Societies from their beginnings have organised themselves collectively by ceding part of individual sovereignty so that a super structure would provide certain services in exchange for that cession. Throughout history, the emphases of this central administration have evolved, as has the nature of the exchange carried out, but in a consistent manner, these organisational forms that Plato presents in a didactic way in his "Republic" have been appearing continuously up to the present day. At certain times, in the absence of a response from the central organisation, whether intentionally or not, minor structures have appeared which have coexisted peacefully, in most cases, with the government apparatus, providing solutions to certain needs not covered by the latter; but in no case have they supplanted its function, nor have they altered the Citizen-State relationship which, as a necessary binomial, has been the protagonist of our coexistence.
In our beloved Europe, the emergence of the figure of the "Welfare State" during the 19th century established the presence of an omnipresent state that monopolised the relationship with the citizen and redistributed the wealth. through services that cover the vast majority of areas of coexistence. The nature of the exchange, in this case essentially economic, provides central administrations with enormous resources which, in a more or less efficient way, are invested in services for citizens. The State, which, in addition to having its own liquidity from tax collection, uses debt instruments on account of future revenues to be received, has become a powerful economic machine that has gone from initially providing the services that were once required by citizens, to claiming to be the only response to all their needs.
The nuances of its omnipresence differ according to the importance/freedom given to the individual. Thus, during the second half of the 20th century, totalitarian models coexisted (Soviet Union) where the State programmes, administers and directs every aspect of social and economic life; liberal models (USA) where the State allows the citizen to organise the spaces that he/she decides not to occupy, and mixed models (Europe) where the presence of the State is essential but, with a popular will, it combines the collective and individual spheres in a balanced way. In all of them, without exception, the relationship between the citizen and the State is one of total interdependence.
In relation to this last point, it is important to highlight the drift that has taken place over the last few decades, especially in Europe, where social movements and, especially a broad political spectrum, have focused solely on the enjoyment of the right to the welfare state, leaving aside the chapter on the associated obligations of citizens to guarantee its sustainability, with a clearly short-term electoral spirit.
For this reason, society has come to believe, after hearing so many proclamations, that state assets are a right to which it has unlimited access, while debts belong to no one, they are ethereal. Especially in Latin societies, unlike any private entity, budget compliance by the administration is not an obligation, and generating a surplus one year is an attack on the welfare society. The continuous and unbridled growth of public debt is sold as a machine to generate money for free, hiding the condemnation in the form of servitude to which we are condemning later generations.
The state has progressively abandoned its role as a catalyst and facilitator of measures and agreements for the development of its nations among its economic and social agents. The EU's main objective is to achieve greater wealth in order to redistribute it for the elimination of poverty and the development of personal and collective entrepreneurship through an interventionist and tactically electioneering role, forgetting the medium and long-term strategic vision of its territories.
As a result of this approach, public resources are no longer allocated to the promotion of the productive economy, but are instead focused on increasing spending to strengthen political structures and clientelistic spending. In most countries, this situation has recently led to a dramatic deterioration in society's perception of politicians and has prevented well-prepared citizens who are committed to their country from wanting to devote part of their professional lives to contributing to public life, allowing access to positions of great responsibility to people who lack the training, experience and generosity to carry out their role as the country's top executives.
The most worrying element that could lead to the fracture of the current social model is the hypocritical and selfish lack of solidarity. The resources earmarked for the protection of the weakest are granted without the imperative need to control fraud (let us remember that the underground economy in Spain, which is twice the European average, operates with impunity and permanently represents 25% of GDP), so we will very probably not reach all those who need it. We demand aid from the "richest" countries, companies and individuals on the basis of a solidarity that we then fail to fulfil internally in the fair distribution of resources.
The management of the crisis that has hit us has highlighted the incapacity of states to provide collective and efficient responses; and as a result, the secular dependence of the citizen on the state is gradually but inexorably coming to an end. The functions of service provision, which necessarily entail managerial capacities, and the functions of protection, which are articulated on the assumption of abuse by one part of society over another, have evolved in a manner contrary to their survival.
The result of this permanent campaign to relax citizens' obligations, as opposed to standing up for our rights. The policy of subsidies has annulled the culture of effort and reward. For example, there is a worrying and regrettable spectacle, such as what has happened in recent days with the fruit harvest: there is a lack of labour, even though seasonal workers are allowed to combine this income with the receipt of public subsidies. Some do not want to work. It is not coherent to adapt Kennedy's famous quote "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". without fostering a culture of effort and reward.
Why do we want a state that manages, if our rulers lack the most elementary notions of administration? In contrast to the curricular and professional requirements for the performance of certain responsibilities for civil servants and employees of private companies (despite the seven organic laws on education since 1970), we see how the positions of maximum responsibility in the State are being directed by people who lack these, needing hundreds of advisors. Those responsible for issuing the ideological guidelines of the parties have been put on the state payroll.
The management of the crisis in Spain has revealed a notable lack of foresight, an essential characteristic of good management; a worrying capacity to react, which only comes from recognising and learning from one's own mistakes, and which is part of the manual of good management; and finally a worrying lack of information and uncertainty in the data, which has led to deficient and partial execution.
The handling of the situation from a managerial point of view, and its three essential elements of Foresight; Reaction and Execution has been disastrous. If the Spanish government were a company's management team, the shareholders' meeting and the board of directors would undoubtedly be proceeding to immediate dismissal. Apart from political considerations, and based solely on management criteria, the result is unappealable.
