The foundation of good development: rule of law and transparancy
Regional, Editorial, 9/16/1999

Preface: The world at this moment in time is undergoing and will continue to undergo dramatic transitions in a short period of time. This is due to a multitude of factors that are technological, political, and economic. These transitions will hit hardest on countries that are sandwiched between the highly-undeveloped countries, where they will not feel much of the transition, and the highly-developed where they have acquired the political and economic instruments to deal with this change.

Hardest hit will be those in between, where neither the political nor economic tools are advanced enough to allow them to manage this transition as smoothly as others will. This will lead to disruptions that can be avoided if strong and willing leadership sees the problem, and decides to act early. We see the sad political and economic manifestations of this as realignments on all levels take place, and the manifestation of this in ugliness and brutality and civil strife of how people treat others that they once called fellow citizens or neighbors, and we see the economic misery that much of the world still suffers from unnecessarily. We believe that humans with knowledge can set themselves free of these miseries and behaviors. We believe that we are not bound by history, but have at a very low cost the tools that would elevate humanity and its view of itself. We have learned enough to understand some very basic and fundamental concepts, that when adopted, will do miracles to improve the social lives of citizens at the very least, and to enrich them economically at the very best.

These several coming articles are solely addressed to those who have seen the problem, and are looking for solutions. We hope that you will find them useful. (End of preface)

Time and again, developing countries find themselves in search of a solution to a multitude of problems that engulf them. These social, political, economic problems exacerbate and feed on each other to create a vicious cycle that seems to be immune to all the quick fixes recommended by experts, world bodies, and all the "Band-Aid" size economic help and measures they receive.

The social problems tend to be the result of poverty and/or inequity in the economic and political system, and the political problems tend to compound due to the political system's reaction to those demanding change in the system. And in turn, the gridlock, the attitudes and policies developed in this kind of environment have shown that they result in policies that are poor in quality and always consist of half measures at best that are meant to appease some at the cost of the system as whole.

And so everyone is in search of a magic pill that breaks these violent and negative cycles of development in the social, political and economic fields.

Why should you do it? Well, if the country is not satisfied with its economic, political and social development performance, then clearly, that is the reason why consideration for change and reform should be considered.

Everyone loves change, but so long as someone else has to do it. It is fun to talk about, but implementation brings great concern and fear. Will the results hoped for be achieved? Will we end up with chaos? Will we end up worse off than when we started? How do we transition from the current system that we know to a new system that we do not know? These are questions that are legitimate.

A bird living in the high mountains has different needs and develops differently from one that has the desert as its environment or from one that has the sea as its environment.

The same tree will grow differently in different soils and locations, and different trees will grow the same in different soils.

With this semi-sensical biological analogy, the point is that social norms and habits are different and are the result of many factors. Rather than having to address them in each culture or country that is interested in development and reform to reach its maximum potential, it is best to look at the fundamental factors that are most often overlooked, as we strongly believe these factors to be the most essential part of any strategy for healthy development.

These factors encompass politics and economics and cultural development, and we will address them in turn. They include such concepts defined by the terms "rule of law" and "transparency" and "social wealth" etc.

"Rule of law" is a fairly well-defined and understood term in and of itself. It means the supremacy of the law over any individual and all individuals. It, therefore, implies that the laws will be fair, that is, they will be good. It does not say anything in particular about any particular law. It is equally important to understand what the "rule of law" is not. The "rule of law" is not a specific political system, such as democracy, or monarchy, or communism, or socialism. It simply means that everyone under the law is treated the same, and that the law has precedence over all. It says nothing about the kind of government or its form. But the "rule of law" will invariably lead to governments and societies that have certain "civil" characteristics that we will not get into. Remember, the laws can be bad, and under such "rule of law," you are not likely to have a good society. But you will still be living in a society that lives by "the rule of law!" Clearly here, we mean good laws. Laws that are seen by a free society as fair.

The problem, as history and current development shows, is that the concept of the rule of law is hardly ever implemented or implemented well. This is because the history of a nation usually imprisons its future development preventing genuine reform (i.e. a break with the past). Not every country has the luxury of implanting itself on a new island and starting fresh without the historical baggage that the society has to carry with it. Even when revolutions come along, they rarely care to implement this concept. The culture ends up shaping the revolution rather then the other way around. Much "rapid change" is made and much gain is established shortly after the revolution. But all without a change in the "culture" of the people or the revolution itself. So we see change, but it is always incomplete. The kind of change we will call "planned change."

