Archives

by S.T. Hettige, Professor of Sociology, University of Colombo

'Reason' has been an integral part of the modernisation process that unfolded in many countries across the globe over the past several centuries. Reason as a mode of thinking' embodied in modern science, secular ideology and modern organisation were not embraced by everybody with unrestrained enthusiasm. While there was considerable resistance to it, it nevertheless gathered momentum in the West thanks to the enormous scientific and economic advancement achieved there over the last century.

When we observe what is going on around us' both in this country and in the rest of the world, it is hard to believe that reason is the dominant principle that guides human action at different levels and, diverse contexts. In other words, irrationality appears to be as pervasive as rationality in the modern world. How can we explain this situation. There are at least two plausible explanations.

Firstly, rationality and irrationality are relative concepts. There is neither an absolute rationality nor an absolute irrationality. What is rational from a particular point of view may appear to be irrational from another point of view and voice versa. For instance, anyone who is committing suicide due to an unresolved existential problem might think that suicide is the most rational thing to do, while a detached observer might think that the most rational thing that the person should do is to look for a solution to his existential problems rather than committing suicide.

It is the relativistic nature of rationality that seems to underpin the complexity of human action that we observe all around us. If we take the much talked about duality between terrorism and anti-terrorism, it is clear that those who are on either side of the divide feel that their actions are rational responses to a threat posed by their perceived enemy. How can we have such stark differences in the meaning attached to a single concept? The answer lies in two other concepts, namely the world view and material interest. These latter concepts are not necessary dependent on each other.

As well-known, individuals perceive the world around them differently, depending on a range of factors such as knowledge, beliefs, values, ideas interests and personal experiences. The problem is that these factors cannot be easily separated from one another. So, we do not know which factor has been critical in a particular human action.

When the United States decided to invade Iraq, there were divergent interpretations of the US action, pointing to diverse motives. There were also discussions about the rationality of military action, some arguing that it was the only rational action that could be taken while others pointing out that it was irrational as it would not produce the intended results but, would, in fact lead to adverse consequences. Similarly, the on-going debate about globalisation has given rise to divergent interpretations, some treating it as a panacea for all the ills in the world, while others predicting disaster for the environment, the Third World and the new world order. Again one has to examine how and why people interpret the same problems in such different ways.

What is pointed out above may be applicable to individual decisions that millions of people make on a daily basis with respect to their existential problems. At least, some of these decisions may not impinge on the lives of other people and therefore, may have personal consequences, either negative or positive. Some may certainly have implications for the wider society, such as those of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in public places.

On the other hand, individuals taking decisions in their capacity as public figures have far wider implications as they are often interpreted as collective decisions taken by a political leader, company CEO, or a head of an institution. It is in these latter instances that we wish to reduce the influence of personal beliefs, individual interests and ideologies on the decision making process.

The degree to which modern societies could ensure that collective decisions are taken with a minimal interference of personal factors depends on a range of circumstances such as the legal system, institutional set up, public commitment to reason, organisational culture, and rejection of hierarchy. So, whether a country achieves social and economic progress depends, among other things on the degree to which collective decisions are independent of personal and parochial factors.

Collective decisions that matter in the modern world are taken at different levels, ranging from global to local. In an increasingly globalising world, decisions taken by world leaders and global institutions often affect the lives of people living in even remote parts of the world. Similarly, decisions taken by national leaders and national institutions can have far reaching consequences for the people living in peripheral areas of the country. So, collective decisions taken by leaders and institutions need to be carefully scrutinised and guided. But, this could be done only if effective mechanisms and procedures are in place. Most of all, commitment to egalitarian and democratic values and the presence of a sound organisational culture are vital factors.

Now we have to ask ourselves whether we have been able to give effect to democratic and egalitarian values as well as create an organisational culture conducive for making rational, collective decisions. Our experience is such that we have to answer this question in the negative. But, then, what prevents us from adopting egalitarian and democratic values in our daily lives and public institutions? Part of the answer is that we have not internalised these values and therefore, do not resist when others flout them.

The other part of the answer is that we have not been able to overcome traditional hierarchical values. One can find any amount of evidence to demonstrate this. Just to give a few examples. Look at our political parties.

Most of them are based on leader-worship. They are headed by "Nayaka Thumas" and "Nayaka Thumiyas". They are supposed to be democratic parties but do not follow any democratic principles to elect or eject leaders. Once elected, members normally do not criticise him or her as this would invite the wrath of the leader and his or her faction.

If the political party is not an open forum for its members and others who are free to deliberate on leadership and policy matters, how can such a party engage in rational, collective decision making?

The second example I want to give is regarding institutional leadership. Since we have spent many years of our lives in institutions, we can ask ourselves whether our institutional leaders have been guided by rational principles. If we examine the way they have been selected and how they have managed their institutions over the years, we will be able to find any number of instances where decisions have been guided by personal preferences and prejudices leading to serious adverse consequences for the institution itself.

On the other hand, we may also be able to find instances where institutional leaders have made rational decisions leading to the development and progress of the institution. What is noteworthy is that these are exceptions. What is endemic are decisions guided by personal interests and prejudices but most people would not make even a murmur if such decisions do not affect them personally.

The point is that we have not been able to establish an organisational culture that can act as a check on rash decision making. All what I have said above points to the fact that our inability to overcome hierarchical values, question those who are in authority where necessary, and crate a modern organisational culture in our institutions has prevented us from managing public affairs in a rational manner.

What is also noteworthy is that Sri Lanka's intellectuals are not disturbed when highly irrational decisions are taken by leaders so long as they do not affect them personally. On the other hand, if a few people question rash decisions or try to prevent such decisions from being taken, they will invariably become the target of vindicative behaviour. This appears to be true at all levels. This naturally compels others to mind their own business.

The above situation is also a reflection of another pervasive phenomenon, namely, the alienation of the individual from the institutions. Most people tend to have least commitment to institutions, as against their personal pre-occupations.

This is turn, may be partly the result of their conviction that institutions are subverted by their leaders to suit their personal references and needs and that most people tolerate this without any resistance. In such a situation, most people do not see a remedy and mind their own business even though many of them may be aware of the damage being done. So, it is a vicious circle, leading to an ever deeper decline and degradation, whether it is a political party, a government, ministry or a public institution. The pervasive tolerance of irrationality in society at all levels leads to irrational decision making leading to serious adverse consequences.

These decisions not only lead to wastage of public funds, but also hamper development in a boarder sense. I hate to suggest this: Sri Lanka is a gold mine for social science researchers, who wish to examine adverse consequences of irrational decisions taken by political leaders and heads of public institutions.

Such research, of course will not serve any worthwhile purpose other than providing material for an endless series of donor funded seminars and workshops that would bring together academics and top public servants for endless discussions in a comfortable environment.

For such discussions are highly unlikely to change their behaviour as their resolve not to rock the boat will remain as firm as ever. As mentioned before, this, of course is for good reasons.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager