My Arts Editor and I were discussing government system efficiency today. The classic example, in my mind, is the Italian fascists: They made the trains run on time. My Arts Editor insisted this made them efficient, and that having a single guy making decisions makes for efficient decisions, regardless of their moral achievements, or lack thereof. I disagreed.
As a software engineer, I’ve been asked more than a few times to optimize a solution to a problem, and after a while you become aware that you must develop a philosophy of efficiency, which essentially asks the question what is efficiency? Even in software this can be a question of importance: sure, I can make this activity go fast – but do you have concerns about scalability? About the impact on other processes on the computer? Etc. A narrow definition of the meaning of efficiency may lead to unanticipated consequences. Because efficiency is generally considered a positive concept, there can be a blinder effect in which efficiency is pursued with little to no regard to the impact it may have on others
My response to the assertion that the Italian Fascists were efficient governors is to ask, what does it mean to govern? What is the purpose of government? To my mind, it’s self-perpetuation – the goal of government is to provide a society with the peace, stability, and stimulation necessary to induce the population to reproduce with enough surviving children to have a viable next generation. (If someone asks about Art, or God, or whatever, my catch-all answer is “stimulation”.)
With a purpose of government, we can then talk about its efficiency, which is to say, how well does this system of government fulfill the general purpose of government? There are a few points to keep in mind:
- As populations change and, arguably, mature or evolve, expectations of the government may change as well. Monarchies have lasted for centuries; today they are nearly extinct.
- Technology greatly impacts the expectations of the populace. As the population finds it has more free time, its expectations change.
Now we can talk about specific performance. The Italian Fascists held power 1922 – 1945 (Mussolini was ousted in 1943, but the Party soldiered onward), at the end of which the Allies, with the aid of various insurgency groups defeated the Fascists. One might comment that outside forces can hardly be considered fair, but the Italians had the not inconsiderable force of the German (Fascist) war machine on their side (Japanese aid was, on the other hand, inconsiderable). Or one might argue that it is the responsibility of government to navigate the shoals of the outside world.
Mussolini had taken naked control of the government in 1925, and he and his Party exercised arbitrary control from then on. He may, indeed, had a hand in making the trains run on time, but I must ask at what cost to the rest of the country? And while I cannot supply an answer to the specific question, we may ask the general question, and answer it: did the arbitrary power wielded by Mussolini bring wealth and happiness to the Italians?
The Italians shot him to death. He brought them War, aggression (the failed invasion of Ethiopia), and defeat.
The problem of efficient government is discovering a way to making everyone happy while keeping the tigers at bay, while being flexible enough to change as required. Government can generate electricity very efficiently – at the expense of pollution. Or we can put solar cells on everyone’s roof, which will not be in the least aesthetically pleasing – but might let us decommission most of our power plants. Is that efficiency?
I think perhaps the best approach is terminological: the Italian Fascists may have come up with an efficient process, but in the end they were inefficient at the game of government. Sometimes, in order to preserve a governmental system that provides a stable society that self-perpetuates, it’s necessary to sacrifice certain efficiencies.
Response from the Arts Editor:
I can’t take exception to the intent of the sentiments expressed above, but I question the terminology. I think my esteemed colleague is confusing “efficient” and “effective”. To be efficient, one only has to complete one’s tasks with alacrity, using the minimum amount of effort that is needed to accomplish one’s goal. Generally speaking, the larger the committee, the less efficient they are at completing their tasks, since everyone gets to have their say. It follows then, that a dictator is the most efficient decision maker, because his is the only voice in his process that matters. But while the decision-making process of a despot may make for a high level of efficiency, the decisions made may not be effective. They may, indeed, make a whole lot of folks angry enough to overthrow the dictator in question. And while a coup by the masses may indeed be very effective, I surmise that the event itself wouldn’t be too efficient.