"Planed change" is characterized by an engineer, seeing a specific problem, and applying a specific solution to it. This yields immediate and noticeable results. If for example the problem is that the peasants don't have enough water for their needs of drinking and plantation, then the government may import the technology and engineers from the another country to the area to bring advanced desalination equipment or dig a deep well to provide the water. The problem and the solution are well defined in this case. That is a "strong solution" to the problem because the problem is limited and well defined and so is the solution. The citizens are sure to be very happy in the short term as they get the water and see immediate and satisfactory results. What may happen down the line if the equipment breaks or if the well dries is an issue we will not deal with (those with experience in the field of development know the problem well).

But there could be another solution to this problem, a "weaker solution," that uses local resources. Water may be brought in through a canal system from a far-off lake in the country, using low-level technology of pipes and canals. This may take a longer time to develop, but is more sustainable, and technically maintainable at the skill level of the population.

This solution has a multitude of additional side benefits as well. It requires technology that the local labor can provide, increasing employment, is environmentally healthier so as not to spoil the poor country's environment that depends on tourism as a source of income. This is a "weaker solution" in that it takes a longer time to achieve the goal, but the results are better because of the additional benefits and is of longer duration.

Yet another solution to this problem is to create a university and have an engineering department, and then when enough of those engineers graduate, they will solve this problem (they could choose any solution, including any of the previously mentioned). But they will also be capable of solving many additional problems facing the country as well! But this is a very long-term solution, and in the long term, we are all dead, and no one has that much patience. This last solution is even "weaker" than the previous solutions. But again, its benefits are even more widespread and much longer lasting.

You can start to see the pattern, and you can start to see the trade off between a "strong solution" that is very specifically oriented to solve a single problem in a short period of time versus a "weak solution" that solves many problems and is very sustainable and works for the long term but has a longer maturation period.

Yet another solution to this problem that is "weaker" still is that since the government cannot afford to build a university, because of its poor budget, due to its poor economy, the government can implement laws that will foster economic growth, and that in turn, this will lead to more money in the economy, that leads to more taxes allowing the government to build the university. And the university will create engineers. And the engineers will find solutions to problems...... This solution is even "weaker," and will take much longer to mature, but results and benefits are even more widespread and longer lasting.

Yes, we are beating a dead horse here. But there is a good reason for that -- a very good reason. Few seem to be implementing what is so clearly understood!

This last solution of implementing good laws that foster economic prosperity has a surprising cost. It costs nothing financially to pass good laws. It takes a willing parliament or a president or king or whoever, to say, we pass this law. If this analysis makes any sense, the benefits can be very large, and long-lasting.

How does it effect the government, the opposition, and the citizenry?

Well, the public and opposition nowadays will be very happy to receive these laws. The opposition also in every country, be it open or secret, in the country or outside, base there political movements on similar demands. "Rule of law" and "transparency" undermine the claim of any opposition group or for that matter the government or any citizen to the right to seek violence as an instrument of change in a society, since the system will be seen as "fair" to every citizen alike and where everyone is granted "due process" (whatever that process is). So making such a change will be well-received by the opposition and citizens.

Here, we are assuming that the leaders "want" to reform and see it as in their interest to do so. Otherwise, those in power will see an even greater threat from such a change, as it will be viewed as undermining their power. But, even this kind of thinking is wrong, especially if you know that change is inevitable and is coming.

If one resists an inevitable change, one merely lets pressure build higher and higher in the system, till change happens suddenly and with greater energy and disruption, resulting in damage to the society and the government.

This leads us to the fact that when reform is to be done, whether due to enlightened government or due to other forces of change that are imposing themselves on a society (such as globalization), we see the need for a transition phase that allows for a "smooth" transition from one state to another.

Here we begin to see that even for the government, if it understands that change is coming and inevitable and transitions have to be made, then surely, it is best that this be done properly. And here we can begin to address how "the rule of law" and "transparency" are good not only for the peasant, but also for those in power, as adopting these measure serves to open valves in the system to relieve stress from it, to avoid disruptive change. These measures are also the very things needed to protect, those in power once they are out of power, as the "rule of law" protects all, even those who are out of power.

