1

Additional material for Fundamentals of Sustainable Development, Niko Roorda, 2012.

Chapter 5: Perspectives for action

China, India, Europe and Africa: four regions that were briefly discussed in chapter 5. They each have their own culture, their own unsustainability issues, their own perspectives in terms of tackling them and their own levels of success in solving those problems. Ideas, dreams and ideals are primary sources of vigour for sustainable development, as we saw in chapter 4. This raises an important question: how can you set about implementing those ideals? What opportunities are available to us; which perspectives for action do we have?

Case 1. The French Revolution

‘Liberty, equality, fraternity,’ were the famed ideals of the revolution in which the people took power in France. In 1789, when enraged citizens stormed the Bastille prison in Paris, one could question whether they were thinking of those great ideals. It was the start of a series of violent acts that culminated in King Louis XVI being deposed in 1792 and guillotined the following year. The French First Republic was born, but was it the start of the perfect society that its leaders hoped for? The violence did not end there, with the revolution’s leaders disagreeing with each other and threatening each other with death. One, Georges Danton, was guillotined by his opponent Maximilien Robespierre, with the latter losing his own head just a few months later. In the chaos that followed a strong leader emerged, a gen-eral by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte, who seized power in 1799 and was crowned emperor of France in 1804. That marked the end of the republic. This is an example of an attempt to place the people in charge turn-ing into a dictatorship under a ‘strong man’. Under Napoleon the situation quickly worsened. His reign was a brief one, lasting until 1814 with a brief return in 1815, but that was sufficient time for him to pillage large parts of Europe. His troops conquered almost every country on the continent at the cost of millions of lives. The tide only turned when he overestimated his power (and underestimated the Russian winter) – just as Hitler did over 100 years later – when he tried to take Mos-cow. He was annihilated by the Russians, and he lost his crown two years later, leaving a devastated France behind him.

Working to further sustainable development is a very important task, but how does one go about it? Using giant leaps forwards? With force, if necessary with the occasional use of violence? Or gradually, over the course of many years, with caution and using baby steps? Can you impose and force certain ideas on all the people, or is that a recipe for disaster? In the French Revolution the plot went considerably awry. People have widely ranging expectations when it comes to what you can achieve and how best to go about it – as wide-ranging as their values. The term used in this regard is perspectives for action, which entails ideas and expectations on what people can do to achieve sustainable results. These expectations are generally based on ideals, just like the French revolutionary ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’.

Revolutions

Idealists, all of them: the people that created the foundation for all endeavours to create a beautiful society. The leaders of the French Revolution are amongst them, but they were certainly not the first. Two thousand years earlier, around 380 BCE, the Greek philosopher Plato outlined what he saw as the best way to structure a country in his book ‘The Republic’ (‘Politeia’). He proposed that power be granted to the philosophers – surely they were the wisest in the land? In another tome (‘Timaios’) Plato provided a detailed description of an ideal form of government in an imaginary land he called Atlantis. Plato’s dream never came true, and that is maybe for the best, as not everyone will cheer the idea of philoso-phers running the world. There have been many others after Plato who were convinced that their personal ideals were the best for all of us, with a number believing it justified to use violence to achieve the world they dreamed of. One of the most important philosophers in pre-revolutionary France was Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). In his books he asserted that the people should be the highest power in the country. Just a scant 100 years previously, the nation was ruled by King Louis XIV (1638-1715), ancestor of Louis XVI (1754-1793) who was beheaded during the revolution. The elder Louis was an absolute monarch nicknamed ‘the Sun King’ and he had little interest in the well-being of his people. ‘I am the state,” was his motto. But in that same era the issue of human rights was first discussed. This was the time of the Enlightenment, where ideas on politics and phi-

2

losophy were changing rapidly. Discussions revolved around science and understanding as well as freedom, the principle of equality in the eyes of the law and solidarity between people. Rousseau did not call for an armed revolt, but others did, and by the end of the 18th century they tried to force Rousseau’s ideas through. In the space of just a few years the people rose up and new leaders took power. One could – in retrospect – call it an experiment in creating a sustainable society, one that did not involve a long-term and cautious process but rather in the form of a spontaneous event. The experiment failed spectacularly.

