Home page Freedom, individualism & institutions dangerous territory There is a need to maintain a practical spirit of innovation geared to enabling people to enhance the human condition. Knowledge and know how are basic components in managing the achievement of a better future. The process of individual, social and economic development involves understanding individual aspirations, identifying the necessary resources and actions to satisfy these and actually implementing desired change. And yet individual human motivations for change represent preferences which often differ from the idealized values of the institutions formed to manage the affairs of man. Institutions, in this context, include any group organization of administrations, governments, international aid agencies, companies, non governmental organizations, political parties, religious organizations and current 'schools of thought' which shape 'policy'. Too often, 'progress' is believed to only be feasible when there is an 'institutional order' to provide a cohesive force for social stability. This has been a traditional practice which has given rise to the development of an institutional 'etiquette' and a general tendency towards a desire for 'sameness'. This has resulted in the identification and use of 'idealized institutional values' as common preferential objectives of economics, religion and society. But within this cultural perspective an individual's worth or value becomes modified and degenerates into a measure of the degree to which he or she expresses or upholds these institutional 'values'. And so when one reviews the many political and religious institutions which exist one can identify clear differences in the way people behave which are largely institutionally based as opposed to being based upon the free individual expression outside the bounds of institutional process. It is important to recognise that the desire for sameness, very much promoted by institutions, is a lowest common denominator approach to human behaviour. It is an attempt to absorb differences through assimilation so that the institution's adherents become like thinking and even like acting. And yet we know that institutions are never consistently competent. As Thorstein Veblen once observed, institutions were formed to address the conditions of the past, and therefore, are never fully in tune with the conditions of the present. It is common for those working within institutions to see their individual role as achieving 'success' within the institution. So the overall objective of an institution is secondary to the fact that the institution has provided an individual with a job and, within the institution, status. This quite often leads to the activities of institutions including things for which the institution was never formed to undertake. As a result larger institutions are seldom free from corruption of purpose and from egoistic inter-personal discrimination associated with the desire for different individuals within them to gain more power, influence and status. This often leads to decisions which are inappropriate to the stated aims of an institution and invariably, therefore, to wasted resources. In very large organizations this internal corruption continues unabated because of a political reluctance to impose stricter controls over those working within them. This is because there is often, within the organization, a recognition that the degree of corruption is such as to have taken the institution far from its original or currently declared purpose. In such cases there is an increasing mismatch between what an institution declares as it's objectives and achievements and the reality. And yet, institutionalism remains the main means of management of human society. In 1989, the confrontation of the dogmas of communism and capitalism was replaced by a pervasive institutionalism characterized by an increasingly monolithic, and unsubtle, social control through larger and more powerful institutions. In the political sphere this process has been associated with institutions representing less and less the interests of those they claim to serve. Political parties which expound the benefits of participatory democracy rise to power with massive majorities through a corrupt voting system which enables private institutions with virtually no public membership to gain absolute rule over the majority whilst gaining less than 25% of the electorate's support in a general election. The result is that political parties, as institutions, play a cynical destructive game which only concentrates on gaining power over the majority whilst giving very little thought to representing the individual preferences of the population. This institutionalism is an oppressive collectivism which remains intolerant of individualism; this is a perilous situation. Perhaps the most pernicious drive towards collectivism can be seen in the irresponsible and brutal application of political party whips to force MPs to follow the party line; this overall criminal behaviour censors politicians and destroys the ability of MPs to represent their constituents in a transparent fashion. It also seeks to prevent open dissent on the part of MPs who do no agree with decisions or the direction a political party is moving in government, especially when they do not seem to uphold the preferences of the population in general. Individualism is being eroded and, with this, the initiative of the productive spirit is being suppressed. Individual motivation is being goaded to serve institutional interests. In a growing void, humanity, applying controlled institutional values, drifts towards an uncertain future in the collective. Institutions become ends in themselves, micro worlds, each with their own values devoid of practical relevance to individuals. Political power is normally exercised through institutions to achieve actions, which often have not been demanded by the majority and as a result enfeebles the impact and final relevance of political programs to the majority. The brand of intellectualism, which often underpins institutionalized cultural values, reinforces this collectivist inertia through intolerant attitudes, sometimes to quite minor cultural issues. Such proclamations by blinkered politicians reflect a serious lack of comprehension of the meaning and importance of individual freedom because people are placed in a position which encouraged them to be slow to question and become fearful of expressing dissent. Most intellectual and practical contributions which oppose the viewpoints of the institution, become targets for marginalisation. This cultural debasement effectively resists considerations of the finer detail of intimate individual human needs. The system, therefore, becomes less capable of contributing to the enhancement the human condition. Individualism's innovative productivity needs to be cultivated by society for human ends. Individuals, as a primary right, need to be protected from institutional forces which would constrain or silence them. The status of individuals needs to be upheld to be above that of institutions. For institutions, to gain any equality of status with individuals, requires operational transparency and freedom from incompetence, corruption, discrimination and crime. Above all, we need a politics which proactively spurns institutions which do not trust people. People have a natural diversity of individual interests largely founded upon family culture and these can never fit into some neat institutional value set. This is why the current attempts to regiment and enforce a collective attitude by a minority of fanatics who happen to govern, on the whole of society, as a basis for 'problem solving' is unacceptable. It is evident that this display of shallow intellectualism, masquerading as a "discussion", is no more than the latest tactic to be thought up by increasingly isolated pro-collectivists as a way to preserve their illegitimate power.