Israel and Palestine--A History Offering a Ray of Hope

 I’ve read four books now on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each with their own strengths. However, the freshest, and in many ways the most insightful for me, has been Daniel Bar-Tal’s, Sinking into the Honey Trap: The Case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Bar-Tal is a Professor Emeritus in the School of Education at Tel Aviv University. His research interest lies in political and social psychology. He approaches the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by tracking its social-psychological foundations. He does so in the context of other intractable conflicts (Northern Ireland, Algeria, Guatemala, etc.).

Professor Bar-Tal believes that resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—that peace—will eventually occur, even as it may well take decades, which it already has. Professor Bar-Tal’s belief is based on two realities and one conviction. The two realities lie in the demographics: the number of Palestinians is about the same number of Israelis, and the Palestinians are not simply going to move away. The other reality as Professor Bar-Tal sees it is that conflicts of this horrible dimension and long-standing character have been resolved in the past. Northern Ireland is a classic example. South Africa probably another.

As Bar-Tal views history over the long term (centuries), he sees, as I do, a movement-- albeit with fits and starts-- to a greater respect for individual human dignity and freedom. He believes this will eventually happen in Israel.

Basic to Bar-Tal’s thesis is that the current state of the conflict has been created by competing narratives which, through most of history of this conflict, have asserted that the other side has no right to even exist. Each side declares its legitimacy and it is legitimacy that cannot be shared.

This narrative and mindset, has been expressed in different ways. At a few points it as has been altered by a short commitment to peace. But not today.

Bar-Tal rightly points to mutual trust as the key determining foundation for progress. As we have always seen in every venue, trust must flow from people coming to know one another and learning they can work together to a better end. This is what makes the "Combatants for Peace" movement so very important to my mind.

Another key part of Bar-Tal’s thesis is that the resolution of this conflict will need to be led by the stronger party, i.e., Israel. At the same time, he recognizes the imperative, so long un-obtained, that Palestine establish a unified leadership credible to the Palestinians, the Israelis and the world at large. He believes the Arab nations and Israel and probably Europe need to help make that happen.

However, the most important premise in Bar-Tal’s thesis on what it will take to resolve this conflict is that it will have to come from the recognition that the failure to do this carries a greater cost to both parties, including the Israelis, than continuing with the situation as it exists today.

A clear challenge on this point is that today the majority of Israelis not only feel the current situation is right, but they’re comfortable with it. The PLO, while objecting to the current situation, also to some degree finds that the conflict gives them its right to exist. Bar-Tal’s conviction on the importance of both parties discovering it is in their interest to change necessarily means, I fear, that there is likely to be more carnage before the mindset is created to establish a new narrative.


I find enormous encouragement in the history of the last 75+ years that there have been instances that show such a shift can occur. I won’t go through nor am I even aware of all the examples. Preeminent among them for me was the impact of Anwar Sadat’s coming to Israel to make peace. Sadat saw through the conflict supporting narratives and recognized the psychological barriers which prevented a peace process between his country and Israel.

In a luminous and brave speech to the Israeli Parliament in November 1977, Sadat reflected on the factors that prevent societies involved in conflict to reach an agreement: “There remained..a wall (which) constitutes a psychological barrier between us. A barrier of suspicion. A barrier of rejection. A barrier of hallucinations around any action, deed or decision. Today, through my visit to you, I ask you: Why don’t we stretch our hands with faith and sincerity so that, together, we might destroy this barrier? Why shouldn’t ours and yours meet with faith and sincerity, so that together we might remove all suspicion of fear, betrayal and ill intentions? Why don’t we stand together with the bravery of men and the boldness of heroes who dedicate themselves to a sublime objective?”

Tragically, as we all know, several years later, Sadat was assassinated by a far-right citizen of his own nation.

It’s often claimed that the Palestinians have never acknowledged the right of Israel to exist. That is not true. It’s been that way often, but not always. At about the time of the Oslo Accords, Yasser Arafat in November 1988 proclaimed the establishment of a Palestinian state (PLO) and also recognized the state of Israel within its 1967 borders, paving the way for division of the area into two states.

Of course, that never occurred. Blame exists on both sides.

