Kevin Jae, a member of our Emerging Fellows program inspects the facilitating role of international organizations in migration through his sixth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
International migration is facilitated by pre-existing institutional structures, which guide migratory desires to end destinations. Even illegal migrations are defined as such because they are transgressions against the formal institutional structure. Institutional structures run the gamut from national policy to large political unions like the European Union that enable movement of people and labour.
International organizations serve various roles in this structure. There are organizations like the European Union that serve as a legal and governing framework to manage the flow of migration. There are organizations like the International Organization for Migrants (IOM) that provide services and counselling for governments and migrants, helping potential migrants navigate through dense bureaucratic structures. Other organizations from all different political persuasions try to change the system: an example is the Migrant Rights Network, which advocates for migrant rights and protections. All these international organizations form a relatively stable equilibrium of competing interests that result in small changes and reforms to the structures in place.
However, there are Events in history that overwhelm the status quo. These require a rewriting of the global playbook and a reconstruction of established institutional structures. One such Event that occurred was World War II, which led to a displaced population of over 60 million people. Most of the affected were on the European continent. It is important to note that—according to the UNHCR—our contemporary displacements have only recently overshadowed this number in 2015. (This is only the displaced population of refugees, and does not include the general population of migrants worldwide.)
Confronted with the daunting prospect of accommodating these displaced peoples, international organizations managed migrations through laws like the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which granted the right to asylum and the right to other protections for displaced peoples fleeing from a “well-founded fear of being persecuted.” Moreover, new international institutions were founded, like the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in 1943. This institution is the origin of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that manages international refugees today. These international structures still inform the processes for the current international response to our current migrations.
While the current international structures might seem rigid and slow to change, large-scale crises have created international organizations to radically transform global and national institutional structures to meet migratory exigencies. Our current historical moment provides a cogent example of rapid structural change. In a matter of a few months, the coronavirus pandemic has overwhelmed the previous international logics of globalization. Nation-states are repatriating both citizens and supply chains from abroad, and closing down borders, restricting entry to foreign nationals. While there are hopes for a rapid return to the “normal,” such dreams are yet uncertain: will international flows of people return to levels seen in the past?
Similar crises in the future may prompt a response that is similar in kind. One large question mark looms in the horizon. While we previously critiqued climate change for obscuring the multi-factored nature of international migrations, climate change will create a crisis in one possible future. The mediascape reminds us of this possibility almost daily. For example, a recent The Guardian article title reads “One billion people will live in insufferable heat within 50 years.” Where will these people go if their homes become uninhabitable?
How will the world respond to a scenario like this? A quick read into the past suggests that a response is not confined to limitations of current international structures. If such a crisis does arise, then completely new international organizations and a new institutional structure could emerge to replace the structures of the past. Of course, this does not promise to be a frictionless and conflict-free process.
Ruth Lewis a member of our Emerging Fellows program checks the possibility of re-defining liberty in her twelfth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
For thousands of years, humankind’s generational evolution has been slow and steady, the narrative informed by the wisdom or misdeeds of the past. In the present there is constant change, systemic complexity and uncertainty. This has bred an atmosphere of fear for the future, fear of losing control, fear for our personal liberty, and fear of the ‘other’. People strive to create economic wealth and political certainty, making false assumptions and implementing technological systems without due consideration of the social ethical, environmental, legal or human rights factors. This striving for certainty actually undermines our personal liberty and our individual dignity.
In the future, personal liberty will be redefined by living confidently with uncertainty. Future libertarians will embody Sir Isaiah Berlin’s fox and recognise that true freedom may be unknowable. They will recognise the precarious balance between safety and autonomy, between utopia and dystopia, and will be comfortable in living within the polarities of this duality. They will action multi-scenario plans, each outcome as likely or possible, some more desirable than others. Their anchor point will be to take personal responsibility to define and enact a moral code of values for community, for society and for future generations.
Personal liberty will be to action these individual values now, and not wait for them to evolve through exogenous circumstances. It will be to contribute to the national and global conversation of what global values we have in common. Whether for common land and environmental protection, or for data and privacy, we will act for preservation and against exploitation. Common assets can be owned, governed and enjoyed by the collective, and individual characteristics will be preserved and protected for individuals. Individuals will be able to determine what aspects of themselves that they wish to share, and will have ownership over this determinant.