Beyond the sphere of management, it does not seem that, with a few honourable exceptions, an image of unity and teamwork has been projected in the face of a problem that does not understand politics.
In contrast to this poor performance of the State, a large majority of companies have reacted efficiently, quickly and decisively, in order to safeguard the welfare of their employees and the service they provide to society..
While the state was struggling with political calculations on 8-M, the IT departments of many companies were activating emergency and remote work plans; when the government declared a State of Alarm and confinement, thousands of workers were already operating from home, with psychological support services in many cases to help them perform optimally in the new reality; during the lethargy of quarantine, filled with quips like "paid leave" and fiascos in the purchase of rapid tests and masks, companies were working tirelessly on ways to improve working conditions, stretching economic projections in the secret hope that recovery would help them maintain workloads, and scheduling a de-escalation that would reconcile employee safety and the economic viability of their projects.
It is sadly shocking to observe how the regulation of directors' liability has developed rapidly from tax, criminal, commercial and bankruptcy perspectives in the private sphere without the same rigour being demanded in the public sphere. Little by little, the elements formally foreseen in the legal system for auditing public management have been losing power and, in the same way, they have been disappearing from the journalistic scene and from any critical and demanding analysis in accordance with the responsibility that citizens have granted them.
Where will the citizen's loyalty turn from now on, and who has proven beyond doubt to be able to foresee, react and execute?
Companies have occupied the place that the ineffectiveness of governments has left uncovered, populating the geography of small nations that dedicate their efforts, resources and intelligence to seek their own survival, which is the same as that of those who work for them.
And what of those who are not fortunate enough to belong to an organisation like the ones I describe? The new stateless, decent citizens, who are exiled from an incompetent government that leaves them orphaned of solutions, and have no homeland, no organisation to protect them.
The state has therefore demonstrated its incompetence in terms of organisational structure with management capacity, thus favouring the shift in loyalties that we foresee in the future.
Companies have not only demonstrated a better management capacity than that demonstrated by governments, but also their own concept has evolved so much that they aspire to be not only instruments of wealth creation, but also agents of social transformation.
There is no sustainable business project today that does not articulate within its aspirations a long-term vision, integrating social change and evolution. In the beginnings of many of today's entrepreneurs, in addition to the very logic of business profit, there is a need to lead a change for the better for that part of society that necessarily becomes an accomplice. Today, more than ever, companies are looking to the term skateholders, popularised by Freeman, defining those groups without whose support the organisation would cease to exist, an essential element in strategic business planning. Stakeholders could be the employees of that organisation, its shareholders, customers, suppliers of goods and services, providers of capital, affected or related neighbourhood associations, trade unions, related civil and governmental organisations, and so on.
And the healthiest thing is that this fact is not the exclusive patrimony of large companies that have achieved this status, in many cases, due to an excellent management of human capital as opposed to monetary capital, but of many companies that recognise the importance of the employee as an agent of their development and success.
The "People First" strategy that many companies, of various sizes and sectors, embrace entails a change of mindset that goes beyond the transformative ambitions of governments struggling with their incompetence and the huge debts they have incurred.
In companies, we face the great challenge of integrating a new model of labour relations where the main protagonist is the person. This is why it is time to introduce structural changes in the strategies for attracting, motivating and linking professionals. Remuneration models based on monetary compensation are incapable of meeting all these new challenges. We need to talk about Total Compensation, about everything that an employee, or a candidate for employment, receives in return for his or her decision to work in a company.
The company of the future offers its citizens first-class medical services, certainty and responsiveness in times of crisis, educational counselling for their families, advantages in the purchase of products, channelling their aspirations to contribute to society through active policies of collaboration with NGOs, etc.
Who would not want to be a citizen of them? And what will become of those who do not? They will be the new stateless.
The final question is how to reconcile state and business in today's environment.. We are facing a delicate political debate within governments that could alter the state-business relationship as we know it today. After several years of the decline of traditional Latin trade unionism, characterised by its confrontation with the employer, as opposed to the more participatory and professional Anglo-Saxon models, the state has abandoned its role as facilitator of agreements, as intermediary between the parties, to act as representative of the unrepresented social part. Having abandoned consensus on economic and social measures, the nationalisation of strategic and non-strategic companies is now being openly proposed, with the excuse of the crisis, in order to introduce a model of an intervened economy as opposed to a market economy.
It is time to take a critical look at why we have reached this situation that limits our performance and take the necessary actions to make the country stronger. We must make the State once again the driving force of the country's engine in terms of wealth generation, complementing public initiative in the essential and private initiative in the particular, taking action with the best experts to reduce unemployment and inequalities and emerge stronger. We need to review spending in the political and executive structure of the State and, therefore, the excesses of the autonomous state in terms of service to the citizen. It is shocking to see that the executive's first effective measure in the face of the health crisis has been to recentralise health management.
To paraphrase Churchill, "this is not a time for comfort and ease. It is a time for boldness and resilience". The time has come to work together, state and business, owners and employees, on the basis of the common good, effectiveness and efficiency in our coordinated actions to assist the most disadvantaged and lay the foundations together to emerge stronger as a country, making a fairer, richer and more promising society for generations to come.
If we fail to do so, business will continue to occupy the space left to them by the ineffectiveness of governments, and states will languish while this collective of new stateless persons will grow hopelessly larger.
This text may be reproduced provided that PROA is credited as the original source.
Jose Manuel González
CEO of Howden Broking Group