aspects: ownership, power, influence, politics, education, democracy and so on.
Some people have huge amounts of power and one hopes the more power one has, the more responsibly that power is used. Actually one of my text books during my course was titled "Power without Responsibility" (Another one was "Get me a murder a day") and there was good reason for it. The history of the mass media, especially in Western countries (although i have mostly studied the UK and some US) is so interesting I'll briefly explain some of the key highlights which i remember from my course.
First there was the scribes and bibles and so on -creating and distributing media was expensive thus was ostensibly used by the rich (often related to the church) -since most people could not read, those that could had power, and would read aloud to the listeners. The Church had a great way of controlling people, giving them orders and so on (this was 17th century or so). Next the printing press came a long providing cheap technology to the common man. Journals, periodicals and more all sprung up and literacy grew, intellectualism grew and there was a lack of control.
Next the governments tried to limit this growth since it eroded their control -they taxed paper and other resources. It was quite effective, but underground media prospered and 1 newspaper was often seen by 10-15 people in pubs or households. But then market took over, with popular media making money and gaining in reach and quality. Drowning out the smaller ones. Rich people realised they could subtly control the messages of these media so bought them and invested more money in them.
With the beginning of the radio and TV, a new era dawned -these were controlled by governments (who governed the spectrum) and the technology needed to produce was high -plus its effect was greater than print media. Although a labour union could save up money to print (and distribute) its own newspaper, it certainly could not afford a mass audience radio or TV station.
And now, now we have global conglomerates, achieving cost efficiencies, owning magazines, tv, radio, internet, advertising boards, local and national evening papers and so on. The little man with little resources has no chance. The market of advertising has reinforced this -advertisers pay more for greater distribution, this will come from greater success (quality), which comes from investing more money in the media.
My essays focused on the role of the internet changing all of this (or not?); has it given the little man a way back to influence: where money does not matter. Well weblogs certainly have made a small impact and there are some web-based media that is successful. It seems that there will be a need for mass media that is respected for integrity and that might not be the internet, but there is a place for it somewhere. Without going on much more I hope this serves as an introduction -and I won't even touch the other aspects that are involved (for example how the mass media also tend to be the mainstream media and might serve to narrow the spectrum of political thought...)
I write this post because there is a lack of responsibility in the media. I recently re-watched 'Elephant' and read a review of it which I want to copy here. For those who do not know 'The Columbine Massacre' was when some school kids caused chaos in their school shooting randomly and killing/injuring many people for no real reason.
The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that.".......
......"Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory." In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. Roger Ebert
It provides a good example of the power of the media. Personally when money is involved (and it is for most private media) responsibility is rarely a priority. Responsible leaders in this case must treat their business as more of a business -since its a social organisation, it has social responsibilities. Maybe the media is aware of things like this (if not, they should do some research!) -if they are, why do they choose to continue? So responsible leaders in these organisations need to know the consequences of their actions -many unintended, and understand the greater role they play in society. For an IT company, this might be less than a media company, so media companies need to be even more responsible, for their power is great. How great is their responsibility? In fact the problem is that they maybe do not feel responsible to society, but to someone else (shareholders?). This seems to be the case for those who own the media (even if those in it, like reporters, are the opposite).
My advice: try to understand who you should be responsible to, try to understand how you affect them, and try to ensure those affects are positive.
I want to end with two of my favourite websites: Asia Times and Open Democracy. A great example of interesting media. The second specifically questions the role of the media and provides interesting debate as well as information. Highly recommended.
Some people have huge amounts of power and one hopes the more power one has, the more responsibly that power is used. Actually one of my text books during my course was titled "Power without Responsibility" (Another one was "Get me a murder a day") and there was good reason for it. The history of the mass media, especially in Western countries (although i have mostly studied the UK and some US) is so interesting I'll briefly explain some of the key highlights which i remember from my course.
First there was the scribes and bibles and so on -creating and distributing media was expensive thus was ostensibly used by the rich (often related to the church) -since most people could not read, those that could had power, and would read aloud to the listeners. The Church had a great way of controlling people, giving them orders and so on (this was 17th century or so). Next the printing press came a long providing cheap technology to the common man. Journals, periodicals and more all sprung up and literacy grew, intellectualism grew and there was a lack of control.