Citizen governance will promote liberty by forming and shaping polity through consensus according to collective normative values. It will recognise individual liberty is not compatible with capitalism, communism, nor any form of exploitative or repressive regime. It will recognise the equilibrium and duality of the individual and collective assets, encoded in the minds, the hopes and dreams of its citizens. It will recognise and work to overcome bias. With this equilibrium of common moral values, society can look to confidently plan for future uncertainty and societal health, rather than seeking refuge in past tribal structures or domination agendas.
Strategic Foresight bestows us with a unique set of tools and methods to explore future opportunities and landscapes, from the utopic to the dystopic, to experience and play with a multitude of possibilities for the future. It allows us to define our own version of future liberty, delving into wicked, unanswerable systemic problems, holding lightly to our preferred version of the future. It allows us to confidently trust emergence, so that we can develop respect and freedom from fear for ourselves and our fellow travellers through life. Liberty will be re-defined in the future by freedom from fear of uncertainty, freedom to be ourselves within our societies and our communities.
Ruth Lewis a member of our Emerging Fellows program discusses the protection of personal data under surveillance in her tenth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
What do we make of the practice of actively mining our personal data and building our personal digital profiles by corporations, to observe our behaviour, predict our needs and to nudge us to buy more products? Even more invasive is the retention and use of our information by governments, to scrutinize where and when we may perform anti-social acts. These predict or manipulate us to conform with the dominant governance system through a social credit score or through other less publicly visible means.
Current pervasive use of ‘predictive policing’ seeks to forecast the risk of criminal activity and acts of terrorism before the crimes have taken place. This method seeks to predict who the offenders may be, who the victims of crime may be and where and when the crimes may take place. Profiles are created of individuals, groups and locations deemed to be ‘at risk’ of future crimes. These identified groups are given additional surveillance and intervention from police to prevent future acts. Predictive policing is achieved through sophisticated collection and quantitative analysis by Artificial Intelligence algorithms. Vast pools of stored data are gathered from multiple sources, including historical crime statistics, social media, financial records, CCTV images and geo-location records of vehicles and mobile phone records, much of which would be classified as personal information.
Many concerns have been raised on the use of predictive policing, not least of which that it seeks to apply a ‘technology band aid’ on to what are often endemic socio-economic and political issues, without seeking to understand and remedy the root causes of these problems. Additionally, it may be causing greater harm than good, applying unjust profiling techniques based on biased algorithmic training data onto marginalised or vulnerable elements of our society, subjecting them to ever greater levels of surveillance within a harmful cycle of confirmation bias.
A clear and mature analysis and understanding of our societal ‘wicked problems’ leading to crime, together with strong, mature, transparent and accountable governance over such powerful surveillance tools must be developed before their widespread deployment and use. The creators of these tools need to ensure that there is an intentional commitment to eradicate inherent bias. The various service providers who provide data as input to the analytic algorithms need to build in a strong commitment to collective and individual privacy and personal autonomy of our personal data, and transparency as to the processes and purposes used for collection of this data.
Without this, the more likely risk is that these surveillance tools will catch the innocent in a wide surveillance net. It will undermine personal privacy and liberty, and the ability to engage in our own lives without psychological or physical inhibition within the boundaries of the law. We should not have to constantly look over our shoulder and wonder who is watching us, and how they might be judging us.
Truth becomes distorted in the name of crime prevention, and sometimes bent toward political or coercive outcomes that skirts legality. There are no future facts, nor a way of accurately predicting when someone will break the law. However, there are inalienable human rights – the right to privacy within our lives. There is also the ability to examine where we are now, foresee where this trend may develop, and be concerned about the type of society that this may create. There is the ability to define the type of future that we want to live in, one that seeks justice for all. As a start, we as a society need to demand greater accountability and transparency from our governments and our service providers to protect our liberty, our privacy and our freedom of current and future expression.
Our society’s future aspires to extend beyond our terrestrial realm. How should we consider space travel and off-world habitation? As an extension of our current terrestrial culture with its inherent injustices? Can we envisage a space of liberty and humanity? But how free would that off-world society be, when mere survival will necessitate extreme co-dependence?
Ruth Lewis a member of our Emerging Fellows program inspects cyber-humans’ liberty in her new blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
Can we judge technologies to be helpful in promoting our personal liberty? Could they grant us physical or cognitive freedom to push the boundaries beyond our human limitations? Or may they actually undermine our liberty by inviting unwanted invasions on our privacy and coercion of our thoughts? What happens if the technology that we are considering is embedded within the body or the brain, effectively becoming part of our own bodies?
