The Dialectical Relation Between Institution and Achievement by Mr. Nguyễn
Trần Bạt, Business Executive Hanoi, Vietnam Whichever state or
political system has to answer the question how to develop or how to minimize
risks in the development process. While seeking for solutions, they are
increasingly aware of the role of institution towards development; i.e. a
reasonable institution will speed up and enhance the quality of development and
an unreasonable one will hold back and rot the quality of development. It is really a big and
complicated matter that cannot be analyzed thoroughly within a paper. With such
a way of approaching, we will stop at elucidating the role of institution
towards development by analysing two categories - Institution and Achievement. INSTITUTION, ACHIEVEMENT AND DIALECTICAL ASPECTS
Institution - a
multifaceted complex - have been dissected under various aspects so far. The
most classical definition given by a German economist - Adolph Wagner -
supposed that "Institution is contracts
and statute laws that are ruling the life and man". Doughlas C. North,
who was given Nobel prize for studies of economics and institution in 1993 said
"Institution is limits outlined in
the scope of human abilities and knowledge forming the interactive relations
among human beings". In the early XX century, in Western countries, a
new political trend - institutionalism - emerged; it considered institution to
be any human sustainable alliance established to attain certain goals. This
concept is somewhat like WTO's understanding that institution includes the
three important contents that are game
rules, mechanism and organization. We
are of the opinion that institution is the group of all regulations and is the
product of social negotations. Institution is, thus, by nature a subject
with clear possession; it reflects the political trend choosen by the ruling
party. Different from institution,
achievement
is just a phenomenon; it is an accidental subject, with no clear possession,
thus is very easy to be "appropriated". In many cases, achievements are produced by
the society. However, the authorities trend to considering achievements of the
society his political achievements or accomplishments of his leading
activities; such kind of achievement is often taken as good reason to delay the
process of institutional building and reform. It is what we call
achievementism. Logically, a reasonable
institution will produce achievements and an unreasonable one will not. But
realities show that some unreasonable ones still have achievements; in such
case, achievements belong to the society. Sometimes, the authorities
tendentiously try to create achievements at all costs resulting in what is so
called at-any-cost development - this conclusion will be scrutinized in the
next part. The dialectical relation between institution and achievement is
reflected by the patronization of achievementism over the existence of forces
that restrain the institutional reform process; in other words, when
institution is in an impasse, it will use achievements to protect itself. On
the other hand, the quality of an institution reflects the political degree and
nature of that nation, which is also the basis for the society to decide to
choose leaders. The society cannot opt for political groups by political
achievements but political nature. The ruling party's political nature is
mirrored by the institution that it builds. There is no doubt that a reasonable
institution will promote development; it stimulates political perspacity - the
origin of all achievements in the ruling time of a party. This reflects the
dialectical relation between institution and achievement. The more we are aware
of the importance of institution building, the more drastic should we be in
resisting the use of political achievements to legalize backward aspects of
institution; at a higher level, we must eliminate any purpose of making
political achievements the only instrument to legalize the power of
politicians; otherwise, the humankind will have to face risks in the
development process. Here, some may ask to
explain the difference between a democratic state's political achievements and
an undemocratic one's because an institution will be considered to have
positive impacts on the development process providing that it gains certain
achievements. Actually, in democratic nations, people do not pay much attention
to political achievement but political perspicacity. So, what we should make
clear is the difference between political achievement and political
perspicacity. Political achievements are successes attained by a
politician while he is holding a certain position; political perspicacity is a
needed qualification of every politician, especially those who are in power or
nurture an ambition to have power. With no political perspicacity, a politician
- as a development-strategy-maker - will place his country in face of
unpredictable risks. Certainly, if a politician owns political perspicacity, he
will have more chances to succeed in leading his nation. However, political
achievement does not always result from political perspacity. As analyzed in
the first part, achievements are accidental and to undemocratic states,
achievements are often abused to legalize the ruling position; in such cases,
political achievements do not augur well for development; they are even signals
of risks. On the other hand, only politicians who used to or are holding power
can have political achievements. That is why in undemocratic states, election
is, in essence, a race of political achievements while in democratic ones,
political achievements are always verified by political perspacity.