Over a century later a fresh at-tempt was made in another region of the world to create an ideal society by means of revolution. The time was 1917 and the place was Russia, and once again the attempt ended in tragedy. It involved com-munist adherents that tried to implement the ideas outlined by Karl Marx (1818-1883) in his book ‘Das Kapital’. Marx called for the overthrow of the established pow-ers – the kings, emperors and tsars, and in particular the wealthy and powerful citizens and industrialists – and to empower the people; the workers, to be exact. In 1917 the October Revolution was launched and Russia was launched on the path to a ‘communist utopia’. But, as in France, it quickly became evident that the idea of the work-ers taking power really meant a small group of people taking power, led by Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924). After Lenin’s death Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) won the power struggle over Leon Trotsky, who was exiled and later murdered. Under Stalin the communist party transformed into an overarching organism that attempted to control not only the nation but also its

people’s thoughts. Within half a decade Stalin exiled or killed many people he considered to be competitors. He forced millions of farmers to give up their land and work in factories or in giant agricultural state companies, transported dozens of peoples to Siberia, including the Tatars, the Meskhs and the Volga Germans. By the time he died in 1953 he was responsible for the deaths of between 8 and 20 million people – a more accurate figure is not reliably available. Karl Marx called for a communist world revolution, and not only Russia heeded his call. For example, Mao Zedong (1893-1976) successfully led China in a communist revolution, with his strict dictatorship likewise lead-ing to millions of deaths. The Russians abandoned communism in 1991, but the Communist Party of China still holds onto power to this day.

Dreams

The French Revolution did not develop as its leaders had intended and their ideals were not achieved, with their dreams becoming nightmares. The same happened in Russia and China. Why did this happen; what went wrong?

Russian propaganda poster from 1920, calling farmers and to believe in the communist ideal state

3

Questions o Is it wrong to hold ideals or cherish dreams? o Is it wrong to devote yourself to realising those dreams and ideals? o Or is it wrong to impose your ideals on others, even if you know (or think you know) it will be in the interests

of everyone if you do so?

Dreams and ideals can be dangerous things as they can be the source of far-reaching changes. But not all dreams end badly.

Case 2. Martin Luther King’s dream

The most famous dream in history was that of Martin Luther King (1929-1968), a leader in the black community in the United States. In 1865 slavery was officially abolished in the United States, but this did not do much to improve the lot of black people, especially in the South. Discrimination against black people was commonplace until the 1950s and ‘60s and, even though they were entitled to vote by law, in practice it was made impossible for many black people to cast their ballots in the South. If you tried to vote you’d be beaten up. Black people were also forced to sit in separate sections in municipal buses, and they suffered greatly from unemployment and poverty. The Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist organisation, permanently terrorised the black community, while police officers with dogs attacked peaceful black demonstrators demanding further rights. In august 1963 a crowd of 250,000 people marched over a large distance to Washington DC. At their arrival, Martin Luther King made a rousing address to the massive crowd, in which he urged the demonstrators to remain peaceful. The following is an extract:

‘I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, swel-tering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!’ In 1964 a new law was adopted that improved the protection of the rights of all American citizens. Since then, although the situation in the US for black people is still far from perfect, it is certainly much better than it was. In that same year King won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Is it wrong to have dreams and ideals? If we did not have ideals then we might have avoided disasters such as the French and Russian revolutions. But then black people in the US would also still be subject to the same laws they were 200 years ago – in other words, slavery would still exist. Ideals are essential in a world where much must still be improved. If we did not have dreams we would inhabit a much more barren place, and without ideals we would not have sustainable development.

Question o What are your dreams?

