Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
Quintessential definition of perception is what ordinary people think about anything to understand its implications and its ramifications, while reality is what people experience and encounter in the process of understanding the implications and ramifications.
Though it went through many hundred years of experiencing it, the idea of governance, as perceived both in political and corporate management, never achieved the required goal. The idea, perhaps, did not account for human behaviour and its compulsive greed that will overtake the dynamics of general understanding.
Dynamics that played out in both political and corporate management are the same as the human nature dictates the management ethics and performance. Both political and corporate management are interconnected by their structure and performance. Both fly the same festoon to define "emancipation" and "common good".
In conventional rationalistic approaches to management and corporate governance, the Aristotelian tradition is emerging as a basis for alternative theories in which practical wisdom is central. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas considered the specificity of "political wisdom" - directed to the common good - as being different from individual practical wisdom. Corporate management, understood as a whole, is a "political community" formed by free and intelligent individuals called to cooperate for common goals and to pursue a common good. This orientation toward the common good requires political wisdom. The concepts of "political wisdom" and corporation as "political community" i.e. implications of political wisdom in management and corporate governance, overlap each other's functioning.
Politics in ethical sense is perceived to be a non-profit activity and, additionally, performed to normal daily requirements. It, however, progressed to be a sole and so-called "professional" activity as it required more attention and focus.
Stakeholders both in political and corporate structure are the same, citizens and consumers, but in both cases the rewards are distributed only to those who are close to the management.
Historically governance was carried out mostly by kings, tyrants, dictators, oligarchs and by merchant's cabal which always worked against the common good. The planet is littered with monuments and ruins that only evidenced self-proclaimed aggrandisement of ego and egocentric creative expressions.
Saint Thomas of Canterbury (Thomas Becket), when he was the Lord Chancellor, executed King's wishes in persecuting and raising taxes from the reluctant Lords of the land. But when he became the Archbishop of Canterbury, nominated by the same king, he refused to accept the King's intervention over divine jurisdiction. He assured the king that all benefits from his kingdom are for his gain but in the divine kingdom all benefits are for "common good" and for all subjects of the kingdom.
This gave rise to somewhat romantic but classical conflict between the man in power and the man in service. Governance was perceived quite genuinely to bring order and discipline in functioning of individual life, his ambitions and expression of his creative talents as well as collective conducts of individuals in their interactions and solidarity in a defined social identity.
Philosophers in the early ages aptly indentified two distinct compulsions in our social commitment, one for a faith that gives assurances of peace and happiness beyond material timeline and the other, to acquire power to monopolies control over others, resources and gains within the material time line. For many centuries man struggled to get the grips of these two conflicting and compulsive commitments.
Faith prescribes a complete guideline for the living with an illusion or aspiration of a reward more attractive beyond the present state but the commitment for material gains in the present state on the other hand, may become quite compelling to cause war, subjugation and destruction of human habitat.
Human history has a bizarre combination of achieving higher accomplishment of aesthetics and as well mindless destructions of those accomplishments. Like most functions, power functions within its dynamics. Power is materially defined and its dynamics are clearly projected to control and to monopolise.
The ideas of building institutions were a very old pursuit of the political philosophers of the ancient times which in later years evolved in many forms of structures and functions but mainly to bring discipline and order in social management, as it led to various forms governance with or without the consent of the citizens.
However, there was a defined form of governance advocated other than to develop the administrative mechanism for social and economic control. In recent years, particularly after the WW-ll , a general consensus developed to adopt a participatory management of politics and of the economy as the gap between social divide and class orientation widened acutely and social integrity and cohesion was about to be threatened.
Modern political thinkers, as was with ancient ones, based the structure of institutions of governance on a very clear definition of "freedom" of individual in exploiting his talents, preserving his environments, tradition and habits(culture). Sir Thomas Becket added honour to freedom as he counselled his king: "Honor is a private matter within; it's an idea, and every man has his own version of it."
Till today freedom has remained the core conflict between the rulers and the ruled - managing governance and the citizens. In perceiving the concept of governance of any form, one has to include all shades of opinion and participation, but in reality it has been seen as an obstruction to rule by inclusive participation of all citizens. At times rulers may have good ideas that would bring protection, comforts and alleviation of difficult circumstances to the citizens. However, monopolising the onus of good ideas and welfare may result in a divisive nation with destructive impact on the whole environment which may give rise to excessive use of ruler's authority and to polarisation of the nation by extremist manipulation.
Globalisation is not a modern phenomenon. It is an idea, used as a searchlight to bring homogeneity to contradictions of ethnic identities, to confronting cultures and to conflicting economic activities, so that the environment of the planet and its resources are better managed for the mankind and to cohabit with other living creatures. This leads to the concept of tolerance, by rulers and citizens, only which can establish coexistence among the citizens, among the nations and among the economies.
Man never had enemy other than man. God intended or not, man proved to be the cruelest of all living beings that instituted cruelest tradition of killing and destruction.
Paradoxically, man elevated his stature by invoking thoughts and ideas that caused a proven transformation from an inhabitable planet to a home by initiatives of many centuries. There has to be a compromise of faith and reality, an understanding between the rulers and ruled and a commitment to preserve the planet as it is the only habitat for mankind. Man's ideas and thoughts are not man's enemy, on the contrary, the ideas and thoughts have brought man to overcome distances, grow foods, build sculptures, eradicate diseases and comfort the fallen.
Authority, as prescribed, can only cause class divide and create animosity. Authority only to manage enemy is not good for politics nor is it a rational cause to augment national progress.
Whatever is perceived in reality, as Saint Thomas counselled his king, "one must never drive one's enemy to despair; it makes him strong. Gentleness is better politics"