Wonderful advancements are currently occurring in the field of biomedical engineering, enabling people who suffer severe pain, limb loss, brain injury, neurological diseases or psychological conditions to be monitored and their conditions therapeutically managed. Symptoms of your bodily condition can be tracked through local or remote monitoring of sensors implanted within the body. With electrical stimulation applied automatically or manually as required. In today’s world these implants, called neuroprostheses, may save your life, or make life tolerable. These devices enhance the freedom of action of people who have limited or no mobility, giving them the possibility of aspiring toward an independent life.
Such current technologies are the basis for speculation about an evolution toward ‘cyber-humans’, when body and brain enhancement with intelligent implanted technology may be commonly available. This may be for therapeutic purposes, or to enhance and extend the brains’ cognitive or memory capacity. It may grant extraordinary abilities to see, hear, understand and communicate (even without voice). Enhancement may provide physical strength and endurance well beyond the means of a normal human being. The application for such devices, will grant the freedom of extra-human capabilities. When used for the greater good, they may overcome many help societal issues. However, with speculation, it is possible to imagine a number of future scenarios where the personal liberty of the individual with technologically intelligent implants may be challenged.
Imagine that you receive subliminal or overt messages into your brain implant that induce you to like or buy a new product, to influence you to behave a certain way or suggestions that may be against your natural inclination. This is not so far removed from current practices of media bombardment through broadcast or pop-up advertising, or even practices of ‘brainwashing’. With clever messaging, these inducements may be indistinguishable from your own ‘true’ thoughts. This manipulation of the mind may undermine your cognitive liberty to your own opinion, or against your ability to explore alternative points of view.
In another scenario, your implant may receive subliminal instructions to activate your limbs, causing your body to perform actions that were not of your own choosing. Would you be able to distinguish these actions as being incited from outside of your body? Would you be held accountable or even liable for your body’s actions if you were to perform a criminal action, when the instructions may have come from a foreign source? And how could you prove your innocence in such a circumstance, to prove no motivation, even if you had the physical means to harm other people or property?
In a third scenario, imagine that brain implants may provide significant uplifts in standard human capabilities, such as intelligence, memory, attractiveness or even inter-implant communication. Would you create a class of ‘sub-capable’ natural-form humans compared with the implant-enhanced? Would this mean that you should have the freedom or the right to be implant-modified, or alternatively to refuse modification, even if it meant that you may become part of the sub-class of ‘purely biological’ beings? And finally, after modification, would you have the right to turn off or even remove your cyber-modification, at a time or place of your choosing?
Technology itself cannot judge what is open or honest, what values are good and what are bad. These values must be defined within the ethics frameworks of the society that we live in, and then encoded within the rules of the technology. Our governance frameworks must above all anticipate and protect our established rights to liberty and self-determination, protect our privacy of thought and independence of deed, rather than recognise these factors afterwards.
Technology is to data what the human body is to the blood. Data and information exchange provide the lifeblood of the scenarios described above. In order to understand and analyse these scenarios, we need to understand how liberty will be affected by ownership rights to the data supplied to or extracted from the implants in body and brains of cyber-humans.
Ruth Lewis a member of our Emerging Fellows program checks the possibility of evolving liberty with governance in her seventh blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
‘Corporate Social Responsibility’, ‘Sustainable Development’, ‘Socially Responsible Investing’.I am often struck by these sorts of labels that imply an intention to work towards a better world. But have they become weasel words, marketing-driven subjective descriptions that may be co-opted by those without an obligation or a plan to implement firm or agreed objectives? How can we promote or evolve human rights or liberty universally, or create a governance framework to allocate responsibility that can be clearly understood and delivered?
Human rights and liberty may evolve in the future though the use of global standards, long-term commercial goals and non-financial societal measures. This view focusses on the social accountability of the individual entity – a person, corporation, government or NGO for their own actions and is in line with the human rights paradigm of self-governance. Within this type of governance framework, the behaviour of the entity is observed and measured to ensure accountability. Liberty may evolve with honest governance that provides education, a robust and enforced justice system, and which upholds free speech.
A normalised common good for a community may develop where that community can be defined as ‘Earth’. We refer to all citizens of our planet as a global community, with all inhabitants enjoying equal human rights. The problem comes when human rights, as benefits or interests imposed by government or international rules, clash with human responsibility.