The change in mindset called for by Sadat was more than skin deep. It took place importantly in the education area. Until the 1980s, the Israeli educational system had taught an uncompromising story of Israeli victimhood and Palestinian perfidy. That changed in 1984. New instruction material published by the Ministry of Education proclaimed the “existential need” for the educational system to deal with relations between Jews and Arabs and Israel. It established that the history of the Arab nations, their culture, their art, their language and their religion would “be taught in schools and the subject of relations between Israelis and Arabs would be integrated into the educational system from Kindergarten until the end of high school.”

In 1994, the Director General of the Ministry of Education wrote that: “We should present the achievement of peace between us and our neighbors, the Palestinians and the Arab nations, as an agreed-upon goal and to explain its essential importance, its contribution to the security, the strength and the prosperity of Israel.”

Yitzhak Rabin, then Prime Minister, said this in May 1994 during the signing of the Cairo Agreement regarding the Gaza Strip and Jericho: “We are convinced that our two people can live on the same patch of territory, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, as the Prophets foretold, and bring to this country, a land of rocks and of tombstones—the taste of milk and honey that it deserves. On this day, I turn to you, the Palestinian people and say: Our Palestinian neighbors, a century of bloodshed has forged in us a core of mutual enmity…today we are both extending a hand in peace. Today, we are inaugurating a new age.”

That was about to change as the 21st century was born. There were a number of factors, perhaps most importantly the lethal Second Intifada. The narrative shifted again and it has not changed fundamentally to today. There is encouragingly a growing, stronger minority group in Israel and Palestine that sees the resolution of the conflict as the only ultimate safety ground for Israel as well as what is right for and owed to the Palestinians. While still a minority, the world must build on this. It is the only peaceful and righteous path to the future.

I am struck by how the conflict of competing narratives is reinforced by the media and by the lack of factual understanding by the public. An example. Research conducted in 2008 indicates that about 22% of Israelis thought the Arabs had been a minority in the country before the beginning of accelerated Jewish immigration. Thirty-seven percent thought they were a majority and only 23% said they were a large majority. In reality, 95% of the population were Arabs.

About 70% of Israelis did not know that the division of the country, according to the United Nations resolution in 1947, gave the Jews, who were a minority, a larger, expanse of territory than that given to the Arabs. (About 1.2 million Arabs received 43% of the country, while about 600,000 Jews received 56% of the territory.)

Looking forward, Professor Bar-Tal underscores that achieving an ultimately peaceful solution will require two fundamentally different narratives than exist today. An eventual lasting peace agreement will involve painful compromises and will need to be based on the conviction that it is better than the alternative and, from an Israeli standpoint, would not harm the security--indeed it would improve the security of the Israeli people. Needless to say, it must grant equal justice and rights to the Palestinian people.

Professor Bar-Tal summarizes his examination of other examples of conflict resolution. He repeats his thesis that they were resolved peacefully "when at least a significant part of society change the narratives they held during the conflict. This happened when a large portion of society realized that the price of the conflict was extremely detrimental to society: in human lives, in its development, in its attempt to achieve prosperity.”

“When this understanding spreads and becomes legitimate, the insight that one can speak with the opponent arises, the same opponent who has been perceived as violent, with whom one does not negotiate. In other words, in order to enable the end of the conflict, it is important to change the way one looks at the opponent in the conflict.”

Professor Bar-Tal concludes with this: “Every major societal change must begin with the construction of new narratives. Societies that wish to set their direction toward democracy, humanizing the ‘other,’ peace, morality and justice must socialize their citizens with these values from a very early age. It is our responsibility and duty to show this road to the nations.”

 

The Source of Anger for Others--Often, Anger for Ourselves

 

I have come to believe that a good part, maybe even the biggest past of the anger and disrespect people show for other people flows from anger and dissatisfaction they feel with THEMSELVES. They are failing in their own self perception to do all they should, to accomplish all they should, to fulfill all they should, to be as good as they should--again in their self perception, often (usually?) mistaken. 

We are own worst enemies when we are not humble enough to recognize our limitations, the fact that we cannot and need not do it all, that we are far from perfect. I plead guilty to this. I feel guilty if I am not "busy". Nonsense. That is a signal of pride, isn't it. 