Next the governments tried to limit this growth since it eroded their control -they taxed paper and other resources. It was quite effective, but underground media prospered and 1 newspaper was often seen by 10-15 people in pubs or households. But then market took over, with popular media making money and gaining in reach and quality. Drowning out the smaller ones. Rich people realised they could subtly control the messages of these media so bought them and invested more money in them.
With the beginning of the radio and TV, a new era dawned -these were controlled by governments (who governed the spectrum) and the technology needed to produce was high -plus its effect was greater than print media. Although a labour union could save up money to print (and distribute) its own newspaper, it certainly could not afford a mass audience radio or TV station.
And now, now we have global conglomerates, achieving cost efficiencies, owning magazines, tv, radio, internet, advertising boards, local and national evening papers and so on. The little man with little resources has no chance. The market of advertising has reinforced this -advertisers pay more for greater distribution, this will come from greater success (quality), which comes from investing more money in the media.
My essays focused on the role of the internet changing all of this (or not?); has it given the little man a way back to influence: where money does not matter. Well weblogs certainly have made a small impact and there are some web-based media that is successful. It seems that there will be a need for mass media that is respected for integrity and that might not be the internet, but there is a place for it somewhere. Without going on much more I hope this serves as an introduction -and I won't even touch the other aspects that are involved (for example how the mass media also tend to be the mainstream media and might serve to narrow the spectrum of political thought...)
I write this post because there is a lack of responsibility in the media. I recently re-watched 'Elephant' and read a review of it which I want to copy here. For those who do not know 'The Columbine Massacre' was when some school kids caused chaos in their school shooting randomly and killing/injuring many people for no real reason.
The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that.".......
......"Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory." In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. Roger Ebert
It provides a good example of the power of the media. Personally when money is involved (and it is for most private media) responsibility is rarely a priority. Responsible leaders in this case must treat their business as more of a business -since its a social organisation, it has social responsibilities. Maybe the media is aware of things like this (if not, they should do some research!) -if they are, why do they choose to continue? So responsible leaders in these organisations need to know the consequences of their actions -many unintended, and understand the greater role they play in society. For an IT company, this might be less than a media company, so media companies need to be even more responsible, for their power is great. How great is their responsibility? In fact the problem is that they maybe do not feel responsible to society, but to someone else (shareholders?). This seems to be the case for those who own the media (even if those in it, like reporters, are the opposite).
My advice: try to understand who you should be responsible to, try to understand how you affect them, and try to ensure those affects are positive.
I want to end with two of my favourite websites: Asia Times and Open Democracy. A great example of interesting media. The second specifically questions the role of the media and provides interesting debate as well as information. Highly recommended.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Responsible influencing
Reading this article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GE11Ak01.html) brought back to my mind one topic that I feel very strongly about, and have a great interest in. It is, the role of the media. As much as I would love to talk about this in more detail (based on several essays written at University), I want to focus on this article and on the lessons for responsible leadership.
I'll briefly state I am a big fan of ATimes, since many of its writers are the kind that are not in mainstream media - they do not have a particular standpoint and many guest writers are welcomed. Thus to read about Iran from the viewpoint of an Iranian professor based in Iran is always refreshing.
His example is of the US Media's coverage of Iran's nuclear threat. Granted the example is of Fox news (one of the most right-wing media outlets, and the most criticised for its uncritical support of the Bush government), but this media source is also one of the most widely viewed in the US -it has massive influence.
To create a 'special feature' on Iran, would presumably mean to do some in-depth research and create the time for a proper assessment of Iran and its nuclear threat (more so than the usual brief news items), so it is shocking that these 'specials' can be so subjective.
The media plays a crucial role in democracy, and it provides leadership to many people who follow the media, what they learn impacts how they act. Thus it plays a crucial leadership role. In a market system, poor leadership, would be noticed, and that leader would be changed. In the media, it is not so simple. It is not so easy to criticise back, not so easy to get heard if you disagree, and so on.
Responsible leaders should provide information to their followers that is objective; especially if it is claiming to be objective, or if their very position as a leader depends on them being objective. No objectivity = no respect = no leadership. Thus in this situation, more than others, objectivity would be crucial. Consider it almost the same as truthfulness. A lack of objectivity is equal to being incorrect.
Responsible leaders need to deliver on what they promise; they need to create channels for feedback, they need to protect their position and reputation. They should not rely on other's lack of knowledge and lack of ability to discover the leader's flaws. One hopes that the 'market' will eventually provide avenues for the followers to discover that they are being led astray, and to provide alternative options. If a media source is proclaiming to be objective, it should (at least try to) be. If the media has such an influence on people, it has a global responsibility to do this. Leaders in other fields can take strong lessons from this!
