Could the government’s Big Society concept signal a big idea that cracks the challenging reconciliation of left and right, asks Nick Jankel FRSA?
The government’s Big Society idea is a conundrum. Is it a cynical way to avoid responsibility for our national welfare, punishing the excluded by replacing essential public services with the sweat of volunteers? Is it further marketisation of the public domain without anyone being fully accountable? Or could the coalition deliver a Middle Way; one that generates a sense of shared destiny whilst leapfrogging the cumbersome and costly statist solutions favoured by politicians who still believe that government is the best tool for distributing resources in an age of networks and collaboration?
I am a firm believer in some fundamental free-market values such as responsibility, resourcefulness and creativity. However, the trickle-down theory of social betterment espoused by the right for decades has been firmly cast as naive by the realities of the last twenty years. During this time poverty has actually increased considerably in countries such as Nigeria and stayed pretty constant in others such as India, despite huge increases in GDP, a rapidly growing middle-class and Western-oriented, capitalist economic policies.
Whilst I advocate anything but the forced wealth redistribution and engineered equality policies of socialism, capitalism needs to learn how to be constructive - to give more than it takes. This means placing a moral compass at its epicenter. Without it, greed and avarice eventually rise to prominence. With such a compass (and compassion) instilled in us, we can ensure that the driving engines of innovation are harnessed to activities that generate the social returns that most people value; cohesion, community and connectivity, for example. Enjoying the rich life whilst others are in abject pain and suffering is only tenable if our moral imagination is minimal. Instead, we voluntarily use our resources to improve the wellbeing of humanity, not because we have to but because we want to; because it is our moral imperative.
Philanthropy is one way to engender this. Far more interesting are ideas like Whole Systems Change (where organisations re-engineer themselves to become sustainable in every sense of the word); social innovation (using commercial approaches to solve public problems); co-operatives (that are estimated to last twice as long as individually owned corporations), pro-poor products (items that can help lift the bottom few billion out of poverty) and social enterprises (where profit is predominately used to generate social impact).
It is not for government to control this transition, as it would no doubt just crush the ingenuity of the passionate. But it must learn how to foster collective innovation; to ‘coach’ the community elegantly towards ever more constructive contribution; and rapidly work out effective ways to harness digital and social networks to channel public resources to those who are most likely to come up with the big ideas necessary to ‘disappear’ our most pernicious social problems. Breakthrough ideas mostly come from those on the edges - mavericks outside the networks of power, influence and special interests who are not wedded to the status quo.
A world without hierarchical government is surely the right aim
In this version of the Big Society, the government does not dictate alone how wealth is redistributed. But that does not mean that those in need are left to rely on the generous hand-outs of a few. Instead, government creates the right conditions for the wealthy, the wise and the talented to self-organise for the greater good – whilst focusing major resources on bringing along those who are not there yet. Compassionate Conservatism can only be really compassionate if free-market theories are coupled with a firm commitment to empower those currently exhibiting less creativity, so that they too can enjoy the freedom and opportunities on offer. This means helping people to discover their own contributive potential. Massive spending cuts only work when we have all learnt to be self-starters, when we all have the confidence to forge a path for ourselves and create prosperity for the whole. For some, this journey to self-reliance is a long journey. But I believe most, if not all, people can get there if treated with respect, with patience and with the assumption that they have their own unique gifts to offer. To do this we must let go of the ruling paradigm that sees people as selfish and stupid cogs in the machine; and help all to discover their place within the interconnected web of human relations (and the web of life itself).
Thomas Paine declared: “Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence... For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver.”
A world without hierarchical government is surely the right aim; yet the path by which we get there defines our moral progress. Small government is the luxury of those communities that invest in the mental capital and the leadership potential of their constituents. Simply removing welfare does not transform people into active citizens. Only learning (and caring) can do that. When coached and cajoled (gently), individuals can become virtuosi at whatever skill or talent they gravitate towards (and that the world has use for). This new sensibility – that I call ‘Creative Collectivism’ – channels brilliance away from fame and fortune. Instead, we ensure our combined creativity is focused on resolving the massive social and environmental problems that threaten us all.
This then is a vision of the Big Society where we are consciously aware of our interconnected and interdependent future; and because of this, our deepest motivation is to be compassionate and creative for the good of the whole.
Nick Jankel is a leadership, collaboration and social innovation expert and the inventor of the WECREATE collaboration and leadership toolkit. To read more recommendations on how to transform society through breakthrough and transformative social ideas - such as how we create the next Google or iPhone for social change - see the White Paper.
Nick Jankel
28th October 2010
Oh there was definitely pathos in my opening gambit, although I remain open-minded...
Nick Jankel
28th October 2010
indeed - as Brandeis said: "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
julian dobson
10th October 2010
Nick, an interesting post. At a political level I think they used to call these ideas social democracy. At a civic and social level there have been any number of labels - self-help, community empowerment, conscientisation and more. In business terms we talk of the social market or, as you describe it, a moral compass.
What concerns me, though, is captured in your opening phrase: 'the government's big society idea'. That this expression can be deployed without any sense of irony sums up the problem. In a functioning democracy it should be for society to generate ideas and visions about society; governments are then elected to try to put them into practice. Instead we wait for a government that is as in the dark as the rest of us to try to explain what it means.
We need a clearer understanding of what government and civil society could and should do. Government (in my view) should set checks and balances to ensure the good of all, including using taxation as a way of redistributing wealth and providing a social safety net. Civil society, not government, should articulate values, generate debate, encourage social action and innovation. When society looks to government to provide a moral compass it has discarded, and when government looks to society to fulfil the obligations it has abrogated, we're in deep trouble.
JeffMowatt
9th October 2010
"Compassionate Conservatism can only be really compassionate if free-market theories are coupled with a firm commitment to empower those currently exhibiting less creativity, so that they too can enjoy the freedom and opportunities on offer. This means helping people to discover their own contributive potential."
That is in essence what people-centered economics has aimed at. Starting with the concept of deploying capitalism for social purpose and the influence of Car R Rogers People-Centered therapy applied in the context of economics it has focussed on leveraging the economic conditions in which people can help themselves.
"Economics, and indeed human civilization, can only be measured and calibrated in terms of human beings. Everything in economics has to be adjusted for people, first, and abandoning the illusory numerical analyses that inevitably put numbers ahead of people, capitalism ahead of democracy, and degradation ahead of compassion".
http://socialbusiness.socialgo...
The last sentence of the founding paper offers this:
"It is only when wealth begins to concentrate in the hands of a relative few at the expense of billions of others who are denied even a small share of finite wealth that trouble starts and physical, human suffering begins. It does not have to be this way. Massive greed and consequent massive human misery and suffering do not have to be accepted as a givens, unavoidable, intractable, irresolvable. Just changing the way business is done, if only by a few companies, can change the flow of wealth, ease and eliminate poverty, and leave us all with something better to worry about. Basic human needs such as food and shelter are fundamental human rights; there are more than enough resources available to go around--if we can just figure out how to share. It cannot be "Me first, mine first"; rather, "Me, too" is more the order of the day."
As I discovered only yesterday we are not alone in seeing this as a 21st century paradigm, discovering a comparison between 20th century product centered economics and the emerging transition to sharing and people-centered economics.
http://forwardfound.org/blog/?...