Said another way, we do not LOVE ourselves enough and hence do not LOVE other people enough.  Does that sound odd to you? Self serving? It could. I am not talking about exclusive love, but inclusive love. In loving ourselves, we love others. I find religion helpful here. The belief that there is a supreme power that supports if not loves (in a human sense) all of us.

Learning from History That Remains Relevant Today

 I finished reading C. Vann Woodward’s The Strange Career of Jim Crow.  It’s a historic book, truly.  It brought home to me, as never before, that absolute segregation did not start, at least to the degree imposed by Jim Crow, until the late 1890s and early 1900s.  Yes, there was racism and a lack of acceptance of social equality.  But even after the Compromise of 1877, Blacks continued to vote, to hold office, and to be together with Whites in many forms of transportation.  In fact, Dejure segregation in many ways was stronger in the North than in the South in the period leading up to the turn of the century. 

 

As Woodward writes, “The South’s adoption of extreme racism was due not so much to a conversion as it was to a relaxation of the opposition.  All the elements of fear, jealousy, prescription, hatred, and fanaticism had long been present, as they are present in various degrees of intensity in any society.  What enabled them to rise to dominance was not so much cleverness or ingenuity as it was a general weakening and discrediting of the numerous forces that had hitherto kept them in check.  The restraining forces included not only Northern liberal opinion in the press and the course of the government, but also internal checks imposed by the prestige and influence of the Southern Conservatives, as well as by the idealism and zeal of the Southern Radicals.”

 

So what changed?  Woodward does not provide a totally convincing answer.  One element which I had never considered was the impact of the acquisitions we made in the late 19^th century in the Pacific and the Caribbean.  They suddenly brought under the jurisdiction of the United States some eight million people of the colored races, “a varied assortment of inferior races which, of course, could not be allowed to vote” as many in the country saw them.  As Woodward writes, “As America shouldered the White Man’s Burden, she took up at the same time many Southern attitudes on the subject of race.”

 

Here was meat for the White supremacy movement.  At the very time that Imperialism was sweeping the country, the doctrine of racism reached a crest of acceptability and popularity among respectable scholarly and intellectual circles.  It became part of the national sentiment.

 

Woodward’s history reveals once again the push and pull of history, how progress almost inevitably results in pushback and fatigue on the part of those who had pushed for change.  We saw that following the three Amendments and enabling civil rights laws of the late 1860s and early 1870s.  We saw it again post the civil rights and voting act bills of 1964 and 1965.  It was accelerated by President Nixon’s “Southern strategy.”  We see it again post the election of President Obama and post the Black Lives movement.

 

A personal reaction to this book is summed up by this question:  “Where was I?”  That’s what I wrote in the margin as I read about the violence that took place in Watts in 1965 and the violence, flaming cities and looting, which took place between 1965 and 1968.  Of course, I know where I was, recently employed at P&G and just married.  How ignorant I was of the seminal change around us. 

 

In so many ways, history repeats itself.  The Brown vs. Board of Education decision rested on the conviction that “separate is not equal.”  Yet, the separation remains, in some ways more in schools than it was at the time of that decision. 

 

It’s striking how the grievances of the “alienated” Whites have continued to be one source of racism.  As Woodward writes, “Unlike upper class Whites, who often sympathized with Black aspirations, the alienated class of Whites resented such advances as Blacks made, opposed government and philanthropic measures on their behalf and denounced the tactics and especially the violence of the Black movement.  They were the neglected, the forgotten.   They bitterly rejected President Johnson’s war on poverty as another handout to Blacks.”  Their champion back in the 1960s was Governor George C. Wallace.  President Trump became the champion in the modern era.  Nixon had his own response, saying:  “It is time for those who make massive demands on society to make minimal demands on themselves.”  It was time for the hysteria to cool, time to appease the South.

 

We are seeing such sentiment today in the reaction to overreaction by the Left.  Words matter.  Calls to “defund the police” come to haunt.  So does the loosely thrown-about term “Critical Race Theory” which, drawn to its originating roots back in 1996, has treacherous linkage with Marxists, all of this making it hard to argue for a truthful and not honor-bashing narrative of our nation’s history.