Thursday, March 31, 2005
The UN
Well, if there is one Organisation that exists that requires (and should demonstrate) responsible leadership, this is it. Its ironic really that the organisation designed to prevent further conflict by encouraging debate has turned out to be so ineffective.
Or has it? In short the UN shows that democracy is a complex thing; how do you ask 200 or so nations to agree on anything (and how do you define 'agree', is it a majority?)? How do you ask people to work for an Organisation without showing bias or subjectivity, when every man or woman has their own history and perspectives? How do you make an Organisation representative if half its representative countries struggle to have more than a few Universities to educate its envoys? Should the UN have more or less power? Should it be directly elected? What bodies should do what, where should the UN intervene and on who's behalf? The list could go on and there are many questions that equally apply to the European Union/Commission (another blog...).
In the end the UN can only do what those who control it want it to do, or will let it do. It seems to me to be somewhere between a company which is not democratic and a government which 'is'. Yet the UN has few powers but a broad agenda, it has little direct impact but massive stature and it has 6 billion different points of views on what it should achieve, and how; yet 6 billions people refuse to let it do anything at all.
For the UN, which more than anything else exists in order to represent 'good', 'ethics', 'responsibility' or however else you want to call it, the ongoing debate about corruption within it is eve more destructive than the everlasting debate as to its role and functionality. For if the UN suffers from corruption and abuse, then there is no point having it at all. If there is no corruption, but the UN achieves something, then at least it achieves something. Nothing that is corrupt can be a positive force in the World.
I would hope that those within the UN should realise their responsibility to the World, that they directly have, more than any other human beings. I would hope they would be the kind of people who would think carefully about their actions, and uphold the highest standards (that they are so keen to promote). For a crisis like the one currently in the media to even have come so far is a disgrace. For the investigation to have to be called its a disgrace, and for it to be called over a decade after the allegations of corruption began is ridiculous. I am very sure that no-one or no Organisation can be perfect, but some things are so basic that most people or organisations can get them right. For the UN to be involved in sexual abuse amongst its peacekeepers puts a mockery on the Millennium Development Goals aiming at male-female equality!
I hope that this issue can encourage debate on how best people can serve such an organisation (or 'the greater good') -how can people be objective and not abuse friendships? how can they be less selfish? how can ethics be installed in a workforce covering the globe, yet still remain locally relevant and culturally sensitive? how can an organisation hope to have a bigger impact without spending so much time and effort on internal management ensuring compliance?
Should Kofi Annan stay or go? No-one is perfect and most seem to believe in him as the right leader (or did until theis new evidence arose) for the UN. However if he, and his organisation, loose the respect and status that they currently have; a new leader must be required. For without the respect people have for an organisation designed to improve the World, the UN has nothing.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Zimbabwe...
This post could be a long one....Zimbabwe is the country led by Robert Mugabe. Who undoubtedly is the World's worst, most irresponsible leader, currently alive.
Although Mugabe has 'only' been responsible for around 50,00 deaths (there are surely individuals alive and free who have killed more); personally, I cannot think of a subject that frustrates me more than Mugabe. 1 man, who for 16 years ruled a country that seemed to do all right. It produced a surplus of food and has wonderful natural touristic resources, such as the Victoria Falls (on the border with Zambia). Ever known a tourist go to Zimbabwe in the last 4 years? This is when he forced the White farmers to give the farms to the State. Now they are run by inexperienced black farmers, who got the farm based on their relationship to Mugabe. It seems that the farms could still produce food, but those running them do not know how to, and do not want to.
They have no incentive when they are handed as much as they want from Mugabe; a corrupt dictator who steals money, food and anything else given in aid, investment or handouts. In fact inflation is in the hundreds of % and unemployment is around 80%. It is a tribute to the people that they are still alive (although apparently, within 12 months, the situation will turn from dire to deadly).
How can 1 man let his country become the worst place in the World to do business? How can they justify 'free' elections when voters names are made up, food not given to those who vote against him and opposition candidates openly murdered (this seems rare, as most are already in prison)....the list could go on. Journalists rarely are allowed in officially, and unofficial ones face 2 years in prison. So how can any leader justify this to himself, or to others?