Responsibility is related to a duty or obligation for moral or legal purposes, and is assigned to you as a role. Moral responsibility or duty are concepts from a time before the Enlightenment, when civic virtue and social values were pre-eminent.Duty ethics implies living by a set of rules, according to your duty to the society that you live in. This world view defines each person’s place in a hierarchy, whether as a ruler, religious leader or supplicant. These ethical theories are more powerful when considering a governance system that will care for a common good, such as our environment, or a social institution such as a culture or country.The cultural aspect of the welfare of the community is dominant, over the rights or wishes of the individual.
Within a governance system that is respectful and nurturing to the individual and community, duty ethics can promote liberty.However, in some cultures past and present, the governance system may be more concerned with enforcement of a defined duty within a social hierarchy, and may suppress individual liberty or exploit a person or a community for the ‘good’ of the hierarchically superior state.Where this happens, there may be no recognisable individualism or recognition of human rights, as it is beyond the duty paradigm.
How do we morally reconcile egalitarian concepts of liberty and human rights with hierarchically-based duty and moral responsibility to ensure universal and equitable governance? This question underpins many global challenges that we face today, including care of our environment, responsible development of technology and natural resources, improving the living conditions for third world communities or ensuring inhabitants of our world are free to choose their own religion, lifestyle or family groupings.
The solution is to carefully integrate both liberty and duty ethics with an equal recognition of both, for the healthy functioning of the individual within the society that they live in.Equitable governance will promote both liberty and duty in both a rational and a spiritual sense, looking at both short to long term development, and taking account of both high and low-level issues, complexities and inter-relationships.
Governance where the governed have input in shaping the governance and policy development process is a difficult process of finding consensus and reconciling many different points of view. The key is to follow an agreed framework that is able to benefit and validate all of these viewpoints within open and honest channels of communication, with a consideration of societal or collective normative values for the common good, truth and values.Example frameworks that have been developed for this type of framework include ‘Communitarianism’ and ‘Commoning’.
An immediate need is common governance of the world’s natural environment. A purely liberty-based view of governance based on ‘human rights’ may look to exploit the ecosystem for economic growth.This may subsume all other considerations, including our duty to protect nature or our responsibility to preserve the world’s ecology for future generations. The common and integrated view of environmental governance based on equivalent ‘rights’ and ‘duty’ allocates custodianship of countries and corporations for natural resource development, and specific responsibility for any social and ecological damage caused by economic production or consumption. This custodianship includes the duty of current generations to conserve the global environment for future generations. There are signs that future legal international frameworks will normalise explicit intergenerational environmental responsibility in equal measure to the legal status of human rights to ensure accountability for externalities of economic development, together with defined plans for delivery.
Technology can be used as an enabler of open and honest channels of communication and facilitate the transition from the extremes of individualistic liberty and hierarchical duty to a framework of the common good and universal governance. But how can technology judge what is open or honest?And what if the technology includes artificial, autonomous systems or augmented intelligences that need to be factors within the framework of defining the common good?
Ruth Lewis a member of our Emerging Fellows program asks if human rights can preserve liberty in her sixth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
How do we regard human rights and liberty now and in the future? Can our current understanding of human rights and values guide us toward a better understanding of the challenges that we face every day to our free choice and will, preventing harm to society?
Our current notions of individual liberty and human rights were developed through the Enlightenment in response to the separation of church and state, and in the mid-20th Century, in response to the terrible atrocities committed during World War 2 and beyond. They reflect our growing awareness and action to remedy our appalling treatment of minority ethnicity, disabilities, women, refugees, and children, to prevent acts such as torture, unlawful incarceration and genocide. These principles were laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), and in regional instruments like the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). They lay the foundation of minimum protection of individuals and groups from the worst of humanity’s barbarism and to promote human life with freedom and dignity that is conducive to our physical, mental, social and spiritual welfare.
Our personal liberty is to be bounded only by these international and regional agreements for the purpose of respecting other people’s right to freedom, civil order and the welfare of society.This includes of the right to privacy, protection of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, opinion and expression. These agreements prohibit any propaganda for war, or advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that provides incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
The International Declarations and Covenants protections came into force in 1976, ensuring legal enforcement by all signatory parties. Together with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 (2015), these agreements show the most noble aspect of human values that we aspire to uphold and promote for current and future generations’ rights and liberty. In this context, this includes the right to economic, civil, cultural, political and social development.