 

History is filled with ironies.  One told clearly in this great book is how members of the Black leadership themselves became Separatists, lobbying against the very notion of integration.  It reminds me of the blog I wrote recently celebrating the ability to recognize and capitalize on the strength of individual interests without losing sight of a common, united good. 

 

---

Abraham Lincoln Speaks to Us Today

 

Abraham Lincoln Speaks to Us Today--The Greatest Threats to our Nation’s Long-term Health are Internally Imposed, not Externally

President Abraham Lincoln is often cited for his warning about the internal threats to American democracy. The most famous instance of this idea can be found in his Lyceum Address, delivered in Springfield, Illinois, on January 27, 1838. In this speech, Lincoln talked about the dangers that could bring about the downfall of the United States, arguing that these threats were more likely to come from within than from external enemies.

He stated:

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

More than ever, perhaps since the Civil War, those words serve as a warning and call to action for us today. 

In recent years, I have lamented how many adversaries we have turned into existential enemies rather than viewing them as competitors.  Today, our existential enemy list would be headed by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.  Yet, while acknowledging the genuine and serious issues embodied in those threats, if we step back, do we seriously and objectively believe that any of these nations possess the resources, the global appeal, and even the intent, to deny the United States a pre-eminent, even if not unilateral, claim to global leadership?  

 

I don’t think so.

Think about it.  No other country in the world has the resources or power which America has today:  a currency that is convertible and has pride of place in the world's financial markets. Deep pools of capital readily available to stimulate innovation and the formation of new businesses.  The soft power stemming from a university system unmatched in the world.  The appeal, even if tarnished, of America’s culture, no better evidenced than the country’s unique attractiveness as a destination for immigrants.

 

I’m not suggesting we are living in a benign and friendly world, free of conflicts and competition.  We don't. We never have. There are military threats and actions that need to be confronted and economic policies that we need to pursue to ensure that our nation’s natural advantages which stem from the diversity of our people and richness of our resources are allowed to play out fairly.  And, there is one overriding external threat that must be confronted on a global basis:  climate change.  However, with all of that said,  I will argue that the greatest threat to this nation’s future is rooted in our internal governance structure and relationships with one another.  It flows from a number of factors, including: 

 

·       The corruption of our ability to govern effectively, to make happen those things most important to the future, culturally, economically and politically. 

 

Our system of government today is plagued by greater polarization than has existed since the Civil War.  It is fueled by many factors, including social media and fractured news channels that cater to deepening and individual points of view rather than encouraging with conversation.

 

The legitimacy of our government structure is undercut by gerrymandering and by the decline in both institutional and inter-personal trust.

 

·       We are continuing to fail to provide families with the support and implement educational policies and structures to close the long-standing and still-widening gap in work and life preparedness between people of wealth (largely inherited) and those of below-average income.

 

·       We continue to fail to implement an immigration policy that will continue to bring people of talent and ambition to this country as we have in the past.  This is going to be more important than ever in the future to compensate for the declining fertility rates impacting our nation and all of the developed world.

Obviously, confronting and addressing these gaps and challenges represent generational tasks.  They loom larger today than ever.  Above all else, they will call for strong, value-based, personal leadership at every level of government and public service, leadership directed not at bettering one’s personal position but selfless leadership dedicated to strengthening the fabric of this nation so that it will only endure but thrive in the pursuit of the vision which the founders of this nation embarked on 350 years ago.

What Defines the Most Effective Board Members I Ever Worked With

 

Sometime ago, I was asked to write an article for a magazine addressing the question:  “What were the qualities of the finest board members with whom you ever worked?”

 

That was an interesting topic, I thought.  I decided to approach it not by thinking about the qualities I would enumerate.  Instead, I started by identifying the ten finest board members, for profit and non-profit organizations, I had the privilege of working with.  There were close to 100 men and women on that list. It wasn't easy but I selected "the top 10.”  I then stepped back to ask myself a simple question.  “Why did I pick them?  What did they have in common?"

 

Here is what I found:

 

1.         Every one of them approached their board membership as if it were their own company for which they were responsible.  Their attendance and their participation mirrored what I would have expected if they were a member of the management of the company in terms of commitment.