How can he be personally happy with what the direct consequences are of his actions? Unless he has not left his palace in 4 years, and therefore genuinely unaware of the situation, I cannot believe such a person exists. Its not that he has a misguided vision (for example, Hitler), its that he is deliberately locking up his own countrymen, starving his own people. It is not that he is just killing the 'white farmers' (like man of the ethnic or racist wars globally), its that he personally profits from the unhappiness of 90% of his country (the other 10% are those he pays to deprive the 90%!).
I would like to presume that every person is a genuinely 'good' person inside, and only does bad things due to misguided teachings, influences, psychiatric state or beliefs. I don't know Mugabe personally. I wonder if any of these categories fit him, or if he is genuinely a bad person? A misguided person might believe in reclaiming land from colonialists; but would be aware (after 4 years) that the policy needs altering when output falls so dramatically.
So responsible leaders need to be aware of their actions. They need to engage with others in order to determine the consequences of their actions (then they could make informed decisions). Responsible leaders need to have a moral conscience; they should act on it. They should allow others the freedom to be themselves -allow them the freedom to life, to choice, to speech, to work. They should not deceive others, they should not deliberately (or accidentally) harm others (in this case, needlessly).
Lastly, I believe this is the 1 country where so little from the rest of the World, could so easily make such a big difference. Where are the responsible leaders in this World who are willing to make a moral stand for what they believe is right. In some cases, personal morals are not global -people disagree. In this situation, I would like to find someone who thinks that Mugabe should stay in power and is a positive force for the World. Anyone out there believe that?
Although Mugabe has 'only' been responsible for around 50,00 deaths (there are surely individuals alive and free who have killed more); personally, I cannot think of a subject that frustrates me more than Mugabe. 1 man, who for 16 years ruled a country that seemed to do all right. It produced a surplus of food and has wonderful natural touristic resources, such as the Victoria Falls (on the border with Zambia). Ever known a tourist go to Zimbabwe in the last 4 years? This is when he forced the White farmers to give the farms to the State. Now they are run by inexperienced black farmers, who got the farm based on their relationship to Mugabe. It seems that the farms could still produce food, but those running them do not know how to, and do not want to.
They have no incentive when they are handed as much as they want from Mugabe; a corrupt dictator who steals money, food and anything else given in aid, investment or handouts. In fact inflation is in the hundreds of % and unemployment is around 80%. It is a tribute to the people that they are still alive (although apparently, within 12 months, the situation will turn from dire to deadly).
How can 1 man let his country become the worst place in the World to do business? How can they justify 'free' elections when voters names are made up, food not given to those who vote against him and opposition candidates openly murdered (this seems rare, as most are already in prison)....the list could go on. Journalists rarely are allowed in officially, and unofficial ones face 2 years in prison. So how can any leader justify this to himself, or to others?
How can he be personally happy with what the direct consequences are of his actions? Unless he has not left his palace in 4 years, and therefore genuinely unaware of the situation, I cannot believe such a person exists. Its not that he has a misguided vision (for example, Hitler), its that he is deliberately locking up his own countrymen, starving his own people. It is not that he is just killing the 'white farmers' (like man of the ethnic or racist wars globally), its that he personally profits from the unhappiness of 90% of his country (the other 10% are those he pays to deprive the 90%!).
I would like to presume that every person is a genuinely 'good' person inside, and only does bad things due to misguided teachings, influences, psychiatric state or beliefs. I don't know Mugabe personally. I wonder if any of these categories fit him, or if he is genuinely a bad person? A misguided person might believe in reclaiming land from colonialists; but would be aware (after 4 years) that the policy needs altering when output falls so dramatically.
So responsible leaders need to be aware of their actions. They need to engage with others in order to determine the consequences of their actions (then they could make informed decisions). Responsible leaders need to have a moral conscience; they should act on it. They should allow others the freedom to be themselves -allow them the freedom to life, to choice, to speech, to work. They should not deceive others, they should not deliberately (or accidentally) harm others (in this case, needlessly).
Lastly, I believe this is the 1 country where so little from the rest of the World, could so easily make such a big difference. Where are the responsible leaders in this World who are willing to make a moral stand for what they believe is right. In some cases, personal morals are not global -people disagree. In this situation, I would like to find someone who thinks that Mugabe should stay in power and is a positive force for the World. Anyone out there believe that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
