Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is promising voters she will bring her Silicon Valley success to Sacramento if elected this November. This would be a valuable guarantee if business and democracies operated under the same general principles.
News flash: they don't.
Many arguments may lead one to conclude that government and the private sector are plausible substitutes for one another. It's easier to see differences when examining their definitions.
As defined by Dictionary.com, a democracy is "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."
Simple enough.
Dictionary.com also defines business in several ways, though the following definition is the most applicable to the discussion: "a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern."
With both definitions on the table, it's obvious that these two entities are difficult to compare.
But how could this be? The public versus private struggle has plagued the legislature, campaigns and economic lessons for decades. Should we bow-down and praise the movement of the invisible hand? Or should we impose heavy regulation, locking down the free market?
It reminds me of my younger days as a feisty, rebellious and admittedly annoying teenage girl stuck in a constant power struggle with my curfew-enforcing mother. But the frustrating and passionate arguments with my mom usually left me puffy-eyed rather than powerful, because in the end, she was the boss. She was exhausted and stressed after dealing with a self-centered adolescent, but still, she was the boss.
My analogy is cloudy, so I'll offer a hypothetical situation to better define my point. Imagine a world where we all consider ourselves brothers and sisters. But, as siblings, we have a unique opportunity to select one mother to govern us. Perhaps, we will also have the chance to elect a father, aunts, uncles, and grandparents to aid our Mom when making decisions. Nonetheless, the elders (or the elected officials) have the power that we have so carefully given to them.
As children (or business owners) our elders want us to grow and prosper. They want to go around to all the other parents (whether counties, states, or nations) and say "Hey, look what my kid can do!" Meg Whitman, the CEO, was a child prodigy.
The mother has power to correct us when we are doing wrong. If a particular brother/sister is hurting another sibling, they may receive a deserved time-out. If a particular citizen is taking advantage or exploiting other citizens, they may need to serve some hard time.
But what if the mother is wrongfully punishing child? Let's not forget that in this hypothetical world, we give away the power by selecting who is in charge. Unlike the real-world, we can replace our mother with a better, more ethically sound candidate.
If you personally don't like your mother, fortunately in this family there are many ways for your opinions and thoughts to be heard. But if you can't change the majority of your siblings minds to work to your advantage, then tough shit. What Mom says, goes.
When it comes to public v. private, there really shouldn't be any competition, like with the hypothetical parent/child relationship. In the end, the public has the power. Why? Because that is what we, as a democracy, decided. We as as a whole are the public. No doubt that the private sector, like children, have rights, but they're not the almighty entity.
Neither side can exist without the other. Well, I guess kids could live without their parents a la Lord of the Flies, but that didn't work out too well.
Both sides play pivotal parts though the roles are completely different. I guess the question now is will Meg Whitman, as a successful child, be a successful parent? I'm not saying there she couldn't be a good government leader, but there is no guarantee with her past that she will.
Nicely done and well thought out. Nice comparisons and analogies, too.
ReplyDeleteThe parent-child, business-democracy notion is well stated.
And this paragraph is excellent:
"It reminds me of my younger days as a feisty, rebellious and admittedly annoying teenage girl stuck in a constant power struggle with my curfew-enforcing mother. But the frustrating and passionate arguments with my mom usually left me puffy-eyed rather than powerful, because in the end, she was the boss. She was exhausted and stressed after dealing with a self-centered adolescent, but still, she was the boss."
In government (say, the City of Sacramento), people talk about that they are in administration rather than management.
That's because democracy is administrative, business is management.
I'm going to be thinking about this concept all day now... Thanks, I think?