Fresh air!

I write this while watching the announcements by Hillary Clinton of George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke as special envoys for the US to, respectively, the Middle East and Pakistan and Afghanistan. A ‘dream team’ in terms of their combined experience, although Al Jazeera commentators are tonight sounding notes of caution about Clinton’s perceived Zionism. Nonetheless, it is refreshing is to hear a new language coming from the US State Department about peace, and the possibility for peace, and the vital need for intensive processes of diplomacy and development as critical to achieving these goals. The presence of President Obama and Vice President Biden at the event on the second day of the new administration emphasises the momentum and energy behind this new approach.

Without getting starry-eyed about US foreign policy, this marks at least a different articulation from the recent past. A new approach to policy based on diplomacy rather than military strength is consistent with the Open Doors scenario discussed in my recent blogs, and a move away from the more nationalist Flags scenario.

This new wind will hold a mirror to the rest of the world. Can South Africa bring a new and urgent focus to efforts for peace and development in Zimbabwe? Where is our Special Envoy to Harare? We need to be doing much more to address the humanitarian crisis on our northern border.

The inauguration of President Obama leads us to recall the day that Madiba was inaugurated as our first democratic President. The ANC government, in my view, still represents the best continuing hope for peace and development in South Africa. Nonetheless, the ANC needs to retain a sense of humility and humanity in these tasks. It was saddening for me to hear the response of ANC Secretary General Gwede Mantashe to the defection from the ANC of former President Mbeki’s mother to the new COPE political party. He described this as a “non-event”, saying that she had not campaigned for the ANC since the 1950s. The implication is that individuals are not important unless they have power, and that individuals leaving the ANC are of little concern to the party. This is unfortunate for a party that has always been grounded in the people of this country, and I hope does not represent a shift away from the idea that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it.

more scenarios, and working through the crunch

In contrast to the Open Doors approach, Shell also offers us the Flags scenario. This is probably the most gloomy prospect, and represents a retreat into nationalism, local community, tribalism and a backtracking on processes of globalisation. It is the opposite of an interconnected world.

And of course, there are examples around us of how this plays out. The conflict in the Middle East, and the particular conflict in Gaza at present, shows how the Flags scenario unfolds. The real tragedy is that the Israeli approach is likely to be counter-productive in the medium to long-term. As Jonathan Freedland has written, the danger of destroying the Hamas leadership is that more sinister forces arise in their place. This has happened before – the intensive and illegal bombing of Cambodia by the US in the 1970s (in an attempt to disrupt the Ho Chi Minh trail – along which weapons were transported into what was then South Vietnam) created fertile conditions for the rise to power of the genocidal Khmer Rouge. Of course, the Khmer Rouge posed no direct threat to the US, whereas Gaza is on the doorstep of Israel.

As Harold Macmilan (not Winston Churchill) once said, “jaw jaw is better than war war”. In South Africa, it is good to see that the Chief Rabbi Dr Warren Goldstein and Muslim Theologian Moulana Ebrahim Bham can sit together and debate Middle Eastern politics in a civilised way on Radio 702. We do not expect them to agree, but the fact that they are able to talk at least keeps alive the prospects for dialogue – this is more consistent with the Open Doors approach and should be welcomed. And, similarly, the talks held between French President Sarcozy and the Syrian President Assad also demonstrate the importance of dialogue, even when people may disagree or not be on the same side.

One of the most outstanding war poets was Wilfred Owen. He wrote many poems about the futility of war, and was killed, aged 25, 7 days before the end of the First World War, shot dead whilst arranging some duckboards at a river crossing. One of his poems Dulce et decorum est scoffs at the idea of finding glory in dying for one’s country. Here he reflects on the smallness of nationalism and imagines a better human purpose:

Oh, Death was never enemy of ours!
We laughed at him, we leagued with him, old chum.
No soldier's paid to kick against His powers.
We laughed, -knowing that better men would come,
And greater wars: when each proud fighter brags
He wars on Death, for lives; not men, for flags.

from The Next War, Wilfred Owen, 1893-1918

With looming elections in South Africa, we need to be mindful of the lessons for us. Arguing about flags and symbols leads nowhere. We need real civilised debates about issues, and the forward direction for our country. We have big problems to solve, and need to put aside arguments about party names and logos.

The present global economic climate is one that may not seem conducive to boosting foreign direct investment into South Africa and for stimulating expanding economic activity. But there are opportunities. The approach we take in Kessels & Smit (see our new website) is to support companies to focus on what works and those strengths and core competencies that already exist in the organisation, rather than trying to identify gaps and failings. By leveraging existing capacity, in an appreciative way, we are able to help create real value.