In our present world, the UN Millennium Development Goals serve as an example of a series of ideals, as can be seen in chapters 4 and 5. These ideals are not only accepted by nearly all nations in the world, but much work is also being done to make them come true. If it right to fight for your ideals, what went wrong in France, Russia and China? Table 1 may shed some light on the issue, which contains a number of revolutions that ended happily or otherwise, including the dramatic changes around 1989 in Eastern Europe.

4

Looking at table 1 it seems as if revolutions that quickly lead to real improvements were generally violence-free. The successful uprisings in the table were undertaken by determined crowds that demonstrated peace-fully in favour of their rights and liberty, making them able to unseat the prevailing authorities and establish a democracy, without it leading to one or more ‘strong men’ taking over.

Opposing perspectives

In communist Russia – which in 1922 became the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR) or simply the Soviet Union – the planned economy was introduced in 1929. Goals for economic growth were set that had to be achieved at five year intervals. Other countries – mostly also communist – implemented their own planned economies later. And while the Russian economy did indeed grow in many of those five-year periods, it was less rapid than planned (see figure 1), although this did not stop the communist propaganda from regularly

Table 1. Some revolutions and uprisings

Year Nation Violence? 1)

Results

1792 France Yes Anarchy, Napoleonic empire, major European war

1917 Russia Yes October Revolution. Communist dictatorship, civil war, genocide

1949 China Yes Communist dictatorship, civil war, genocide

1973-74 Greece No End of the Regime of the Colonels, democracy, EU membership in 1981

1974 Portugal No Carnation Revolution. Democracy, EU membership in 1986

1975 - 78 Spain No Democracy, EU membership in 1986

1979 Iran Yes Executions, fundamentalist Islamic republic

1989 Poland No Democracy, EU membership in 2004

1989 East Germany No Unified with West Germany, 1990

1989 Hungary No Democracy, EU membership in 2004

1989 Czechoslovakia No Velvet Revolution. Democracy, split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1992. Both gained EU membership in 2004

1989 China Yes Peaceful uprising violently suppressed

1989 Romania Yes Revenge attacks, gradual move to democracy, EU membership in 2007

1990 Bulgaria No Gradual move to democracy, EU membership in 2007

1991 Soviet Union Yes Attempted coup crushed, after which the Soviet Union disinte-grated. Russia today is, to a greater or lesser degree, a phony democracy

1991-92 Yugoslavia Yes The collapse of Yugoslavia led to wars and genocide. A gradual introduction of democracy. Slovenia gained EU membership in 2004 while Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro are candidate members and Serbia has applied for membership

1992 Albania Yes Plundering, period of anarchy around 1997, but now more or less democratic. Has applied for EU membership

2003 Georgia No Rose Revolution. More or less democratic

2004 Ukraine No Orange Revolution. More or less democratic

2005 Kyrgyzstan No Tulip Revolution. Dictatorship, new popular uprising in 2010. Democracy to follow?

2011 Tunisia No Democracy?

2011 Egypt No Democracy? 1) Where ‘no’ is stated in the ‘Violence?’ column, this does not mean there was no violence whatsoever, but rather that the revolution was wholly or predominantly free of violence.

5

claiming that the objectives were magnificently achieved and even easily exceeded. The last of the five-year plans was launched in 1991, although it was never completed. In that same year communism col-lapsed in the country and the Soviet Union was dissolved. The communist planned econ-omy was based on the idea of a socially engineered society, the notion that it is possible to shift society to an ideal accord-ing to an advance plan. While the communists in the Soviet Union fell far short of their goal, they were not the only ones to believe in their own power when it comes to creat-ing the ideal society. In reality, this is true of many people, it is just the way in which they do it that differs greatly. Some strongly believe in the power of science and technology, and they think we can solve any problem by this route, while others believe in military force or economic power. Some believe we can improve the world by creating large blocs – ever-growing multina-tional corporations or interna-tional associations like G20, the World Bank, the EU and ECOWAS. Others meanwhile believe these blocs to be a threat and would prefer to reduce everything to small

structures like villages and local companies. The anti-globalisation movement has put much energy into fighting for its vision, using large protests at meetings held by global institutions like the G20. Then there are others who do not believe in human power at all, thinking – for a wide range of reasons – that the capacity of humanity to create the society it wants is merely a pipedream. A typical characteristic of the Western culture is progressive thinking. In many other regions a large number of people prefer to think of history as being static or cyclical in nature. The Western advertising industry happily underscores the idea that everything that is new is better. This is countered by the urge to return things to the way they previously were. Elderly people might long for the villages of their youth, while others call for us to go ‘back to nature’ and want to see the importance of modern technology reduced.