Here we see that the best protection for those in power is the absolute application of the law in a nondiscriminatory fashion. So what was thought to be the enemy ("the rule of law"), becomes the ruler's best friend in times of change, and especially in times of certain change. In plain and simple terms, the best way to protect oneself, is to make sure that when you are in power, you protect the laws that protect the individual, because when you are out of power, just a citizen, then you will be guaranteed protection as well. So, establish the rules of the game while you are in power and don't need them, not when one is out of power and needs those same rules. That is everyone's best salvation and the greatest source of stability a government can bestow upon itself and its society. This way, everyone is guaranteed equal treatment and justice, and there is not as much fear that the other guy will come to power and do so and so arbitrarily. The fear becomes limited to that of losing a job or an ego and not much more, thus making political transitions possible.

We can see this problem now where entire societies' development hangs in the balance because political transitions are not possible because the system is so rigid and does not flex and bend and where fear is that if I am not in charge, or if we are not in charge, then god help us, because someone else will be in charge, and what will they do to us? The rule of law takes away all the rigidity of political systems and allows the system to bend without breaking and allows energy to dissipate without doing any harm.

So here again, we see that "the rule of law" serves many functions. It serves to make the political field "fair," thus removing all major tensions from the political system, and it makes for a great business environment, as businesses too, just like citizens, can expect fair and equitable treatment between themselves, or with the government.

But the rule of law is one component.

Transparency, is the flip side of the rule of law! Transparency means openness. And without it, it is not possible to have "the rule of law." Transparency provides the most essential ingredient for any society to function properly, it provides and makes available unbiased data and information, and thus transparency "civilizes" the "rule of law" which can become oppressive by leading a society in the wrong direction.

Data is at the heart of all decision making processes. It is the information needed to draw upon to make judgments and decisions and allocate resources. You need data to decide what car to buy, where to work, how to design a plane, where to build a road system, etc.....

Without data, you have lack of knowledge, and automatically, poor decision-making by those lacking the data. Therefore, for citizens, businesses, and governments to make proper decisions, data should be readily available on all aspects. Transparency tells a citizen (or a business entity) if the governmental department or body is functioning well or being mismanaged, and tells that same citizen (or business entity) if a business is managed well or not and is worth investing in. Data empowers citizens to punish (by voting for or against) bad institutions and businesses and reward good institutions and businesses (by buying or not their products or shares). This unleashes the needed disciplinary forces to create good systems that produce good results, good government, wealth, and therefore social and political stability that in and of itself produces better economies that produces better educational system that produce more.......... Well, you get the point. It produces a virtuous and self-sustaining positive cycle.

So "transparency" is essential too and goes hand-in-hand with the "rule of law," and both are necessary conditions for proper development. They are also a sufficient condition for development. The problem is that the "sufficient" part acts slowly. As we have seen, these solutions are "extremely weak" solutions, meaning that they are very good, but for the economic side, they can take some time to mature and bring about the desired effects. On the economic side, we will address the policies of how to speed up considerably economic development (future edition). The political and social effects will be "much" more visible in a "much" greater period of time. It can be visible instantaneously if political leaders choose to.

These are some of the criteria needed for proper development at a very fundamental level. These basic concepts unleash and self-organize the other needed forces in a society that will result in proper development. This is the farmer preparing the ground and making it fertile, but not telling you what to plant or how. No good farmer will plant without preparing the soil for good yield, so that every seed or plant that falls on the ground stands best chance of growing, and growing well. These seeds are humans and business entities. Otherwise, you have a barren land, where life will always grow, but it is not the kind that we desire.

To summarize: Rule of law and transparency are supremely positive measures that if implemented correctly produce positive results for any society that wishes to maximize its potential. Their positive results are widespread, long-lasting and self-sustaining. The social and political results can mature quickly, and the economic results are slower acting. However, the economic results can be speeded up considerably with additional measures that we will address later.

We hope that we have hinted clearly at the benefits of adopting these measures. There is resistance to every change, and transition itself if it is too rapid and not implemented properly can lead to greater problems and instability. There are those who claim they are for change or will use the rhetoric of change to do harm. There are those who will indulge in unreasoned and uninformed rhetoric that is equally destructive to reform in its early stage where the political and social institutions have not been practiced and strengthened enough to absorb such open dialogue in developing countries. The most unproductive discussions are shouting matches, where no one hears anything, or what is being heard has little to do with a reasoned and informed discussion of the subject.

So next, we will talk about the difficult tasks surrounding transitions and implementation of the "rule of law" and "transparency."

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search