Inheritance and distributed economies

I recently read a post by Balaji S. here and it felt pretty clear that one of the main reasons why one of the two schools of thought, namely the west and the east coast, would be better prepared to bring about radical change is because of the nature of lives and culture that they are brought up in. While I truly agree with the analogies that were brought out in the context of the US, there were several key aspects that I felt were missing when you consider the developing nations.

##Argument 1: Keeping efficiency isn’t counted as innovation

Indeed, founding culture makes happen what most indivisuals feel is only a probable scenario but in order to maintain the reality that keeps people away from being mad men is usually not stuff that founders tend to put their hands onto.

In the Indian subcontext, most of our leaders have till now been either inheritors or founders. Whenever we were led by inheritors, we saw a massive change in how the country kept improving its existing infrastructre. Consider how early years after our independance were led by a founder and followed by inheritors that did not bring about much radical change but kept the ball rolling for us to become stable and efficient as an economy. Move forward to now, we are led by west coast people, who have created vast majority of policy changes that now are bringing this nation apart. Consider the reforms made in agriculture, education, health etc.

The immediate argument here is change tends to not be liked by many and that seemd to be the case here as well. Agreed, the case is the same but there is one important currency that founders have also tended to forget in the past. Its “time”.

The only currency that is not an exploitative tool for either founders or inheritors is time. Some changes take time to get ingrained in the culture. This chnage then becomes the reality of inheritors whose only job is to make sure it becomes more and more efficient.

##Argument 2: Nations need to go distributed

In any democracy, we tend not to think local. Our immediate response to every problem or crisis is to blame the one person we all know, the supreme leade or the PM or the president. The future holds one key metric apart from time that we as societies can leverage. Its the power of collective resposibility. As countrymen, we rarely know who is the immediate person responsible for my well being that the government chose to apoint. Its this lack of distributed thinking that leads to crisis where one person is responsible for a billion lives. Nobody can responsible for a billion lives. Its impractical.

The future societies will not be built on people choosing the supreme leaders, these societies will be built on choosing the immediate person responsible and then they choose the leader. Its extremely opposite to what most radically innovative countries today pass for democracy.

This distributed democracy can only be looked at one way. You let poeple choose their own representation and it should not be limited or governed by the confines of a physical boundary. Can there be nations where its citizens are governed by laws defined for humanity and not physicality? Can there be a world where I own the passport of a country whose laws I agree with rather than the one I live in physically? Thats where the world seizes to complain of their upbringing, inheritanct, laws of the land and start focussing on making their choices worth it.

– SG