Yet despite these intentions, in today’s society we see outcomes of commercial or State enterprise that undermine the intentions of our human rights. These outcomes subvert the free will of the individual and promote hatred, racism and violence within society.
For regular Internet users, our access to vast amounts of information promotes our sense of liberty, and amplifies the reach of our free speech and commercial opportunities. However, covertly our online presence is tracked and inundated with incentives to buy products, and to think or behave in a certain way. These incentives are curated through computer algorithms that follow our online entries, forming a profile as a basis of commercial business models that look to inform or change the way we would otherwise entertain our free will or action. Through lack of active prevention, these algorithms also foster online prejudice, racism and hate, drawing followers of like mind toward vilification, creating bullying, intimidation and racist propaganda which spreads throughout the online and physical world.
Human rights and values are supplanted with short-term exploitation of human liberty for profit gain, for manipulation and misuse. Our freedom to make personal choice and lifestyle is eroded or falsified, and those who may do harm seem incentivised.
Our Human Rights of the present and future must be based on custodial governance over our present liberty and resources in order to preserve our humane society for current and future generations. We must govern our commercial and State enterprises for social benefit as well as profit, and protect the community and individual in accordance with our Human Rights and societal values.
Global Human Rights commissions and various standards associations are now beginning to recognise these online violations, and seek to redress this gap by defining emerging codes of conduct for our online service providers and developers. These new conventions seek to make the latter accountable for the ‘unintended’ consequences of their business models, and to include human values in the design of online innovations.
Commercial enterprise innovation and growth is now being incentivised by global standards towards developing long-term commercial goals and non-financial societal measures for which they may be held accountable and protects Human Rights. Society is endorsing through positive investments in sustainable enterprises. This facilitates the path toward liberty in the face of challenges brought about by our modern world. But how will our governance and policy mechanisms evolve in the future to ensure liberty?
Felistus Mbolea member of our Emerging Fellows program investigates the causes of inequality in her fifth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
Global inequality has been on the increase for decades. There are fewer people living in poverty today yet global society is probably more economically unequal than at any other time in history. This trend poses obvious threats such as lack of social cohesion and sub-optimal economic performance. What is driving this inequality? What does this mean for the future?
There has been a continual shift from agriculture to other sources of livelihoods, accompanied by urbanisation. The economic opportunities created by this shift require more skilled labour than agriculture. This has made it harder for the less formally educated to engage economically. If they manage to find employment in industry, the disparity between their pay and that of the more skilled is stark. The trend is likely to worsen as urbanisation increases.
The constant today is the rapidly accelerating change in technology. Currently, skill-based technology is a key driver of income and economic growth. Sadly, the poor who have less skill are not benefitting as much from this technologically driven economic growth. The inequality gap thus continues to widen. The situation is likely to be sustained into the future unless remedial action is taken. The introduction of simpler forms of technology such as use of mobile telephony presents hope.
Closely accompanying this technological change is globalisation. Technology has enabled economic integration at a speed which was unimaginable a couple of decades ago. In pursuit of greater efficiency and effectiveness, organisations can open business offices in faraway countries for both production and distribution of goods and services. Offshoring of production to low-income countries creates employment opportunities, improving incomes and decreasing income disparities across states. This could, however, generate income disparities in the target country as the more skilled get a premium on their labour. A reduction in trade barriers and emergence of regional trade agreements has also played a role in expanding globalisation. Globalisation and technology are self-enforcing. Firms and individuals who have the resources to take advantage of globalisation and technology benefit most from it. This further compounds the inequality gap.
Another driver of inequality is government policy. Countries that have reported decreased inequalities have implemented policies that promote redistribution of income through social protection transfers and progressive taxation. A significant share of national revenues in such states is spent on public services such as education and healthcare, and infrastructure. Sectors which support the livelihoods of the majority such as agriculture in agrarian economies are sufficiently funded. Such policies empower most of the citizens rather than benefiting a small minority. Although an effective driver of equality, government policy is highly subject to political will. Public corruption on the other hand acts as a tax on the poor.
What does this mean for inequality? Not much can be done to slow down globalisation or the rapid change of technology. These trends are not negative in themselves. They present opportunities for realising a more equitable and sustainable society. Technology such as digital infrastructure can be used to effectively deliver public goods such as health and education at scale. In addition, progressive taxation and a clamp on public corruption could create a more equal society.
