Time and Decision-Making.
Whilst watching our politicians attempting to deal with Covid-19, Brexit, climate change, Black Lives Matter, and balancing the economy with the health and welfare of the nation, I can see why they flip flop and U-turn so regularly. They are uncertain about the outcomes and want to do what they think the public wants to hear.
Uncertainty about the future is nothing new. In conditions of uncertainty, such as we have now, navigating towards a distant destination is perilous. Conditions change, viewpoints change, but if the destination is clear, then all decisions will point in the same direction toward the objective. Confidence, clarity and focus about this ultimate destination require perseverance and determination. Distractions along the way should be tactics to achieve the goal, not the goal itself.
The long and the short of it is the problem. Short term thinking only leads to short term answers.
Politicians must be seen to be thinking of the welfare of the nation as a whole. At the same time, though, they are aware that their stewardship may be short and dependent on short-term popularity. Nowadays, popularity - rather than policies – drives politics, and popularity is fickle. Words become more important than the content and the subsequent consequential meaning. In this atmosphere, well-meaning words create the desired response now, rather than bringing about long-term behavioural change.
Short term plans would appear to be the perfect environment for a politician: a bit of spin here, a sound bite there, problem solved! But, as we have seen, most politicians fail to deliver on their promises (although they’ll tell you that they have succeeded in a “world-class” fashion), because their thinking isn’t informed by long-term aims.
The gap between sound-bite and tangible results is a gaping chasm. Obviously, coping with a pandemic has no contemporary precedent, neither does climate change, and our awareness of our part in the long-term consequences of our actions and behaviour surrounding these critical issues are all new to us. That pressure that exposes the fundamental weakness in the way politicians make decisions. Hollow short-term decision-making may lead to a boost in the polls and the continuity of power, but whilst the smoke is diverted, the fires still rage (literally). Short-term thinking leads to quick-fix solutions, treating symptoms, not causes. What’s needed is a long-term vision to inform short-term tactics.
Envisioning long-term strategies to solve problems changes the way we think about short-term needs. With greater vision comes greater responsibility: the responsibility for future generations.
In Wales, an enlightened government has appointed Sophie Howe as Future Generations Commissioner. They have also passed The Wellbeing of Future Generations Act 2015 which gives the commission the ambition, permission and legal obligation to improve social, cultural, environmental and economic well-being for future generations. This is a huge responsibility to look forward when making decisions in the present so that they will map the path towards a more responsible future.
“The Future Generations Act requires public bodies in Wales to think about the long-term impact of their decisions, to work better with people, communities and each other, and to prevent persistent problems such as poverty, health inequalities and climate change.
“The Act is unique to Wales attracting interest from countries across the world as it offers a huge opportunity to make a long-lasting, positive change to current and future generations”
www.futuregenerations.wales
Long-term strategy informs short term decision-making. It forces decision makers to consider a broader, deeper view of the impact of short-term policies for their benefit and impact on future generations, rather than the necessity to retain power or popularity.
The Oglala Sioux of South Dakota, for instance, would always consider past AND future generations when making a decision that affected the tribe. They would consider two generations of ancestors and three generations yet to come. In this way, all their decisions for the present moment were informed by the anticipated consequence for future generations (as well as successes and failures past).
Political sound bites are a sticking plaster over cracks, designed to disguise and avoid a broader, deeper consideration. Sound bites, opinions and short-termism have become the new storytelling art form, its zenith demonstrated in Twitter and social media platforms, where instant gratification and a quick dopamine hit override consultation, collaboration and strategic planning.
In the UK the government is currently facing legal action over Boris Johnson’s “moon-shot” project, which could involve up to £100bn being spent on an attempt to increase COVID-19 testing capacity to 10m per day.
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, and the minister for the Cabinet Office, Michael Gove, are named in a case that alleges the project, as described in leaked papers, is unlawful because it ignores scientific evidence, involves potentially huge private contracts that may not have been tendered and breaks the government’s own value-for-money rules.
The Good Law Project, a not-for-profit organisation wants a judicial review of the moon-shot plan, alleging the government should have consulted the National Screening Committee, which advises on mass testing and screening programmes, and that the possibility of the programme generating large numbers of false positives risks “personal and economic harm to tens of thousands of people”. It claims that private contracts should be publicly tendered.
(Guardian Friday 18th September 2020)
“Moon-shot” is a beautiful metaphor, designed to engage and distract the public in a quick-fix story. It “sounds” like the right thing to do, highly ambitious and highly motivating! The reality, is that the infrastructure won’t back up the promise, because the longer-term considerations and consequences haven’t informed the short-term sound bite. Sound bites are shortcut stories the address the symptoms and mask the underlying causes. They mislead.
Our relationship with time is a complex problem. It seems to be getting more condensed and as such, we focus more and more on the immediate problems as they rush past us. The future, beyond what we can see in the present moment, cannot solve our current problems, or so it seems. How can the past and the future exist, if the past is no longer and the future is not yet? Is that why we are stuck in an eternal present and unable to look deep into the future?
The future should be a place where we will head towards - not something that will come upon us. That is why climate change is the greatest issue facing our time. The past to the present has shown us the consequence of our actions. To the future is where we are heading now, and find the solution in the present. Future generations depend on it.
Katie Paterson, a Scottish artist, planted a forest in Norway which will supply paper for a special anthology of books to be printed in 100 years. Every year one writer will contribute a text, with the writings held in trust, unread and unpublished, until the year 2114. The manuscripts will be presented in the new public library in Oslo, in a specially designed room. To date, the writers include Margaret Atwood (2014), David Mitchell (2015), Sjón (2016), Elif Shafak (2017), Han Kang (2018), Karl Ove Knausgård (2019), and Ocean Vuong (2020).
In a site called, www.Futureme.org people are encouraged to write a letter to their future self. If you could write to yourself and only open the letter in 5, 10 or 20 years, what would you write that may have significance to your future self?
Our politicians might benefit from thinking much further forward and acting accordingly in the present moment.