My Dutch colleague, Paul Keursten, puts it like this:

“The current crisis is caused by a search for financial gain without adding value: packaging bonds and loans into big bundles, cutting them into pieces again and selling them on does not add any value, it only creates margins that have to collapse at some point.. A stock market where investors are not shareholders but share speculators, eager to sell shares at a higher prices, where you can win money by gambling on shares going down, and where hedge funds are looking to buy companies to break them up and sell the pieces at a higher prices – this is no longer a useful market in which capital is invested and available for companies to grow and add real value, and where banks exist to provide access to finance and insurance, and to provide financial security.

At Kessels and Smit, we work on the basis what is already there, what is possible (in stead of what is lacking and what is not possible). In these times of limited resources companies need to mobilise what they have to make it and to build on it. They need all their strength and creativity to avoid downsizing or closing as their only option. Our approach is also means less out-of-pocket costs (we work with them and connect with their strengths, which is cheaper and quicker)”.

So we are looking forward to an exciting year, working with existing and new clients. Our work will include supporting personal growth of employees and teams, through coaching, mentoring, team building and creating feedback cultures. We will be supporting strategic processes, for companies, NGOs and government departments. And we will also be creating new partnerships with other organisations that leverage our complementary capacities.

more on Open Doors

The appointment of Justice Edwin Cameron as a judge of the Constitutional Court is very much to be welcomed, and is also an example of an Open Doors approach (see my last blog). Justice Cameron is eminently qualified from a legal perspective, but is also an interesting choice because of his openness about his sexuality and his HIV status – he has been living openly with HIV for some years. This means that he brings an important human rights perspective to his new role, and strengthens confidence in the Constitutional Court as an institution that is able not only to defend the Constitution but also to articulate and stimulate our emerging human rights culture in South Africa.

Beyond the implications for our Constitution, his appointment is also an expression of tolerance and an embracing of diversity in public life that sends a wider message. How many judges, or other high public officials, around the world have ever been able to declare their HIV status, let alone done so in a country where this does not hold back their promotion. We should celebrate his appointment for what it means for South Africa at the start of 2009, and hope that the ANC government in the run up to and beyond the upcoming election can continue to promote diversity, openness and transparency in its governance of the country and its tolerance of differing and even opposing opinions.

Of course, the Open Doors scenario is about much more then political tolerance. It is the Shell scenario that appears to offer the best prospects for enhanced economic growth over the next 15 years. As such, it is useful to think about it as a template for democracy and development, whilst also engaging critically with the insights we gain from the Open Doors perspective in addressing South Africa’s challenges.

We tend to take for granted the idea that economic growth needs to be pursued almost at any cost. We know, from what happened with the power crisis last year, that a growing economy needs to be fuelled with oil, water and electricity, so we immediately need to think about how we create a sustainable growing economy – one that addresses both the demand and supply side of the economic equation. The Open Doors scenario is the one that places the greatest demand on oil reserves as rapid economic growth, particularly in the developing world, means that millions more people buy cars and seek middle class lifestyles.

In consequence, if we seek to create the open and accountable society envisaged in the Open Doors scenario, we need also to focus on issues of sustainability and think creatively about strategies to address energy needs. And the issue of poverty, and the associated consequences, risks falling from the agenda. I will share further thoughts in future posts. Meanwhile, a happy new year!

Open Doors

As we move into 2009 should we be optimistic or pessimistic? There are plenty of reasons for both perspectives, in South Africa and elsewhere. The ‘credit crunch’ and associated market impact has left millions of middle class people around the world feeling anxious and uncertain, not least about their savings and investments for retirement years. Those millions of poor around the world, who have little to start with, are less vulnerable to the immediate impact, but are likely to see a slow-down in whatever development assistance may have reached their communities.

Conflict, in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere continues to stand in the way of prospects for democracy and development and in many ways appears to become more intractable. We face significant environmental and security challenges globally, and HIV and AIDS, TB and other diseases ravage families and communities particularly in southern Africa.

But there are signs of hope. We have a new President in the US who seems committed to multilateralism, signalling a possible break from the policies of George W Bush (now the most disliked US President in American history). A withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and the closing of Guantanamo Bay would be a good start.

Zimbabwe is still in crisis, but is probably moving into the end-game phase, with Mugabe slowly losing his grip on power and signs of disaffection within the military and his own Zanu-PF party.