Nonetheless, the comparison between politcal achievement and political
perspacity is unbalanced; thus, to assure its reasonableness, politicians in
power have to select perspacious factors from their political achievements and
explain them to convince their people and to compare with the political
perspacity of rivals. One of strengths of democracy is that it encourages
political perspacity instead of taking political achievements for granted or
forcing people to acknowledge political achievements. Therefore, if political
perspacity is a standard to select politicians, the society will keep
developing; conversely, if political achievement is the basis of choices, the
society will certainly be in recession because politicians will hunt for
political achievements at all costs, regardless risks, hence making the
development process an unpredictable object.
ACHIEVEMENTISM AND ITS DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES
v
Another approach to achievementism Some theories show that the
demand for being respected is nearly the highest level of the human and
striving for achievements is actually striving for being respected by others.
With such a meaning, could the psychology of striving for achievement be
considered an objective phenomenon with certain positive impacts? To answer this quesiton,
the clarification of the limit between the healthiness and the
unhealthiness of the psychology of striving for achievement is supposed
to be essential. Without the thirst for achievements, the human will have no
objectives. The way one produces achievements to prove that he is conquering
his ambition is absolutely different from that of stealing others' achievements.
On the other hand, the achievement attained by human being's awareness or
aspriation is not like achievementism. It is the limit between the healthiness
and unhealthiness of the psychology of striving for achievement. Besides, the healthiness of
the pyschology of striving for achievements is also regulated by the
achievement-hunted motivation. If the motivation is not reasonable, it will
engender an absurdity and if the absurdity is realized, it will be our task to
eliminate it from our life. A man of no ideal will have no value but it will be
more dangerous if he pursues a wrong ideal. In fact, many ideals which have
been exploited in a wrong manner have lost prestige. And when human being
cannot suffer from their wrong exploitation of ideals any more, they will
replace idealism by pragmatism. Pragmatism is thought to be pre-eminent but
it is only better than the wrong idealism. The idealism in our age is
freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy make men as long as the society
self-balance. As long as men could self-balance, no longer could individual
mistakes exist. Logically, if the society could self-balance, societal mistakes
would disappear or in other words, it would self-overcome its mistakes.
Whichever institution that can create such two parallel capacities will
certainly lead to the formation of a healthy society - where every individual
self-surmounts his extremenesses and the society self-repairs its defects. Moreover, the psychology of
striving for achievements will be a positive factor if it is the product of
progressive trends especially those that can assure the balance between
politics and phylosophy. If men's aspritation is not balanced, it is impossble
for them to create products of aesthetic or ideal quality. If the imagination
is morbid, it will give birth to distortional products and the at-any-cost
creation of distortional products will end in destruction; yet, without ideals,
men will be valueless and there wil be no development. Therefore, the most
important thing is the imaginative or spritual quality of men when creating achievements.
Nevertheless, not all
objective factors are correct and healthy. A mistake in man's imagination, if
not prevented, may become a measurable bunder. It is the transformation of
mistakes in awareness into mistakes in realities. If man thinks in a wrong
manner, he will have wrong actions which, in turn, will engender a wrong
substance or product. The realization of wrong thoughts is a negative process
of the social life. This process is in parallel and is even more vehement than
the process of creating the right. Still, the strength of the right with a
small amount can overcome the wrong with a big amount; put it in another way,
the quantity of the wrong is much bigger than that of the right, but the
quality of the right can dominate the quantity of the wrong; thanks to which,
the society can develop in a balanced manner.
v
Disastrous consequences of achievementism
Discussing
achievementism, some may ask why it has tenaciously existed so far. Many
reasons are explainable to this fact, firstly, it is an objective psychology as
analyzed above; secondly, it comes from the authorities' incomprehensive
awareness of the role of institution towards the development process; and
finally, it results from the ruling party's lack of achievement for the
present, so in order to legalize their position as the ruling party, they have
to allege political achievement as the past products. For this reason, some
countries cannot escape from their past. It is surprising that many present
ruling parties are too purposeful to realize that the achievement of the past
ruling parties do not have any relation with their political perspicacity and
they cannot replace their political perspicacity by the experience of the past. In addition, the mission
of the politician is to lead his society to the next stages of development.