Robin Jourdan examines the contemporary status of trust in her fifth blog post for our Emerging Fellows program. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
Globally, self-serving politicians undermine trust in government. Is trust on the decline today? For a long time, trust has been imparted to CEOs, experts, academics, economists and the like. Now that’s being turned sideways, extending instead to individuals, “friends,” and peers. As children, we’re told to avoid strangers, yet today Uber, Airbnb rentals flourish.
By 2012, on average only four out of ten people in OECD member countries expressed confidence in their national government. Populism versus progressivism in any of their flavors is merely insufficient to the anti-politics conversations. Both rely on the fantasy of public interests’ importance. Broadly speaking, trust in government requires both: 1) social cohesion, citizens’ confidence in their communities and 2) political confidence, citizens’ rankings of government and its institutions.
The following is a series of mock interviews with representatives of three government systems. The question: “why should we trust you?”
Interview with Technocracy: why should we trust you?
Technocracy is essentially when political outsiders, technically skilled, become the leadership for society. It protects the interests of priorities in service of the many. In a true technocracy, the leadership is unelected. Still, it determines the path for the society to take, like a board of directors. Its best quality is competence to decide. Technical expertise becomes essential as our lives become increasingly joined with technology. Technology has nearly always improved the lives of humans throughout history. Why slow that progression?
Interview with Autocracy: why should we trust you?
What societies hunger for is security in this volatile and chaotic world. Maintaining order and stability are an efficient means to remain committed to custom and tradition. During the 20th century, autocratic leadership was often the norm in most administrations. Autocracy optimizes efficiency. Here, culture is often homogenous. Changing away from this system can be unpredictable. However, this governance model is very appealing when it builds inner confidence and serves its people. The deeper worry for trust is in countries where autocrats silence opponents, damaging cohesion. When an autocracy reinvents its future and governing persona with trust concerns safeguarded, its long-term success increases as is evidenced by Singapore today.
Interview with democracy: why should we trust you?
Accountability and growth are the hallmarks of this system. Here, leadership represents and works for the interests of the many. Society honors the rule of law, unambiguous and impartial. No one, including government, is above the law, where laws protect fundamental rights, and justice is accessible to all. Society can be either homogenous or heterogeneous by culture, creed, religion or other measures. Political leadership and stability are maintained mostly on an appeal to reason and experience. As of the end of 2016, a majority of nations were democracies, a post-World War II record.
Besides freedom of speech, other human rights are no safer in democratic countries than they are in autocratic countries. The rights one enjoys in any country depends on several factors, but most importantly whatever rights a person has is at the mercy of the government in power at the time. There are very few if any pure democracies at this time in the world. As is often the case in our history - perfect democracy is an ideal. In the cases where a government calls itself representative and simultaneously it does not serve its people, that condition speaks to a failure of the leadership not a breakdown of the governing methodology.
Finally, at the local level, trust in any government refers to its impact on people’s daily lives. Is trust an endangered species? It’s a complicated question. Confidence in governance reinforces the social contract between people and the state. As importantly, trust is like energy; it changes form rather than be destroyed. Like energy, it also means people have more influence in the trust pact than they may realize.
Ruth Lewis a member of our Emerging Fellows program examines personal liberty in the light of religious freedom through her fifth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
In today’s world, people of faith are seeking to preserve their practices of religion. These practices are generally based on conservative traditions and observances developed over hundreds, even thousands of years throughout various geo-political settings. They are often based on the belief in a higher purpose, being, god or gods and the commandments to behave in a certain way, and to educate their children within the religion. They seek to protect their own against a confusing and threatening multiplicity of opinions and lifestyles. This is against typographic negative portrayals of the ‘other’, clinging to the mythical stories that they were raised with to cope with societal change.
Enshrined Human Rights practices allow freedom of religious thought and practice at the individual and collective level, as long as that practice does not interfere with the individual’s other human rights which may be encoded in law. This sets boundaries for religious freedom, with many modern examples highlighting conflicts such as religious recognition of contraception, honor killing and non-heterosexual marriage. In the eyes of the law, freedom to hold a view is absolute, but freedom to act on that view is constrained by other Human Rights. A ‘free society’ is one that allows freedom to think, debate and challenge the dominant beliefs system without fear of reprisal, as long as individuals and collective groups are not harmed as a result.