In South Africa, we have a new political party (the Congress of the People) that, while it still has to articulate some policy directions that differentiate it from the ANC, offers hope that a realignment of the opposition can offer prospects of a credible alternative government in the future. We have a general election in 2009 from which a changed political landscape will emerge, and while the ANC will likely be the winners, we will also see a more ‘normal’ political dispensation coming about in which people cast their votes less along historically determined racial lines of allegiance, and more to reflect real political choices.

For now, the government led by Motlanthe, has shown prudence and caution in managing the country and the economy. The Minister of Health, Barbara Hogan, has won support from civil society and the media for her commitment to seriously addressing HIV and AIDS and moving away from the denialism of Thabo Mbeki and her predecessor.

But these are really just straws in the wind! In 2005, Shell produced a set of Global Scenarios for the year 2025, continuing a 30-year process of developing future scenarios for the global and business environment. The 2025 scenarios were developed as a consequence of changed thinking on global questions following 9/11.

Exploring issues of market efficiency (or lack thereof), social cohesion or disconnects, and global security (defined broadly to include terrorism, poverty, environmental degradation etc), and the trade-offs that will have to be made as the world grapples with these issues, the Shell scenario team identified 3 possible scenarios: Low Trust Globalisation, Open Doors and Flags.

Low Trust Globalisation is characterised by legalism, increasing regulation, intrusive controls and oversight – a kind of ‘big brother’ scenario. Open Doors envisages increasing cross-border integration, voluntary regulation, a growth in public-private partnerships, and global networks addressing policy issues. Flags offers a retreat into nationalism and ‘laagers’, conflict over values, ideology and religion, and a break on globalisation.

These scenarios are offered as likely trends in a global ‘jet stream’, that recognises the existence of localised ‘weather systems’ in which particular parts of the world may gravitate more to one scenario than another, and which also recognises the potential for different ‘navigation’ strategies.

The scenario team worked with economic forecasting units in Oxford and Washington to project economic growth rates under each scenario. The Open Doors scenario provides the highest likely growth rate of 3.8%, leading to 40% higher levels of economic prosperity under this scenario than in Flags, and 17% higher than suggested by Low Trust Globalisation. While these are not forecasts, they nonetheless provide food for thought and a degree of incentive for anyone concerned with creating a better world.

The Shell Scenarios recognise the particular challenges in Africa as well as the opportunities that exist here. Institution building is identified as a critical variable for Africa if resources are to be effectively harnessed to development. This means building government capacity and accountability, improving donor-recipient engagement, and improving the prospects for public-private partnerships that can contribute to development.

'Born frees' complete primary school

Today the first of the ‘born free’ generation in South Africa completed their primary school education. I attended the final assembly at my twin boys’ primary school. It was moving to see the children, many in tears, bidding farewell to each other as they all depart to go their separate ways to high school in January. These children, now teenagers, are the children born in 1995 – the first full year of democracy in our land.

They entered primary school in 2002, and, then, it was hard to predict what kind of children they would turn out to be. Now we can tell! Different generations have been broadly categorised over the years in terms of their values, ideas and characteristics. These categories are based mainly on middle class urban generations over the past 100 years or so, and have been broadly defined (in American/European terms):

GI generation (born 1930-1945), Baby Boomers (born 1945-1960), Flower Power (born 1960 – 1975), Generation X (born 1975 – 1990), Millenium Generation (born 1990-2005). In South Africa, the millenium generation are seen as ‘born frees’ – those urban, generally middle class children growing up after the end of apartheid.

So what can we say about this generation? They very much represent the future of our country. From 2015 onwards they will be entering the workplace, bringing with them new ideas as a result of having come through a (relatively) non-racial education system. The exciting thing is that these young people are generally free of the prejudices and perverse norms that were encouraged in the apartheid education system. They are comfortable with diversity and cherish the values of our Constitution that support non-racism and non-sexism.

Further, they value strongly their individual identities as people, their unique talents, and their distinct but frequently overlapping cultural and religious identities. They see themselves first as South Africans, whether Indian, Muslim, Jewish, Afrikaans, Zulu, Chinese or whatever.

They are courteous and polite, and respectful to their teachers and to each other. At the same time they are not afraid to ask questions, be critical and to assert their own ideas. They are ingeneous and very computer-literate - indeed when they enter the workplace they will be the first employees to have been using computers since they were 5 years old! They are AIDS-aware and can become an HIV-free generation.

These teenagers appreciate the history of their country, although they cannot fully understand what it would have been like to go through an apartheid education system and not to have friends and school mates from different backgrounds. They do feel privileged to have been alive in the time of Mandela.

They are incredibly brand-aware (Ama Kip Kip!) and mediate their relationships via Mixit and Facebook - for the most part doing so responsibly.