Therefore, the politician has to prove his capacity by his political
perspicacity or by the rationality of his leading instruments. Nonetheless,
some politicians, who have neither political perspicacity nor the ability to
convince people of their political perspicacity, have to allege political
achievements, and that results in the psychology of political achievement
hunting. For these reasons, achievementism is exploited as one among political
instruments replacing the essential rationality of the leading process. It is
ominous because if the authorities try to use achievements in various phenomena
of life instead of building and reforming institution, it will make the society
an unpredictable object and the authorities will gradually lose his
society-leading ability. Cultural difference between
democratic and undemocratic states is also a fator resulting in the
interminable and legal existence of achievementism. While the democratic only
chase themselves, the undemocratic always pursue their "neighbours", which contributes to producing the trend of
legalizing the ruling position by political achievements; in turn, it will lead
to slow development or an imbalance between the spirtual and the material life;
this imbalance itself is the biggest risk in the development process. It can be
asserted that the very weakness of the undemocratic is its lack of a system of
standards on happiness, so human issues are neither analyzed nor explained
comprehensively. This weakness creates favourable conditions for the democratic
to substitute political achievements for the legality and rationality of
institution, not realizing that they are facing the biggest risk in the
development process - that is the disappearance of human factors or the
"degeneration" of the spiritual life. It is the first
consequence of achievementism. The second consequence of
achievementism lies in the policy of development at all costs. Let us
take China for example. In recent time, the world has witnessed China's hot or
uncontrollable growth. As calculated, China now consumes 7% of the world oil
outcome, 31% of the world coal outcome and 27% of the world steel outcome. In
2003, it lacked 10 millions KW electricity and it is predicted to be short of
20 millions KW electricity in 2004. These figures engender a feeling that China
is like a giant glue cauldron while its investors and manufacturers are all
standing beside to make it become the world's most-energy-consumed country at
an alarming speed. The Chinese cannot understand why their leaders try to lower
the economic development speed to around 8% while they used to strive for 12%.
Some realize that development itself contains destruction. The development of
the Chinese economy is, thus, a risk to the whole world. By showing the two
direct consequences of achievementism, we can come to a conclusion that
achievementism is the origin of all risks in the development process. Our task
now is to answer the question that which institution can control achievementism
as the source of all risks in the development process. WHICH INSTITUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT?
Democratic institution is
asserted to be the only management mechanism that can generate development in
its true meaning. Some may ask why others still produce development. We should
think that, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between growth and
development. Growth is purely the
increase of material values while development is the betterment of both
material and spritual life. The limitation of other kinds of institution is
that it does not give a high respect for human factors making them fail to
assure development quality. What other kinds of institution produce is not
development but growth and they are now suffering from it. That is why we have
no other choice but to to build a national and even a global democratic
institution to manage risks of the development process. It is needless to use
rhetorics to describe a democratic institution because its strengths are proved
convincingly by the amazing development of Western countries who did receive
Monstesquieu, Diderot and Voltaire's thoughts of freedom and democracy a long
time ago. In this paper, we would have a look at three reasons making democracy
an universal value, namely democratic institution as the premise to build the
state of law - where the law is dominant, democratic institution as the only
mechanism making the development process a predictable object, and democratic
institution as the environment of peaceful collapsing scenarioes. Democratic institution - The premise
to build the state of law
First of all, it is
necessary to clarify the term of the state of law. One of the most popular
understanding is the state of law is a democratic state committed to the
principle of the supremacy of the law, i.e. the state is allowed to do what the
law permits and people are allowed to do what the law does not forbid. A
society will be considered to be ideal as long as it is regulated by the law
with the nature of social contracts, in other words, the law is the supreme
regulation ruling the whole social life. It should be asserted that a democratic
state is the only one where laws are social contracts because in the democratic
state, all men have the right to discuss equally all things regulating their
life. The most important
difference between the democratic state's law and the undemocratic one's is
that, the former protects human rights while the latter almost protects the
rights of the representatives - or the state's rights. The protection
of the representatives' rights is quite dissimilar from that of human rights.
