Peace in the Middle East

Who wants it? Ordinary people, mostly. It's difficult, though, for them to express that preference. We're all susceptible to anger and impulse, to propaganda and, especially, emotional television pictures of conflict, and it doesn't help that the financial and status incentives are overwhelmingly on the side of conflict. The arms sellers, the men of (so-called) religion, the state and non-state militias: all have their own reasons for stoking conflict that follow logically from the premisses by which they live. What's missing are countervailing incentives: the unspoken and - in parts of the Middle East, unsayable, on pain of persecution - wishes of ordinary people to make something of the lives and those of their family members. That's where Middle East Peace Bonds could enter the picture. Ordinary people in and outside the Middle East, perhaps following initial contributions from philanthropists, could set up a fund to be used for the redemption of the bonds. The bonds could aim to achieve a sustained period of peace, defined and verified objectively. It would be up to bondholders to devise and investigate the multitude of possible ways in which conflict can be avoided. They would have incentives to deploy only the most efficient of such initiatives.

People often write about 'intractable' ethnic, religious, or territorial conflicts. But these conflicts do fizzle out and then it's apparent that the conflicts were not so intractable after all. The borders between England and Scotland, or England and Wales, are pretty quiet these days. Historical grievances, and notions of fairness or justice, loom large and play a part in perpetuating conflict. But not inevitably. People get tired; the old paradigms die with the idealogues that kept them going; deals are done, compromises made, other events assume greater importance, while time heals. Middle East Peace Bonds could accelerate all these processes. They could channel the wishes of the majority of ordinary people in the Middle East and beyond into the attainment of peace in the region. Incentives matter.

Winning elections is not the same as running the country

Henry Kissinger is supposed to have said: 

One of the greatest dangers to democracy is the growing gap between those who can win elections and those who can run the state.

Quite so. I think there's also a growing gap between those who can win elections and those who wish to run the state, or have any interest in running the state efficiently. There are many reasons why people seek power, but running an efficient state doesn't seem to be an over-riding one. Power for its own sake, something that will bring future lucrative directorships or media appearances or promote sales of memoirs, or something to fill in those endless blank days after some other career- these seem to be more important as motivators for would-be politicians. 

Part of the reason for this is that running a state is less fulfilling than it used to be. Our democratic societies are too complex for a single person's influence to count for much. There are always competing interest groups to consider and long time lags between cause and effect. So politics is increasingly driven by personalities, sound bites, and trivia. At the same time we are failing to address huge, urgent social and environmental challenges. Politicians and bureaucrats have little incentive to tackle these challenges until they become emergencies. Structural weaknesses are papered over until it's too late. It makes little difference who's in power, and ordinary people know that.

Here's another idea: instead of voting for political party, or for the politician who looks best in the media, or for the ones that avoid real issues in the most convincing manner, how about letting us vote for outcomes? Not for the politicians who say they'll deliver outcomes, or for the political party that, way back in history, did once deliver outcomes, but directly for outcomes. Take, for instance, the goal of avoiding catastrophic climate change. That option was not offered by any of the British political parties. It's not on offer, in fact, anywhere, as a policy for which people can vote. What is on offer are promises made by members of a political caste to do something that might do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn might, but probably will not, do anything significantly to stabilise the climate. Then these promises, however nugatory, are broken anyway.

That's where Social Policy Bonds can play a part. Under a bond regime, the currency of debate would be outcomes rather than political parties or well-meaning but hollow promises. Politicians then wouldn't have to run the state, though they would have to articulate society's targeted outcomes, and continue to raise the revenue for their achievement. Politicians can actually do those things quite well - in the democratic countries at least. Outcomes are inherently more amenable to the sort of consensus and buy-in that are essential if we are to avoid serious economic, social or environmental problems. And Social Policy Bonds, as well as increasing transparency and stability of targeted goals, would minimise the cost of achieving them. More could be done with society's scarce resources than under the current system. Efficiency, transparency and buy-in: exactly what are lacking in today's system. No wonder, then, that participation in a general election is so low.