Continuing my train of thought on categorizing human culture, it’s easy to observe unease when the practices of one sector penetrate the proper operating area of another sector. For example, bribery in the public sector, which is the act of buying political influence, is the intrusion of private sector practices into the public sector. In the United States it’s particularly frowned upon, if possibly widespread; in other nations the distinction may not be quite so strongly expressed. In the health sector, there’s certainly a general unease as the demands of private-sector efficiency in the pursuit of profit conflicts with the doctor-patient relationship.
Out of Saudi Arabia comes a report from AL Monitor on an intrusion into the religious sector:
The Saudi leadership boasts about its efforts to welcome the pilgrims and expand the area where they can perform their annual ritual, the quality of the health services it offers and, most important, the safety and security of pilgrims.
However, the moment a Muslim decides to make the pilgrimage, he is at the mercy of the commercialization of this religious duty. From visa fees imposed by the Saudi government to transportation and accommodation charges, pilgrims are a source of income to both the Saudi government and service providers. The Saudi government prefers to call pilgrims “guests of God,” but these guests pay a high price. It takes some Muslims a lifetime to save for this important journey; many may never have enough resources to make it. Others can be banned for political reasons.
A Saudi micro-economy has flourished around the annual pilgrimage, but that is often overlooked when the Saudi leadership boasts about its services to pilgrims. From small hotel owners to global chains owned by entrepreneur princes such as Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, revenues from the pilgrimage have always been an important source of income.
No doubt some folk would see charging the pilgrims whatever the traffic will bear as only just and right; but the purpose of the religious sector, whatever it may be, is not that of the private sector, and so the unease justifiably exists. We see this in the United States as well, and have for a long time, from the televangelists of 30 years ago culminating in the “prosperity churches” resulting in controversy and unrest in the faith community.
This unease does suggest the inappropriateness of permitting the practices of one sector to intrude into another. The enrichment of preachers, often followed by the incompetent financial management of the gains comes right to mind. The use of competition in the health sector has been rejected by most of the First World because of its tendency to waste resources and erode important relationships.
But I think it would be a mistake to confuse practices with purposes. For example, the religious (or philosophical, if you prefer) sector has as one purpose the inculcation of an ethical system in the populace, and there is little doubt that this is efficacious for the community as a whole.
I think it’s worth experimenting with considering the natural practices and purposes of each sector and how they can be insulated from each other. Insulation is probably worth a book, at the least, since perfect cultural insulation is both impossible and possibly inimical. Each sector has a role; they all support each other; some intrusion is necessary. However, firewalling may be possible. An example might be a single payer health system, to insulate the doctors and patients from the practices of the private sector; yet, keep in mind that some of the greatest health sector advances would be impossible without the services of the private sector. Conundrums do appear using this approach; does it mean the approach is invalid? A topic to be explored.
