Amigocracy, Kleptocracy, and the Iron Law of Oligarchy- Gordon Housworth [ 6/27/2016 - 14:11 ] # Arranged PR events aside, the
systemic faults and likely failure modes of the New Panama Canal are an example
of the combined impacts of Amigocracy, Kleptocracy, and Bureaucratic Oligarchy.
Our experience is that this trio forms a common pattern. Find one, expect to find the
others.
Compare The New Panama Canal: A Risky
Bet to The Panama Canal Expansion Project, a
bureaucratic whitewash delivered in Buenos Aires in 2015. Events could not be
further apart.
Amigocracy
The purist Amigocracy I have
seen in the Americas is Chile where the elites appear to exhibit but one skill
– that of asking for, or providing access to, a favor. All else is left to
underlings. Deprived of an aristocratic or ‘old boy’ status they would be
rendered powerless.
Evert van der
Zweerde’s Friendship and the Political amply describes Amigocracy:
…The idea of an “amigocracy” [faces] two problems, one of a
fundamental nature, the other of a factual: it only works if all are friends, and it only works at a
relatively small scale. Since friendship, albeit selective, is not necessarily
exclusive, it is possible that within a small group of people everybody is
everybody’s friend or at least a friend of a friend, but this means that, if we
are talking about the polity, the visions of the common good of the people
involved must be the same or, if different, compatible, which is the case, for
example, if the common good is, precisely, the “running of the res publica in a
good manner” (this explains the proximity with republicanism). It also means
that, in practical terms, an “amigocracy” can only be an effective form of
government if the number of people involved is limited, either because only a
small section of the population participates in the polity or because the
society in question is small.
With respect to the first, “amigocracy” understood as “rule by a group
of friends” or “rule by a friendly network” is, when it is limited in number,
i.e. when the group of friends does not coincide with the dèmos, a form of aristocracy. Any form of aristocracy is
fundamentally anti-democratic, not so much because it is government by an elite
–that in itself can be the outcome of democratic procedure-, but because the
real political question at stake here, the question who decides who is an
aristocrat is answered by the aristoi
themselves: aristocracy is a form of self-appointed government, and, when
continued over time, cooptation by definition, and this is what any dèmos rightly fears when they perceive
friendly relations between those in power. To be sure, there are inevitable
elements of co-optation in representative government, too: the leading groups
within political parties, for example, are also largely self-appointed. But in
that case, the dèmos can at least
have the idea that such elites can be sent home by means of elections. With respect to the second, it is not accidental that friendship was
regarded as an important political concept within the context of relatively
small and surveyable city-states like Athens or the Roman republic, and, later,
Italian and other city-republics. Supra-national polities such as the European
Union sometimes appear as amigocracies when the leaders of the governments of
the member states get along very well, but while this may be effective at the
level of the polity itself, the problem is immediately perceptible: these
government leaders represent democratic polities, the dèmoi of which are being disempowered by being excluded from this
friendship. Amigocracy and democracy are compatible only if the group of
friends is the dèmos. To the extent
to which friendship is ‘an affair of the few’, it is understandable that ‘some
forms of democratic sentiment are naturally hostile to it.’25
Nothing is harder to beat that an old boys’ network, and since the old boys
started out like college or university friends, it is impossible to become an
old boy. If, in large democratic polities, friendship is looked upon with
hostility by the dèmos, in
authoritarian polities it is looked upon with suspicion by those in power,
because a group of friends can be –and historically has often been- the
beginning of a conspiracy or rebellion, ‘a pocket of potential resistance.’26
This is why both democratic and totalitarian regimes in our age tend to make
friendship [a] private, not a public affair. It this connection then, it is or
becomes political when it crosses the border between the private and the public
spheres… There is an obvious tension between the idea of networks-of-friends
and the formal character of the juridico-political order. Old friends’ networks
are essentially anti-democratic and anti-republican, yet probably essential for
a working economic and political society under liberal-democratic conditions.
Moreover, if politics takes place, first and foremost, in the spheres of the
polity –the state, the government- and of political society –the part of civil
society oriented towards the polity-, then it is clear that both offer, like in
fact any societal sphere, opportunities for individuals to develop relations of
friendship… Friendship is a spontaneous process: one is struck positively by
someone else’s opinions, observations, ideas, habits, or moral stance, and one
spontaneously develops sympathetic feelings. Becoming friends with someone [is]
often [a] liberating event, and the place of politics, like the work-place, is
a place in which the relief of finding somebody who relates in the same manner
to other people or events can be very great: at last one finds somebody who
perceives things the same way. At the same time –as in the work-place- business
goes on, too, and a relation of friendship [is] at odds with a professional and
neutral approach. Only if all people
involved would be friends, things would go smoothly and, perhaps, optimally…
Kleptocracy
Amigocracy is difficult to
separate from Kleptocracy as the temptation to the elites is huge and the risk
is small to nil. Two items illustrate:
Private note to colleague, Wed
05-Aug-2015
Given
that the intersection of kleptocracy and amigocracy is Latin America, I don’t
see corruption doing anything rash against its interests. I regard corruption
as a societal tax in the countries that it permeates. Not specifically holding
the Latinos poorly; all the “Cans” worldwide named after Trashcanistan live
well and wide at the top. One reason that they are happier with the Chinese is
that the PRC will be their protector in international tribunals, they and the
DPRK will provide security assets and thugs to protect, and be their private
banker beyond US reach.
