THE TERROR OF GOOD INTENTIONS

Through different ways – and experiences - I have learned to be suspicious of any gesture of good will or generosity, unless it is clear what the author of the gesture gets out of it for him (or her)self.

The first experience by which this notion grew onto me had nothing to do with interpersonal relations but with inter-state relations: one country providing development aid for the other. 

Essentially I came to believe that decades of development aid throughout the world have gone down the drain very much because the interests of the western countries involved were rarely made explicit right on the table. It is impossible to believe that western programs of development aid or development cooperation, as they were carried out in the nineteen eighties and nineties – which was when I was more closely involved - came out of pure altruism. Of course they didn’t. 

Development aid grew in an atmosphere paternalism and post-colonial guilt. Western countries solemnly committed themselves to a percentage of their national income as gift to developing countries. Huge sums of money, manpower and political debate went into the effectiveness of this aid: did it really develop these countries?

An extensive institutional infrastructure and numerous policy documents accompanied this one way traffic. Inspections were carried out, reports were written, disappointments highlighted. Corruption undermined the process in many instances, warnings could be issued, compliance – by the beneficiaries – to the rules of the game was reinforced. Sometimes the flow money was suspended. Etcetera. 

The leading morality was that of enforced gratefulness. The psychology of having to say thank you, which is the way a civil servant in one of Holland’s development countries told it to me, one day. The total subordination to the terror of good intentions, which is how I came to see it. You have be grateful for something you didn’t ask for.

Much later, I observed similar processes between people. I came to realize that we should always be suspicious of someone who professes to be good just for the sake of it. Pure altruism cannot hold. There has to be a personal interest too.

Still, there is a twist. As a rule, we hesitate to be too explicit about our personal interests. We prefer to project goodness, largely for the impression we make. It can happen at any given occasion when someone asks you: “Can I help you?”. When it happens in a shop, you immediately know that the intention (and interest) of that person is to sell something, a service or a material item. We know that “sales talk” always is double talk at the same time. We take it for granted.

But then a total stranger offers you his assistance, let’s say: to carry your bags on your way to the train. What is your immediate response? I would say, we would be suspicious initially, or at least cautious. Can we trust this person, does he want some compensation? Should we readily offer some compensation? Etc. The same applies to anyone offering financial help or some other assistance essential to you.

Perhaps we should avoid any deal – even with close friends – where there is no substantive quid pro quo. When you risk a situation where you have to show gratitude at unexpected moments. It is the beginning of our submission to something (and someone) we cannot control. 

Therefore, as a rule, we should be clear (at least to ourselves) about our interests in respect of our fellow human beings, and demand similar clarity from any other. Why do I want to help you? Well, it is because I know you will help me another time, when I need it. Or, if it is between countries: because your country will be able to produce which I need. It is only under these conditions we can avoid the psychological conundrum of having to say thank you when actually you wish you hadn’t.

AWAITING THE FURTHER PROCESS OF HISTORY

For most of its existence humanity was destined to be content with the status quo. This was either because early humans, like their predecessors, lacked the drive or the immediate pressure for ongoing invention and advancement or because the prevailing leadership kept their people largely ignorant of their potential for such advancement. Advancement as we know it is a recent phenomenon, however much it seems to be innately tied with the essence of our humanity. We simply cannot imagine a status quo. 

Indeed, our ongoing advancement equally stems from need: population pressures, environmental pressures and many other – related – issues which can only be resolved when humanity presses forward in its technology and in its institutional framework for peace and prosperity of our world’s population. There is no choice but to go ahead, the alternative being the certain collapse of our civilization.

The current leadership of our world, however, seems to experience great difficulty in articulating such road ahead. If anything, their constituency is urging them to go backwards and succumb to raw populism. None of the competing political forces offer a credible alternative that can rally voters away from their prevailing conservative preferences. Besides, almost all energy is spent in at least preserving the attainments of our recent past, as we currently experience in the EU and as similarly is the experience of the people of America. Wealth, wealth creation, international security, a solid future for our children, all of this has become rather more uncertain than it has been throughout the greater part of our post-WW II universe.

Clearly, the status quo is not an option. We live in a world which by every measure is unsustainable. We cannot dream of some nostalgic paradise. It is no longer there. We may redefine our needs, our ideas of society and well-being – and I am convinced that we should – but the only road ahead is one that is paved with substantive, progressive ambitions at unprecedented scale.

We will not see such ambitions surface any time soon. It will require a new momentum, most likely arising from a sense of imminent disaster, but hopefully some imminent opportunity too, the nature of which is anybody’s best guess at present.

The present state of stagnation is a reminder of the fact that history has no preset course. It is up to each generation to rise to the challenge and visualize an attainable, mobilizing future. True history is made by those who have the stamina and the persuasive power take us to new and promising frontiers. We have almost forgotten what it looks like and our younger generations haven’t had experience of it. But they too will know when they see it or at least, when they see the need for it.

Humanity still has a long way ahead. The confines of our planet will largely define the parameters by which it will have to secure the habitat and livelihood of many billions of people over the longer term. I am convinced that we haven’t yet reached our ultimate potential in our means to achieve this, neither in technological terms nor in terms of politics and societal thinking. But we have reached the point of exhaustion of the thinking that has brought us to the point where we are today. This includes our ability to effectively respond to the great disparities in the conditions and prospects of the people populating our world. The true project of humanity is to address these disparities to the longer term benefit of all: their access to resources, their sustainable development and livelihood and their quest for a meaningful life however we may define it.

Our current global political and institutional framework may not necessarily suffice. It is either too fragmented or it lacks the power and the means to mobilize the nations of our world towards a long term common goal. Old history still stands in the way but so do vested national and ideological interests.

It took some two decades before the true scope of the twentieth century became manifest, both in its drawbacks and in its vast array of possibilities. Much of the groundwork had been done in the preceding decades. The historic process centered around competing ideologies, out of which - as we see it – free market liberalism emerged victorious. National democracies have become the main residences of the people’s sovereignty. The greatest challenge for the present century is both to retain this foundation of government and at the same time strengthen the role of global institutions governing our critical resources. We should hope that it won’t require similar cataclysms as in the last century to finally get there. 

Reprint from: MANKIND IN THE BALANCE

(2011)