Questions o Do you have any idea how many products are labelled with the word ‘new!’ in your local supermarket? o And, on the other hand what about the word ‘natural’?

Figure 1. Objectives and results of the 10th five-year plan of the USSR

Source: Alec Nove: An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991. Third edition 1992, Pen-guin London, pg. 386

6

All these different groupings have their own perspective for action – an idea of what options are available to them or to others when it comes to doing something. Many of these expectations are found in opposing pairs, as can be seen in table 2. The perspective for action held by people and groups is partly determined by their fundamental value system. This could be religious convictions, a given view of humanity, confidence in economic opportunities or confi-dence in nature’s ability to maintain and restore itself. Moreover, the perspective for action is also determined by the social status a person has. A factory labourer you will have different expectations of your personal opportunities and those of others than a member of par-liament will. A career soldier will probably have different ideas about human capabilities for reforming society than a judge, an environmental activist or a business administration lecturer.

Table 2. Some opposing perspectives for action

Belief in your own ability Idea: People are able to sort out major issues by them-selves.

For example: science and technology; military power or peaceful actions; economic power. The ‘control’ paradigm.

Lack of faith in your own ability Idea: People are unable or able to only a limited extent to sort out major issues by themselves.

For example: faith in God; the idea that the future is de-termined by coincidence. The ‘adaptation’ paradigm.

Globalisation Idea: By creating larger blocs, these units become stronger, while their power is necessary for effecting far-reaching changes.

For example: European Union; international corporate mergers.

Anti-globalisation Idea: Large blocs turn people into mere numbers, and they sacrifice our humanity and liberty. ‘Small is beautiful’.

For example: civil society; microcredit.

Progressive thinking Idea: Progress is good, exciting and new. Progress is the only way to achieve real improvements.

For example: innovation; new is better.

Back to the past Idea: Changes in recent years and centuries are the cause of major problems. We must return to the simplicity and values we previously had.

For example: traditional values, back to nature.

Revolution Idea: Society can be drastically improved through rapid change. The cure might hurt briefly, but violence is an acceptable sacrifice.

For example: democratisation using military force

Evolution Idea: A society can only be comprehensively improved using gradual processes.

For example: awareness, emancipation, support base, education.

Change using technology Idea: Human behaviour is difficult to change. Major changes must consequently be introduced through tech-nological innovations.

For example: low-energy and low-material equipment; separation of trash at the waste treatment facility.

Change through modified human behaviour Idea: Technological innovations will not suffice in bringing about the necessary major changes. Human behaviour will have to be modified.

For example: lower consumption; separation of trash by the consumer.

Emphasising the collective Idea: The interests of the group are greater than those of the individual. Individuals are doing the best if the group is doing well.

For example: security dealt with by the authorities; strict laws and regulations.

Emphasising the individual Idea: The individual’s liberty is greater than the interests of the group. The group is doing the best if the individuals are doing well.

For example: privatisation of state-owned companies; scrapping laws and regulations (deregulating)

7

Tuesday 17 June 2023

THe Perspective The Best Newspaper in the country

Government declares war

on environmental issues BY OUR OWN LONDON CORRESPONDENT

Tanks on Trafalgar Square. Frigates sailing up the

Thames. Paratroopers with machine-guns in Downing

Street. Cabinet declared war today on all environmen-

tal issues. “We cannot continue like this,” said the prime minister.