The
Mexican side of US/EU supply chains are corrupted and/or paying coercion monies
to stay alive and in business. The US/EU OEMs and Tier ones are still unaware
of, or willfully ignoring, the risks in their tiers. Defense, energy and mining
understand the cost and demands of security, but few others outside that fence.
Responding to John M.
Ackerman’s request for comment to: MEXICO IS NOT A
FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY, I offered the following:
Posted to Frontera-list, Feb
23, 2016
Good day, John. Per your request:
Oligarchy killed and skinned democracy in Mexico
decades ago but is fond of wearing that skinned hide in any public facing event,
domestic and foreign. Peña Nieto is merely the head upon the hide.
This extends past the PRI to include the
Amigocracy network that runs business and guides politicians. Others might call
it a Kleptocracy.
We choose to accept it because we have far more
pressing issues elsewhere. There is no significant US political capital
available to pursue the goals and necessary changes you posit.
While there are severe threats to Mexican
nationals and companies, criminal elements have comparatively restrained their
predations on foreign firms and permitted them to function without significant
assault.
(A flag is up on the recent attacks on newly
arrived US shale oil-related suppliers in Tamaulipas that are being tested for
the extortion payments that their Mexican peers pay to remain operational.)
US/EU OEMs are looking for stable, skilled, low
cost (lower cost) labor, especially now that Mexico has been included in the
Backshoring “US local” category along with Canada. If foreign business gets
that, along with its lessened logistics costs, they will tolerate the charade.
Mexico is one of many states that pretend to be
free and democratic and we pretend to agree. All that I read of your work tells
me that you are attuned to ground truth but are hoping for something more.
Iron Law of Oligarchy
The iron law of oligarchy as political
theory was proposed by the German sociologist Robert Michels who claimed that
rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within
any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical
necessities" of organization.
At the time Michels
formulated his Law, he was an anarcho-syndicalist. He later gave up his
socialist convictions to become an important ideologue of fascist Benito
Mussolini.
Darcy Leach turned to
aphorism to summarize Michels as: “Bureaucracy happens. If bureaucracy happens,
power rises. Power corrupts.”
If you’ve not already done
so, compare The New Panama Canal: A Risky Bet
to the bureaucratic whitewash delivered in Buenos Aires.
#Amigocracy #Kleptocracy
#Bureaucracy #Oligarchy #Mexico #SupplyChain #Risk #Corruption
Bibliography
The New Panama Canal: A Risky Bet How a $3.1 Billion Expansion
Collided With Reality By WALT
BOGDANICH, JACQUELINE WILLIAMS and ANA GRACIELA MÉNDEZ NYT, JUNE
22, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/22/world/americas/panama-canal.html
http://goo.gl/wMjmEH
Paper no. 6 – The Panama Canal Expansion Project Complexities and Lessons Learned WONG, Juan
(Johnny) Autoridad del
Canal de Panamá (ACP), Panama, Rep. of Panama “SMART RIVERS
2015” Buenos Aires,
Argentina, 7-11 September 2015 Email: jwong@pancanal.com http://www.pianc.org.ar/_stage/pdf/papers_sr2015/06_paper_Wong_USA_1.pdf
MEXICO IS NOT A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY Authoritarian
leadership, stifled dissent, limited freedom of assembly, and endless violence,
are the hallmarks of Mexico under Pena Nieto. It's time for Washington to pull
the plug. John M. Ackerman FP, FEBRUARY 23, 2016 http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/23/obama-pena-nieto-mexico-corruption/
Response to John M. Ackerman’s request for comment to MEXICO
IS NOT A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY Posted to Frontera-list, Feb 23, 2016 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/frontera-list/yR5PRK5W7cA
Friendship and the Political – A Hesitant Exploration Evert van der Zweerde Radboud University, Nijmegen
(Netherlands) https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/dbaede44-272b-4116-8fe9-9c917d152eb1.pdf
Van der Zweerde’s article
subsequently published as “Friendship
and the Political” in:
Friendship in Politics: Theorizing Amity
in and Between States Author/Editor by Preston King, Graham M. Smith Routledge 2007 https://www.amazon.com/Friendship-Politics-Theorizing-between-States/dp/0415420814
Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the
Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy Robert Michels Translated by Eden and Cedar
Paul From the 1911 German source Batoche Books Kitchener 2001 http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf
The Iron Law of What Again? Conceptualizing Oligarchy
Across Organizational Forms Darcy K. Leach Sociological Theory, Vol. 23,
No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 312-337 American Sociological
Association https://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/undergraduate/module-outlines/ss/political-parties/PolP/LeachSocioTheory05.pdf
The Mind-body Problem Explained: The Biocognitive
Model for Psychiatry By Niall McLaren 2012 https://books.google.com/books?id=LyXgxd66f1EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Democratic theory: the philosophical foundations James L. Hyland Manchester, England, UK Manchester University Press
ND, 1995. p. 247. https://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=9780719039416
InfoT Public Infrastructure Defense Public Risk Containment and Pricing Public Strategic Risk Public
|