 

2.         Their goal was to support the CEO and management in contributing to sustaining the success of the company and to honor their responsibility to shareholders to protect their interests.

 

3.         These were individuals who, when they spoke up, you listened to them closely.  What they said was likely to be fresh, significant and never said simply to announce to the boardroom that they were present. 

 

4.         They showed courage in speaking up in supporting what might be a controversial board motion or, in some cases, to object to it.  The first board member who speaks in a board meeting carries more than an average amount of weight.  There were many cases when I was CEO when a board member speaking up on a controversial proposal made the day. 

 

5.         They were willing to have a direct conversation with the CEO, usually privately, to provide their advice on an important issue on which they concluded the CEO was struggling.  This is a priceless attribute of a board member.  I can recall instances on boards on which I served going up to the CEO after he/she had made a proposal that was not adopted and telling them that I knew they felt strongly about the issue.  I urged that he go back to the board and make it crystal-clear how important approval of this was to the future of the company.

 

6.         While his or her commitment was to the success of the total enterprise, the strongest board members I worked with usually picked one or two areas where they particularly focused.   One board member I recall focused like a laser on innovation.  Another on insuring that consumers’ in poorer, underdeveloped countries were recognized and served through our product and pricing strategies.  Another that we were doing everything we should to advance the careers of women and minorities.

 

7.         Lastly, these best board members respected and worked well with other board members.  They were not out to show that they were special or that their ideas had to prevail. They were team players even as they maintained their independence. 

 

It would be hard to overstate the value I have seen outstanding board members provide.  This makes it important to choose a board carefully.  It is also vital that the relationship between the CEO and the board be open and transparent.  Boards respond to CEOs who genuinely want their input.  CEOs won’t agree with their board members all the time; sometimes they may even feel they “get in their way.”  But they’re open to input. They seek it.  They value it.  Board members recognize this and they respond.  

 

I’m a great believer in honest, candid annual reviews of board performance carried out by the Chair of the Board or the head of the Governance Committee. The results need to be shared openly in conversation with the CEO and the entire board.

The Decline of Happiness and the Decline of Marriage

David Brooks devoted one of his recent columns to the subject of marriage.  “Marriage, not career, brings happiness” the headline reads.  The sub-headline:  “Intimate relationships affect everything else you do.”

 

Nothing new about that, we’d say. 

 And there are statistics that back it up, and there is another statistic that is alarming in this regard:  the decline and the percentage of adults who are married.  

In 1950, 78% of adults 18 and older were married.  That number has fallen by 30 percentage points.  It is now 48%.  I suspect there is a lot of loneliness and unhappiness tied up in that decline.

 

Last month, a University of Chicago economist, Sam Paeltzman, published a study in which he found that marriage was “the most important differentiator” between happy and unhappy people.  Married people are 30 points happier than the unmarried.  Income contributes to happiness, too.  But not as much.

 

As Brad Wilcox writes in his book, Get Married, “Marital quality is, far and away, the top predictor I have run across of life’s satisfaction in America.  Specifically, the odds that men and women say they are ‘very happy’ with their lives are a staggering 545% higher for those who are very happily married compared with peers who are not married or who are less than happy in their marriages.” 

 

Why has the percentage of adults being married fallen so far? I can’t prove this.  I’m not inclined to identify it as strict “cause and effect,” but I believe this decline in marriage rate relates to two developments over this period:  the increase in incarceration, particularly of men. The overall incarceration rate has increased over four-fold, from 93 inmates per 100,000 in 1950, to 419 today, and the rate among adult men is 10 times higher than women.

 

The other trend is the percentage of adults regularly attending church.  That has declined from a level of about 50% in 1950 to little more than 25% today.  The decline has continued year-to-year.

 

I, of course, am not suggesting that a fully satisfying and rewarding life cannot be lived outside the state of matrimony.  In some cases, being part of a bad marriage is far worse than being single.

 

However, I believe these trends are implicated in the pervasive loneliness and lack of fulfillment so many people feel today.

  

"Can Democracy Work? A Short History of a Radical Idea from Ancient Athens to our World" Author James Miller

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.