“It’s got to end.” The state secretary declared she ex-

pected that the environment would be defeated within

three weeks. There are reports that acid rain has already

been bombed, with NATO support. Fierce resistance is

reported from Birmingham industrial areas. Chimneys are

emitting more smoke than ever while machines are rat-

tling in attempts to create more noise.

Continued on pg. 7. See also:

Pag. 2: Organic foods for our soldiers

Pag. 5: Scottish power plants support English air pollution

Ministeries

privatised WASHINGTON DC

Once again a number of

ministries have been priva-

tised. The Ministry for

Economic Affairs has been

sold to Hewlett Packard for

$8.5 billion, while the Min-

istry for Sport and

Recreation was taken over

by Disney Land. The new

Disneyland Secretary de-clared that 65 percent of the

Ministry’s work would be

moved to Bangkok in order

to reduce wage costs.

Greenpeace leaves

all actions AMSTERDAM

Greenpeace has decided to halt all protests. A spokes-

man said the organisation

has concluded you cannot

change the future anyway.

“It no longer matters,” said

Greenpeace, “history has

already been written in

anticipation.”

(advertisement)

Exhale less CO2! Once we are all prepared to

exhale less carbon dioxide, the climate will soon be restored

to normal. Join in! Swallow that CO2!

Poverty outlawed LONDON

The Minister of Harrods

has submitted a bill to

outlaw poverty in the UK.

Should the new law be

transgressed, high penalties

are planned up to a maxi-

mum of £25,000. The Tes-

co and Sainsbury's coali-

tion members responded

enthusiastically, but oppo-sition parties protested the

move. “Poverty is a right,”

said a Wal-Mart spokes-

man, “you cannot simply

take it away.”

Windows back home REDMOND, USA

Microsoft has decided to

heed users’ demands, who

do not want a new system

every few years. Starting

next year, the software

conglomerate will bring

back the old operating

system Windows 1.0,

which was first released in

1985. “Things are progressing too

fast for people,” explained

an MS spokesman. “That’s

not good for society, and

our customers long for a

time when the world was

much simpler.”

8

The perspective for action also depends on the location where you were born or where you live. Many citizens in the United States will focus on the opportunities available to individuals to become personally successful – that’s the ‘American dream’. Compared to this, in Europe the emphasis is on solidarity and supporting the weaker people in society, an aspect for which the government is seen as indispensible. This has recently been re-ferred to as the ‘European dream’ (Jeremy Rifkin: ‘The European Dream’. New York, 2004). Table 3 provides additional back-ground information for different perspectives for action. People generally have some notion of what the perspectives for action are with regard to most people and organisations. Often they are not consciously aware of this, and it only becomes no-ticeable when one imagines such organisations acting from an unusual perspective, as can be seen in the imaginary newspaper ‘The Perspective’.

The socially (un-) engineerable society

A significant contrast exists in perspectives on action, which arises from the way in which people view the role of the government. In communist nations the economy is – or was – completely controlled by the state, while a near opposite can be found in the United States where many people have called for government intervention to be as minimal as possible. This contrast is listed in table 2 in the last row. Both these polar opposites exist in Europe, but they are more moderate and come in the form of socialism and liberalism, with both concepts represented in parliament. Both socialism and liberalism have – or had – some degree of confidence in an engi-neerable society, but each in their own way. An example of each is provided below.

Case 3. A car for everyone In the 1970s the Netherlands was led by a socialist prime minister, Joop den Uyl. One of the goals his govern-ment worked for was that everybody, including the labourers, would be able to own a car. Car-ownership in the country increased rapidly, whether or not this was due to government policy – with 2.5 million cars being owned in 1970 and 4.5 million in 1980. It didn’t stop there, and by 2010 there were around 8 million cars in the Netherlands. The increase was comparable in other Western European nations. There are unfortunately also negative consequences to this trend. Traffic congestion has risen to alarming lev-els, the suburbs have been flooded with parked cars and greenhouse gas and particulate matter emissions increased, partly as a result of cars on the roads. The dream of Joop den Uyl that everyone would own a car has largely come true. But the fulfilment of this dream had a number of unpleasant consequences that were not anticipated in 1970.

