|
|
|
|
Human mind, said Alexis de Tocqueville,
gropes in the dark whenever the past events do not enlighten our future. In
very plain terms, an accurate re-exam of previous turning points could prove
valuable for perspective observation. The failure of the European
constitution drafted by Valery Giscard d’Estaing and his co-panelists will
not throw EU partners into paralysis, yet Babel’s drama in Brussels should
induce a fresh reassessment among leaders, parties, citizens.
A demanding “grand coalition” in
Germany and the usual mess around the Roman establishment provide warning
signals throughout Europe. Not to mention the doubts rising elsewhere. Giuseppe De Rita,
secretary-general at Censis Foundation, former chairman of CNEL (the Italian
council for economy and labour), gained a sound reputation as a keen social
analyst of swinging Italy. Questioned by 1Panel (*), he emphasized several problems undermining
highly complex communities.
Crucial themes, such as Robert Dahl’s concept of polyarchy, require deeper inquiry. Accountable
leaders, fair competion, free communications, extended participation? All
right, but political regimes have to reckon with new challenges: a growing
number of powers, none fully
sovereign, many of them too tiny to govern, still strong enough to block
other authorities. On a balance shaken by
massive financial movements and tribal mafias we see this large bunch of
interests and decision makers, deprived of imperium (ultimate rule and command), surely lacking in auctoritas (overall influence and
leadership). In De Rita’s view, the Italian case shows a possible clue. Swept
away by the winds of an odd polyarchy, national states and leaders are
crumbling. The following interview takes this scenario into account. At end of last century Italy knew a dramatic
political crisis. Now the scene is still further entangled by legal and
constitutional conflicts. (G. De Rita) Current
problems are heavier. In the nineties, a tired establishment was pressed by
new forces. Today leaders like Silvio Berlusconi or Romano Prodi have lost
their momentum. Our national leadership is weak, yet no credible challengers
hold the stage. A mess without any revolution. Let us put it down simply. What is going to happen?
Basically, claims to drive
political and social affairs from a central office of government are becoming
“stupid”. The Hegelian idea of national state is out. And the classical
option centred on a dictator doesn’t fit. An odd polyarchy is sprawling:
there is no room for central elites expecting to rule within pyramidal
decision-making systems. The European Union is an example of new polyarchy,
but its constitutional crisis proves past legal frameworks are worn-out. You are in favour of “polyarchy”. Yes. I don’t crave for
vertical authoritarian powers. The age of Code Napoléon and prefects is over.
Someone fears the end of national sovereignty
and the crisis of mass parties. What a sort of political party is going to
attract consensus? Traditional mass parties
face quite a poor future. I think we’ll rather see medium-sized groups, say
10 or 15 percent. Voters will choose fleeting movements and candidates, ready
to customize swinging opinions, specific issues, and local interests. Provided that old hierarchies are falling, which
leadership may advance? In my opinion, two leading
types are best equipped: a relational power and a functional one. Within the
bureaucratic state a top-down line was envisaged and implemented. Leaders
were neither “relational” nor “functional”. Such a frame is now useless in
business, in public administration, even in education. Relational elites grow
around informal think tanks: Aspen Institute, just to mention an example. They may flourish among
the most influential media as well. In Italy Paolo Mieli, editor-in-chief at Corriere della Sera, and Ferruccio de
Bortoli, editor-in-chief at Il Sole 24
Ore, come under this category. Other relational leaders rise with
professional associations and research teams. Formal roles in a bureaucracy
are less and less important. You must build effective relationship in order
to gain influence. And the functional elites?
They fulfil a practical
mission, a customer-oriented service. Trading organizations, mail and
delivery services, transportation systems, schools, universities, hospitals,
independent authorities play a public function and should be evaluated in
terms of effectiveness. The leadership lasts as long as it serves a
meaningful purpose. Against all self-referential powers, these elites are
forced to compete in a severe “market of powers”. Our Governance Online Lab reported a spicy
phenomenon. Most bosses endeavour to maximize “imperium”, hard power, and to
escape stringent public assessment. The result is an impressive fall of
“auctoritas”, i. e. legitimacy and ruling influence. Practical output:
sooner, than later, the boss is fired. In modern societies
conventional class cleavages are surpassed by little different clusters. Individuals
included in elitist groups share egoistic defensive attitudes. “Defensive”
since they want to manage an exclusive privileged position. Politicians and
many elected officials use their power in order to stop challengers and
innovators. Otherwise auctoritas
entangles a symbolic dimension: symbols refer to the Greek concept of
“union”, “joining”, and imply a manifest communicative tie. Of course, a good
leader needs both imperium and auctoritas for his influential
strategy. Current leaders are sometimes attacked because
of their short-term approach. That is an irresistible
trend. Past is past, and distant future doesn’t matter. Not surprisingly, top
executives adopt a typical quarterly view: short-term achievements affect
corporate value and next investment. Intellectuals and the media, too, follow
the fleeting moment… Now the European Union adds a peculiar tile to this
polyarchic mosaic. Byzantine design?
After World War II, EU
fathers opted for a pragmatic route. Focused functional authorities – Coal
and Steel Community, Euratom, the free trade area designed by the Treaty of
Rome – would help a closer political cooperation. Today Europe has no clear
identity anymore. Eurocrats in Brussels and wordy members of Parliament
imagine a supranational government, but the enlargement up to 25 or 30 states
makes all this hazardous. The polyarchy planned fifty years ago was rational.
Plan B, the great Constitution rejected in 2005, is just chimeric. Could an unprecedented Berlin-London entente
avert European deadlocks? Tony Blair and Angela Merkel paved a way for
acceptable compromise. Blair was the most
polyarchic leader appeared in last decade. I find valuable his prospect
including various pivotal institutions. Angela Merkel meets tougher
obstacles, related to less rich constituencies in Germany and the rest of
Europe. In any case, insightful plans replacing the old-fashioned
France+Germany boardroom are welcome. In Italy we heard a messy debate on national
economic decline. Why is this issue so controversial? Decline is a frightful
scenario. We live in a transition age: the passage from ancient organizations
to unexperienced patterns makes our measuring tools obsolete. Meanwhile new
economic forces conquer the best positions. Among them I see people able to
trade Italian know-how in distant countries, interesting joint ventures,
brand export rather than material export, excellence in logistics, financial
innovation. Entrepreneurial skill, not plain manufacturing, is the main
source of wealth! A mature economy, like Italian formula, may build its
success story only upon perfectly tailored packages – consider shipping and
logistics – and highly sophisticated products for millionaires. Millionaires?
500 million affluent
consumers inhabit our planet. Small and medium-sized companies have plenty of
opportunities, provided they target special niches or certified quality
offers. (Interview by Alessandro Sciorilli) (*) 1Panel joins highly
reputed scholars, professionals, and senior executives sharing open views on
public interest issues. Panelists pay special attention to the leaders’
performance. |