As I read, I am increasingly impressed by this book, an important reason being its relevance to my experience at Procter & Gamble as a unique institution.
In a short 250 or so pages, Miller makes it clear to my satisfaction that the efforts that have been made to put in place “pure democracy,” meaning that theoretically every person is involved in a decision, has too often led to perverse outcomes.
While democracy is said to have been operative in ancient Athens, and it was to a degree, the fact remained that a large percentage of the population in so-called democratic Athens were slaves. Many could not vote. Those that could vote, were very involved as individuals. But history shows we have been unable to take that to scale.
The success and failure and the tension that rests within each attempt at democracy has been impacted by many human tendencies and instincts: the desire for power, for money; the inherent conviction by most people, that some people (meaning “we”) are better than others.
The creation of our own Constitution in 1781 reflected the inherent distrust of the capacity of ordinary citizens to make decisions. There was the belief that had been reflected in previous political arrangements that decisions need to be made by a “meritorious elite who would govern on behalf of all, with a dispassionate regard for the common good.”
Of course, what people view as the “common good” has varied and always will vary. Therein lies the source of conflict.
Communism, brought to reality by the 1917 Revolution in Russia, was premised on the idea that everyone is equal and should have a say in what the government should do. It didn’t take long for that to devolve into Lenin’s and other leaders’ deciding that they needed to decide what was right for the common people. Greed and the quest for power took over. The same thing happened in the French Revolution. It started as quest for everyone to be involved in decision-making; it quickly descended into chaos and then the creation of an autocratic dictatorship.
We see these same instincts in our own democracy today. Differences in what people see as the common good. The drive by officeholders to stay in office.
Robespierre centuries ago captured the reality in addressing the Convention debating the French Constitution. The challenge faced by every great legislator, he declared, is to “give to government the force necessary to have citizens always respect the rights of citizens and to do it in such a manner that government is never able to violate these rights itself.” Rarely had this challenge been met, Robespierre said, because history was generally a story of “government devouring (individual) sovereignty” and of the rich exploiting the poor.
This deep-seeded conviction that the “common man” is not able to decide individually or in the aggregate what the right thing to do is has been prevalent throughout history, to this very day. Walter Lippmann wrote almost 100 years ago, “The individual man does not have opinions on all public affairs. He does not know how to direct public affairs. He does not know what is happening, why it is happening, what ought to happen.” As a result, the common interests, he concludes, “can be managed only by a specialized class,” by informed commentators (like Lippmann himself, in Lippmann’s haughty opinion) with an in-depth knowledge of the facts pertinent to formulating reasonable public policies. This attitude, driven by self-interest yet, to some degree, the recognition of reality has been the governing force in the development of political systems everywhere over time.
Joseph Schumpeter, in the 1940s, said it only a bit differently: “Democracy in modern societies like America, as it has come to actually exist, involves voters selecting the least objectionable of the available candidates chosen by rival political priorities to rule over them.” Here again, this greatly oversimplified view of reality captures an uncomfortable degree of truth.
Certainly it has been proven that it is unrealistic and undesirable to attempt to rule totally by consensus. Ultimately, there needs to be a structure of decision-making. That is true in business and it’s true in political life, but at the same time, I insist, that it is possible for business or government to reflect, if not perfectly, largely the common good.
Our experience with participatory democracy teaches the limits of any regime of consensus, which risks silencing disagreements over alternatives that are important to debate openly, I believe. I believe modern institutions can do more to appeal to an engaged people’s capacity for reflection and collective deliberation. As one American philosopher wrote, “We sometimes expect too little” from our democracies “precisely because” we prematurely give up on an “aspirational theory,” one that realistically faces the question “of whether more can realistically be expected.”
I believe this line of thought permeates the Purpose of Procter & Gamble. It recognizes the need for balance in the stakeholders whom we serve and in how we carry out the responsibility we have to these stakeholders. It does this with the humility of recognizing while we won’t ever achieve perfection, we can and must continue to learn how to do better.
I return, as Miller does and as I always have, to Vaclav Havel who, as much or more than any other philosopher, guides my thinking. He posits that the view that democracy “is chiefly the manipulation of power and public opinion and that morality has no place in it” means the unacceptable loss of “the idea that the world might actually be changed by the force of truth, the power of a truthful word, the strength of a free spirit, conscience and responsibility—with no guns, no lust for power, no political wheeling and dealing.”
When Havel wrote his essay in 1991in “Summer Meditations,” he was overseeing Czechoslovakia’s reformation as its first freely elected president. “I am convinced,” he remarked, “that we will never build a democratic state based on rule of law if we do not at the same time build a state that is—regardless of how unscientific this may sound to the ears of a political scientist—humane, moral, intellectual and spiritual and cultural.” “The best laws and best conceived democratic mechanisms will not in themselves guarantee the legality or freedom or human rights—anything in short, for which they were intended—if they are not underpinned by certain human and social values.” He concludes as I do: “I feel that the dormant good will in people needs to be stirred. People need to hear that it makes sense to behave decently and help others, to place common interests above their own, to respect the elementary rules of human coexistence.”
It is the Culture and the Purpose built on this type of conviction that has made Procter & Gamble the company I admire and love. May it always be so.