The next case also deals with transport, this time not on the basis of a socialist but rather a liberal ideal.

Case 4. Improving the quality through privatisation

In the mid-1990s the Netherlands was led by governments with a number of liberal objectives, one of which was the privatisation of a number of state companies, including the postal services, energy companies, Am-sterdam airport and the railways. The underlying philosophy was that if these companies had to compete on the free market with other companies, they would improve their financial management and also their service, competing for customers. In 1995 the Dutch railways (Nederlandse Spoorwegen, NS) were privatised, being split up into a number of independent companies, including the passenger-carrier NS Reizigers and ProRail, which handles the infrastruc-ture such as the rails and overhead lines. The companies promised the authorities that they would: improve service and comfort levels; increase speed of services; increase reliability; double the number of passengers. The passenger service did not perform as promised from the very start. NS Reizigers faced structural problems, and the number of delays and breakdowns increased instead of decreasing. Communication between it and the

Table 3. Determining factors for the perspective for action

Perspectives for action go hand-in-hand with the following, amongst others:

Profession

Family and friends

Financial status

Religion

Character, personality

Country, environs

Social status

Education, level of knowledge

Upbringing

Political notions

Value system

9

other railway companies was difficult, while maintenance of rolling stock became increasingly overdue. The company was not performing very well in financial terms either, as the company was struggling to make the investments required and so train fares rose. It emerged from a customer survey in 15 European nations in 2002 that passengers in the Netherlands were very dissatisfied with their train service, as can be seen in figure 2. A media investigation in 2003 pointed out that none of the goals of privatisation had been achieved – the number of passengers had barely risen between 1995 and 2003, the quality of service had slid back dramatically, speed was down and costs had more than doubled (source: Volkskrant, 22 November 2003, based on reports from a range of experts.) The liberal dream went off the rails, and a decade after the rail service was privatised, train traffic regressed instead of progressing.

Both the above cases demonstrate that it is difficult to systematically realize an ideal. In the one case (a car for everyone) the government was largely successful in achieving the goal, but there were unexpected side-effects that cost Dutch society (and most other wealthy nations) a great deal of trouble and billions of euros a year. In the other case (the rail services), the exact opposite of what was intended was achieved.

Paradox

The above two cases provide us with an important conclusion. Both were based on the ‘control’ paradigm de-tailed in chapter 1. The same holds for the French and Russian revolutions. However, in reality it seems as if the future society is not really engineerable in many cases. Every time an attempt is made to bring about a far-reaching change by means of a planned route, unexpected things happen that throw a spanner in the works.

Figure 2. Degree of satisfaction for rail passenger services in various European countries

Source: ‘Die Meinung der Verbraucher über die Dienstleitungen der Daseinsvorsorge’, European Opinion Research Group (EORG) for the EU, December 2002

10

This was true for the Russian planned economy and is just as true for the increased number of cars and the liberalisation of state-owned companies. This creates a complicated paradox: - On the one hand many, if not all, issues in our unsustainable world came into being because we did not

devote sufficient attention to the consequences decisions have for the distant future. We must urgently discard these ‘blinkers’ that stop us looking that far ahead and create a world that is based on inspired ide-als and well-thought out plans for the future.

- On the other hand it is evident that things do not go very well when we do think about the future. Firstly the future is not predictable, and moreover, the future can evidently only be engineered to a very small degree – history is full of situations where people attempted to systematically implement their ideals, only to see later developments differing greatly from their dreams.

This is a tricky paradox, which can only be solved once policymakers and ordinary people – citizens, consumers and professionals – use sound judgement and do not place too much faith in engineerability and control, but instead grant space to the ‘adaptation’ paradigm. In more general terms, it can be solved when we not only use our own perspectives for action, but also give others the opportunity to express their own perspectives, which might be contrary to our own.