Complicity of governance in a collective fantasy: Emperor's New Clothes

Abuse of Faith in Governance: Mystery of the Unasked Question (Part #8)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

The faith, belief, trust and confidence -- on which the cases above are based -- has appeared subtle, insubstantial and of little consequence in the "real world". The financial crisis has brought matters sharply into focus regarding the fundamental role played by what is so insubstantial. It has also clarified for many how it has been possible to abuse the confidence on which many processes in society are based.

The processes involved are being highlighted through publication of the memoirs of key figures in the UK government prior to invasion of Iraq and thereafter. These include Tony Blair (A Journey, 2010), Peter Mandelson (The Third Man: Life at the Heart of New Labour, 2010) and Alastair Campbell (The Blair Years, 2007). In a cautionary comment on the future credibility of political journalsim in the light of the latter publications, Mark Lawson (Warning: you are about to be dazzled by a flash minister, The Guardian, 16 July 2010) notes that many reported conversations were in fact charades appealing to the credulous. The accounts confirm long-held belief that the public utterances of politicians are an exercise in dissembling. Lawson argues:

If Mandelson's account is accurate - and rival tell-taler Alastair Campbell has already found discrepancies with his own diaries - then thousands of hours of film and air and ink expended on the coverage of Westminster are now exposed as a useless illusion. And, if so, politics and political journalism face a crisis of purpose and confidence. Some very worldly journalists and politicians will affect surprise at our surprise. In this brutal view, everyone knows that the public side of politics is a game, in which players use euphemism, omission and sometimes plain invention in order to avoid saying anything that might harm their continuation in office.... But there's a difference between tactical opacity and open falsehood. The story now emerging of what happened in Downing Street raises deep concerns for the audience offered for so long a quite opposite tale.... Journalism accepts that it is only a first draft but it's deeply damaging for that draft to be exposed as so fictional.

As many commentators have remarked with regard to the financial crisis, there has been a degree of complicity on the part of major institutions in what can only be said to be a confidence trick -- a massive Ponzi scheme of historically unprecedented proportions. What has yet to be clarified is the extent to which promotion of "development" and "growth" is a feature of the process whereby this Ponzi scheme was sustained. Perhaps most ironically, "sustainable development" is in some measure to be seen as a process of sustaining the Ponzi scheme -- being promoted as such with the greatest cynicism.

There are of course many commentators with contrasting views variously critical or supportive of "development" and "growth" as it has been framed as essential to the process of globalization. Many "developments" can be said to be indicative of the justification of strategies of "growth" and "development". However the promoters of "globalization", notably through the World Economic Forum, are now faced with the consequences of that commitment as a result of the financial crisis. It is quite unclear how to avoid "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" given the interplay of vested interests all very challenged with respect to their objectivity.

Especially interesting is the difficulty in distinguishing between widespread efforts to "rebuild confidence" in the financial system and efforts made to rebuild the abuse of confidence associated with a lucrative Ponzi scheme. Many of those who might be expected to comment insightfully on the matter are precisely those who have been complicit in sustaining the abuse of faith over the past decades. Of particular interest is the degree of complicity of institutions furnishing the expertise to sustain any such abuse of confidence. An embarrassing example is the case of the schools of management and business, many considered prestigious to the highest degree -- in which the culture of greed was cultivated and the ambitions associated with it were lauded. Indeed to what extent are business schools' MBA courses responsible for the global financial crash, as explored by Peter Walker (Who taught them greed is good? The Observer, 8 March 2009)?

But what exactly is the nature of this culture or bubble of confidence in which so many were complicit -- whether through naive gullibility or through calculated self-interest? The famous tale of the Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind as a succinct illustration of the challenge to comprehension:

• The role of the "tailors" is clearly taken up by those who designed, packaged and consciously sold the problematic assets -- possibly to be understood as including those who gave legitimacy to that role, such as those gathering at the World Economic Forum. They are notably not subject to any form of prosecution or censure.
• The role of the engaged audience is clearly taken up by the gullible public purchasing those assets, whether directly or indirectly.
• Perhaps a role not specified in the tale might be added in the form of the fashion critics expressing enthusiasm for the quality of cloth and the design of the garment worn by the Emperor as he paraded before them all. Would these be the financial journalists and the economic experts of international financial institutions -- with perhaps the IMF and the World Bank as "leading fashion houses" in the metaphor? Or should the World Economic Forum be seen in this light?

Much more intriguing however is the role of the Emperor -- and possibly of the Little Boy. The Emperor of the tale is narcissistic in the extreme and full of his self-importance -- necessarily with a judgement assumed to be superior to all. But, within the tale, he it was who was most completely conned by the "tailors". It is of course tempting to attribute this role to the discredited George W. Bush as indeed aspiring to be considered emperor of the world -- whose policies were so discredited by the financial crisis as to significantly influence the election of Barack Obama. Is Bush then to be considered as having been "conned" by the "neocons"? But it would probably be more appropriate to fill the role by a collective, such as members of the G7 Group or even the G20 Group -- then to be understood as completely conned by a process of groupthink enabled by the "tailors". Members of such bodies do indeed have a marked tendency to strut before the court of public opinion at summits of exorbitant cost. Gordon Brown, for example, was remarkable for extolling the marvellous benefits of the globalization process.

The role of the Little Boy is probably well filled by the many marginalized critics -- increasingly disseminating news over the web -- together with the activists gathering at the World Social Forum, for example. Their message in 2009 was a simple "We told you so".

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]