World of Flimmer

One of the human traits I really admire, is the ability to stay true to an idea or an ideology. Dare standing up for your ideas, even when they are not popular - but because you believe in them. The essence of the idea can mean more to a person than getting respect or to withuphold honour and tradition. And all that is very fine. We are talking about dedication and predactability here.

But it is when the foundation for ideas and ideology changes, and people still cling to their outdated and perhaps directly wrong and dangerous ideas that I tend to get worried. Because another human trait I am fond of, is the ability to look ahead - and to be flexible.

For some reason a scene from "Police Squad! - the series" springs to mind where Leslie Nielsen is at the dental office with foam around his mouth slobbering "I am not an animal ... I'm a human being". Hillarious as that particular scene may be, I can't help but comparing it to situations where people or groups are confronted with their outdated ideas. Of course, it is also only human to defend your point of view - but it may quickly turn into desillusional. Not disillusioned, which perhaps may be just as dangerous but will probably be a topic for another blog.

Situations where ideas are not valid any more, but people still hold on to them can be found in a lot of situations. You have in the office where "things always have been done this way", you have the more innocent in the home where "its bad for your eyes watching TV in the dark" - or the most dangerous of them all - politicians that have been elected based on one or two cases they want to fight for.

There are just too many examples where the situation has changed dramatically before the politicians entered the systems, the market could have changed, a new road could have been opened that rendered the original cause obsolete, a plant could have started making other products - the list goes on. But regardless of the changed circumstances, the politician have to defend and fight for the original reason he got elected for - regardless of how obsolote that reasons may be now.

It are in situations like these where politics and narrowmindedness may pose as a real threat to the society. Yes, the democratic process had worked - but it ended up undermining exactly what made it such a valuable process in the first place. Unless, of course, there are politicians that have enough integrity to admit that the original reason they got elected no longer was valid and that they have to find other causes to focus on.

This happens from time to time in local elections, but I believe it is almost unheard of in national elections. The real issue is of course that politics is at its core is not about making changes, it is about offering stability. Stability ensures predictable economi, but does not offer much room for dramatic decisions. In the end it is mostly about making compromises and ensuring a kind of status que in the society. Politics is about avoiding rocking the boat too much.

So professional politicians have to keep on talking, building alliances and continue working on lost causes - simply because the machinery that brought them to the position they have now is too big and the momentum is too high.

So perhaps local politicians never should get elected to higher positions, but rather be employed in a national administration with normal quality checking and no company policy besides doing a good job and reaching the stipulated goals. I kind of like that picture. It would be all about how to make the society runs smoother, but without any ideology or changes in regime.

Of course, that leaves one question open - what would happen if the country-company wanted to expand? Would it have to declare war? And who should declared war in that case? The shareholders perhaps?