In today’s society, the more conservative religious viewpoints argue that past traditions provided guidance and wisdom for current practice and lifestyle, carried through generations. These practices of faith are derived from divine providence or right. These beliefs may provide protection against the uncertainties of change, as they have ‘stood the test of time’. Where this leads to crisis is where the conservative religious belief specifically rejects change and this may put it into conflict with changed societal views of morality and human rights. A resilient society will allow adaptation, integration and growth of belief and practice where these make sense, to support future generations’ health and well-being. A healthy society is one that looks to the future for sustainability. It derives wisdom from the past on what worked or didn’t, and is guided from a mature integration of cultural, social, intentional and behavioral practices and beliefs, rather than setting absolute rules on that basis.
In the post-scarcity future, it is postulated that the current resource crises may be overcome, and people’s basic needs will be met. Such a society may support the freedom of association of individuals with collective beliefs without the necessity to band together over scarce living supplies. This society may move beyond the need for the human rights recognition that the historical Enlightenment gave rise to. Evolved from the separation of Church and State, the common law provided protection of individual rights and promotion of individual liberty of belief.
Such an evolutionary society will promote wisdom beyond the traditional tribal and magical worldview of religious belief and practice. It will evolve into
a society that promotes a common recognition that the core of all religions and beliefs contain a series of trans-personal, trans-rational practices that seek a higher level of wisdom and being. With this evolution, true freedom will be found through individual and collectivist transformation to a holistic worldview of human flourishing. This will promote liberty of the mind, soul and spirit in the pursuit of higher purpose for being. But in this scenario, will we still need to define and enforce Human Rights?
Charlotte Aguilar-Millanexamines the effect ofdisembodiment on equality in her fifth blog post for our Emerging Fellows program. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
The gig economy is often hailed as the future of work. It offers more flexibility than standard roles to both employee and employer. It offers greater independence. It offers more variety in roles. Yet with all these benefits, the workforce is experiencing inequality within corporations that is increasing exponentially. Over the past decade in the UK, corporations have seen CEOs’ earnings in the FTSE 100 increase four times as much as national average earnings. It is much higher in other countries including the US. It is little wonder that employees are seeking to take more ownership through contracting or temporary work. Employees do not want to represent corporations that demonstrate eye watering CEO pay and lavish corporate greed. Examples of this were seen during 2018. This includes Credit Suisse’s CEO who received a 30% pay rise whilst the share price fell by 38%.
Progress, however, has been made in legislation for greater transparency. From January 2019 within the UK, legislation now requires disclosure of the CEO to employee pay ratio for all companies employing over 250 staff. The inequality within one’s own company can now be brought to light. This will enable easy comparison of companies to measure inequality.
Such transparency has already caused staff to act. The CEO of the Financial Times, John Ridding, received a 25% pay increase in 2017 to £2.5m annual salary. Staff within the Financial times, were made aware of this and a revolt took place which saw his salary reduced to less than £1.2m in 2018. Progress in transparency reporting has enabled both consumers and employees to demonstrate their discontent with excessive boardroom pay.
This does not solve inequality in companies with no employees. Examples of this include UberEats and Deliveroo who will not fall under this legislation. They have few staff as they resource through contractors rather than staff. For globalised companies whose staff are often located separately from the client, such as Upwork or Gigster, there are no reporting requirements on transparency. Gig work provides no safety nets that accompany being an employee. This includes medical insurance, parental leave or pensions. Legislation has not placed a responsibility on companies to provide these benefits. Unions have developed to protect the gig worker. In February 2019 the union GMB agreed a deal with Hermes, a delivery company, to give enhanced rights to gig workers.
There are other industries from which inspiration can be sought. Acting, historically, has been an industry with many employees on short term contracts. To future proof their careers, the Screen Actors Guild Benefit Fund allows actors to pay into a progressive form of union. This provides a safety net for insurance and healthcare by gig workers earning credits each time they work that are used to contribute towards healthcare and retirement funds. However, organising a global contractor workforce who are located globally is difficult without the contracting party’s support. The gig economy represents a work force who have different expectations in working conditions.
It is up to legislators to protect the disembodied workforce. Disembodiment can fuel equality if the appropriate support is in place. Disembodiment gives the worker control over how they work in a way that employment cannot offer. Legislation is being considered to ensure the advantages of disembodiment are equally shared. As detailed in the Taylor Review of working practices, disembodiment benefits need to be two ways. Therefore, two-way flexibility should be in place. This could take the form of holiday pay, healthcare fees, and retirement funding. In this way disembodiment could fuel equality.