 As humans have learned painfully throughout their history, the public sector side of the economy can only operate effectively when it is directed by a democratically elected board—or a parliament. We in the Western nations long ago recognized autocracy in the public sector as poison, no matter how well-meaning the autocrat might be. We hung the kings, or short of that, took their power by force and placed it in the hands of representatives of the people.
We have thereafter more or less enjoyed a pretty good record when it comes to management and direction of the public sector. We do not generally think anyone besides democratically elected representatives should be entrusted with such important matters as the direction of our health and education systems, our police and military forces, and the stewardship of our courts and jails; on that, every voting Canadian in the last federal election from the furthest left to the furthest right completely agrees.
It is also held as inviolable that no matter who you are, what money you have, what status you enjoy, or what family you come from, you should get one vote, which is no more nor no less than everyone else. We all understand that even if it's true that some people know a lot more about government than other people and vote accordingly, while others vote for reasons of hair colour or ethnic origin of last name, the system has worked best in the past, and can only be trusted to work as well into the future, if nonetheless both types get only an equal say in who should be in charge for a limited time.
No one could seriously propose any other type of voting system, and no one can seriously dispute that this system has generally produced remarkably admirable results in the public side of the economy in the 200 or so years since it was first developed.
Curiously, however, when it comes to the other half of the economy, the private half, almost exactly the opposite proposition is said to be just as absolutely true. Where the widest possible distribution of power is without question known to produce dramatically good results in the direction of the public economy, it is widely believed—without question—that the narrowest distribution of power produces the best results in the private economy. The lone entrepreneur is honoured in our society. The maverick CEO is feted. We hold in special regard above all others those private investors who to themselves hoard enough capital to wield power greater than some smaller nations.
Where we have willingly chosen to risk the lives of our most productive male youths on foreign fields of war to battle back the spectre of autocracy in the public economy, we have rolled out the red carpet to worship autocrats in the private economy. What makes us at the same time so deadly sure that autocracy in the public economy is worth dying to prevent, while autocracy in the private economy is worth nearly dying to invite?
This writer has been invited by the Bologna Summer Residence program to travel to Italy this month to examine the economy of Emilio-Romagno. This province, surrounding the great city of Bologna in the north east of Italy, is noteworthy because of the high proportion of co-operative firms in its economy.
Co-operative firms can most easily be distinguished from public sector firms in that they are private and entrepreneurial, like those in the private sector, and can be distinguished from conventional capitalist firms in the private sector in that they are democratically directed, like in the public sector. The economy of Emilio-Romagno, while being utterly dominated by intensive co-operative development, is also one of the most prosperous regions in the entire European Union.
Several articles surrounding the themes of co-operatives, what fuels them, how they grow and how they differ from other economic activity, and how a critical mass of them in a local economy can affect their surrounding society, will appear in the next several issues of The Republic as this writer is exposed to literature, lectures, and tours both in Vancouver and in Italy over the next two months.
The chief questions pursued on this course of inquiry will be these: Does democratization of the private sector economy unlock solutions to the environmental degradation, resource depletion, and social destabilization caused by the conventional capitalist predominance in the private sector? Can the private sector be democratized, and is the establishment of a thriving co-operative economy the means to do so? What are the factors that have generated a healthy co-operative economy elsewhere, and how can these be adapted to our situation in British Columbia and Canada to do the same here?
The Republic invites brief comments as well as article-length submissions around the subject of the economy and co-operatives in particular, and hopes our set of articles in this and following issues serve as fruitful jumping off points to foster the necessary public discussions.
**** |