It is obvious that the civil society is established as well as human rights are
assured. The civil society is the surface manifestation of the democratization
process. It is the democratization process that gives birth to the civil
society and it is only the civil society that can create the natural quietness
for man with all his rights to live and develop. In the civil society, all
objects are under the supremacy of law. Law ensures the living environment of
the human in the civil society of which the prerequisites are the ownerships,
the inviolable rights of man, freedom, politics, the owner of social status and
the legal system. Without the inviolabilities, neither the democratic society
nor the political life can develop. If the political life is undeveloped, the
people will not be mobilized in a balanced manner and the society, thus, cannot
develop. Democratic institution - The mechanism to manage risks in the development
process
Development is a complex
function including many factors like natural resources, labour, population
communities, human being, culture, nature, history, etc. These factors must be
organized and co-ordinated to build institution; institution, in turn, will
produce development. Democracy creates equal conditions for every individual to
participate in the development process making individuals' contributions predictable
parameters. It is also democracy that will objectively verify factors
supporting the development process and answer the question that how long each
factor can have positive impacts on the development process; based on which, it
will create reasonable updating and recharging cycles to assure that no factor
can hold back the development process or degrade the quality of the development
process. The nature of democracy is likely to create the moderateness as well
as the sensibleness of the development. Ungrounded political ambitions or
political achievements - or the origin of the thought of at-any-cost
development - are not good instruments to measure the rationality of the
development. That is why the undemocratic development will engender
the uncontrolableness of the development process. Putting the two factors -
democracy and development - in a certain relation will reveal controlling
factors; i.e. it will enkindle the demand for building a global institution to
control the development in the world and in the valley of big economies;
otherwise, human being will have to face repercussions of the Chinese-styled
at-any-cost development. It is a must to answer the question that how to build
a global institution to manage risks of economies whose leaders are taking
political achievements as their legal fulcrum? Whether WTO, with its strict
requirements on a market economy, can fulfil this mission? These are big
questions that must be answered in the early decades of the XXI century for
human being's development. Democratic institution - The environment of peaceful collapsing scenarioes
Let us analyze the concept
of the collapse of government. One of
strengths of a democratic institution is that it asserts the people's power; in
other words, it facilitates the people to adjust the political trend or the
political quality of the society via their selection of the ruling party. In
turn, the ruling party will run policies to make the society develop under the
chosen tendency. Therefore, the people becomes the most exact measurement of
the ruling party's political rationality. If the people mistakenly select their
rights-protectors or representatives, they will make another choice resulting
in the collapse of government. Term is the most peaceful form of collapse,
i.e. if the govermnet falls in the deadlock, the democratic institution will
provide some collapsing technology and liberate communities from ties by
putting an end to the ruling term normally or abnormally that forms the
collapse of various periods of the state. It is the very strength of the
democracy - where political mistakes are not dragged on; i.e. both the power
and the risk are under a sensible control and the society does not have to
suffer from the mistake of an individual or a group. The collapse of government
is actually a normal phenomenon in conformity with the development rule.
Obviously, any development is to experience a process of selection and
discharge of unbefitting factors. Nevertheless, it is required to build
peaceful collapsing scenarioes to assure that the collapse of government does
not cause heavy damages; as long as fulfilling this mission, we will not have
to face the disintegration of a community or a nation. Here, we would like to
emphasize that, a peaceful collapsing scenario must be designed based on the diversity
of the development life or the pluralism in other words, which is
proved by many theories including Marx's theory, especially Marx's philosophy
with his analyses of the dialectic development rule. A dialectical development
consists of the internal movement of a factor and the interaction of a factor
with others; if we deny the pluralism, we will then deny a very important
dialectic factor that is the interation of a factor with others. For this
reason, the acknowledgment of the uniqueness of any factor will eliminate the
diversity while the diversity is a natural attribute of the life. In sum, all
above analyses take us to a conclusion that the democratic institution is the
only environment of peaceful collapsing scenarioes; in other words, it is the
only milieu that makes the diversity of life become a necessary and sufficient
condition to build the Theory of Development.
CONCLUSION
We are now living in a
world where democracy is increasingly proved to be the dominant trend. For this
reason, to be a part of the world, to develop healthily as well as to succeed
in controlling risks in the development process and in building peaceful
collapsing scenarioes, every nation has no other choice but to establish and
perfect its democracy. It is also an evidence of cooperation - one among most
important political norms in the modern world.
[ BWW Society Home Page ] © 2015 The Bibliotheque: World Wide Society |