For What It Is Worth

1.       In societies that are dominated by highly incompatible capability-earning nexus and  therefore lacking in economic openness, the shift of political economy towards centre-left is improbable. The policies and regulations are made that are imbalanced and government-centric right, and are formulated with no inputs whatsoever from public/civil societies. The programs and projects prepared by, and mostly with the governments are more skewed towards consolidating and centralizing bureaucratic hold, and self-serving the clandestine needs of individuals, groups, parties  and/or establishments than serving the overall interest of the nations. The bureaucrats therefore expect private sectors to 'serve' them. The private sectors are passive and do oblige deriving their own bootleg benefits. The perverse incentivisation and lack of strategic investment on system development and human capital obviously erode administrative capacity and capacity to implement. The public and/or civil society leverages for checks-and-balances remain far from reality. How can the private sectors be looked upon as equal development partners (or "engine of growth" as often parroted)?

2.        In current situation do I believe the public servants will make solid contribution in managing transitions to smooth and inclusive governance enabling a gradual political shifts to a point that is best suited for the nations today? Or for that matter and given the present day geopolitical realities, will they make efforts to find the most politically sound places to be? Why would those in comfort zones with very low/no accountabilities move and divest themselves of their almost eternal power/authorities/advantages that enable them procedural, policy, regulatory, systemic  and political corruptions for illicit benefits? Political handouts exacerbate polarization. Corruption is neither a necessity nor an obligation. It's a choice. One has to be either a stupid or a visionary to forego such discretionary choice. They are neither.  So given the differentials, where would the transformational driver of workforce change for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship come from? Nowhere, in normal circumstances.

3.              But the time now is not normal by any standards. Make no mistake about it. The changes are coming without our being aware of their taking place. The way the three actors - government, commerce and civil society - share power to influence the actions of elected policy-makers and businesses will change substantially in future. The underpinnings are being entwined, public and/or civil society voices are resonating with more clout than ever before .... thanks to the era of social media, big data, analytics and artificial intelligence. These are likely to give further spur to public and/or civil societies on issues like civil liberties, better education systems, result-oriented actions with full accountabilities and others. The reason why some governments frequently seem to court them one day and vilify them in another. But the fact is neither the government nor the public can dictate the pace of the power-share shifts for policy making and business development.

4.              The areas that three actors will have to positively collaborate will include: (i) holding institutions, public as well as private, to account and promoting transparency including in finance; (ii) raising awareness of societal issues; (iii) delivering services to people to meet education, health, food and security needs; (iv) implementing disaster management, preparedness and emergency response; (v) bringing expert knowledge and experience to shape policy and strategy; (vi) giving power to the marginalized; and (vii) encouraging citizen engagement.

5.        The ability to raise concerns, influence government policies and create meaningful dialogue between policy-makers and the public will not come easy but will find their way through. More people than ever before are already able to inform the governments everyday about what they think is wrong and what is right (e.g., issues concerning civil service salary increase are live).  As more substantive issues will come and start to produce outcomes, more people will be motivated to take this route. On those accounts people will always be ahead and will have upper hand eventually. No doubt about it.

6.            Amnesty International, for example, is experimenting with a form of artificial intelligence (machine learning) looking into areas such as policing, criminal justice, the development of autonomous tools and its possible impacts on rights to work and earn a living. The WWF is developing aerial drone technology, animal tracking devices and infrared cameras to fight against illegal poaching of endangered species.

7.        Others have taken partnership approach. For example UNICEF has created bot software for young people to be engaged on social media platforms. Its U-Report is gaining impetus as a free SMS social monitoring tool, and assesses how young people feel about important issues based on responses to SMS polls and alerts. In 2015, U-Report helped uncover a scandal in which teachers were found to be exploiting children by awarding grades and pass marks in return for favours. Within 24 hours, 13,000 people responded that enabled appropriate action to be taken quickly. In another recent U-Report poll in three African nations, 94% of 34,000 children and young people called for concrete steps to end corruption and increase investment in services for children and their families. 

8.       President Barack Obama said "The challenge we have today in politics in every country is conforming facts to their opinions and biases, as opposed to shape their opinions based on facts." I am sure he was referring to far right political practice, more like an unwritten ideology. Even if it is ideology it is temporary, it cannot stand against the worldwide digital wave. Under the same tone Mr. Obama also said, "If you don't know what you stand for, what your values are and what you believe in; you also don't know what can be compromised and what can't be compromised, what is lasting values and what is situation and temporary."

9.            It is important to know what you stand for, what is lasting value and what is temporary. Temporary is temporary -- even if it is as big and alarming as far-rightist movement in the west that most believe is triggered by events that undermined faith in the mainstream parties and led to a far-left backlash -- and do not last. Everyone knows. We have the genes to cooperate, to remodel and harmonize peacefully and to weigh the costs of discord against its benefits. We must move smooth or will get moved  ruffled, for what it is worth!!!