So what does this mean? Perhaps my overriding sense is one of huge hope and optimism for the future. Our country will be safe in their hands as they grow up and take their responsibility as citizens and leaders of the future. There is no doubt that they will face huge challenges in continuing the process of rebuilding and developing the country. They will also have to play a leading role in ensuring that the whole continent of Africa is able to move beyond poverty and conflict, and walk the world stage in addressing global challenges, particularly relating to the environment.

Learning from the UPU

One of the most interesting international bodies, which predated the United Nations and models international cooperation, is the Universal Postal Union (UPU). The UPU was formed in 1874 and essentially regulates the international postal system. The system is based on the universalist principle that people around the world, no matter which country they come from, should be able to communicate with anyone else – anywhere else in the world. And not only that, but people should be able to do this by buying a stamp in their own country for international postage, and their letter will be delivered to any postal address anywhere – regardless of the actual cost of delivery in the country of destination. And all countries are responsible for setting their own postage rates.

Obviously the cost of delivery of a stamp sent, say, to an address in London will be different from the cost of delivering a letter in Alaska or Siberia. So the international postage rate set in South Africa takes no account of the cost of delivery elsewhere in the world. And some countries may have more incoming international mail than outgoing – meaning that they could potentially suffer a financial loss by being part of the system. In the early days of the UPU it was assumed that the international postal system would balance itself in this regard.

In fact, postage use is closely related to economic development, and generally developing countries have more incoming mail than outgoing, and have tended to experience the financial burden. So since 1969, this aspect has been regulated through the terminal dues arrangement, whereby countries are compensated for imbalances in postage volumes.

Another aspect of the universalist aspect of the UPU is that it has never excluded any country for political or other reasons. South Africa, for example, was excluded from the UN, but never from the UPU. This meant that the International Defence and Aid Fund was able to use the postal system to send remittances into South Africa to provide financial support for prisoners’ families during the apartheid era – simply by connecting people through postal addresses.

Of course, the UPU deals with post, but also with parcels, postal orders, registered mail, customs clearance arrangements, international reply coupons, telegrams and much more – all of which require international cooperation and agreement amongst all the 191 members.

The UPU, then, effectively establishes what it calls a ‘universal postal territory’, which facilitates easy commercial, business and social exchanges between people and organisations around the world. (The internet also tries to do this, but excludes much of the world). As such the UPU is a fine and long-standing example of international cooperation based on reciprocity and mutual interest that we can learn from, as we move with hope into a new era.

What a day for a day dream!

Well it has been quite a day. 5th November is my mother's birthday (happy birthday Mum!) and we also celebrated Guy Fawkes Day when I was growing up in England - an odd celebration in which the English celebrate the man who tried to blow up the House of Parliament.

And this morning we wake up to the news that Obama has won the US Presidential Election! Apart from the significance of electing a black President, it appears that a new spirit and consciousness has awoken in the American people. It was amazing to watch on our TV screens the images of Americans in tears hanging on every word in his victory speech. And how different his words from the cynical, mocking, arrogant and sarcastic language of George Bush as he led the US into the war on terror during the past 7 years.

So for now let us celebrate for America and her people!

I hope Obama's words of humility will soon be translated into policies and strategies that take the US away from an aggressive and militaristic foreign policy. For now, US warships and gunboats patrol the seas, and her young men carry guns in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. US embassies are targets, and much of the world lives in fear. A lot needs to happen.

And maybe we can find some learning in all this about leaders and politics. How fickle it all is. Bush was very popular - just a short time ago. Some people who voted for Bush now voted for Obama. Many people who voted for Obama would really have preferred Hilary Clinton. Some Hilary supporters voted for Palin. Obama got the breaks this time around. He had four times as much money to spend as McCain. Let us hope we are lucky and that something substantial and real can be created this time. If not, then I fear the world will descend to new lows of cynicism.

I attended another lecture this evening. My Professor (I like to think of her as "my" Professor!) - Adele Thomas - delivered her inaugural address at the University of Johannesburg. Her lecture was entitled "What questions would Socrates ask? Universities and their internal governance". Adele gives a devastating critique of the internal governance of Universities in South Africa and elsewhere from an ethical perspective, and highlights the need for imaginative leadership in stimulating the development of what she calls 'institutional moral responsibility'.

This moral responsibility, she argues, is "founded in institutional integrity" - meaning an understanding of the institution's morals, values and commitments that is based on a rigorous and continuing process of internal dialogue and introspection about what the role of the university should be.

The address was by its nature admittedly discomforting to an academic audience. The question arises whether university institutions can rise to the challenge of critical self-reflection, which might mean descending from ivory towers!