« Blog Home
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
Loading ... Loading ...

Like Jonah in the belly of the whale, you cannot possess power. Rather, it possesses you. Google would do well to understand this.

One of the more interesting people I’ve interviewed is a man called Ali Allawi. Based in London, Allawi has the look of a haunted man. The former minister of trade and minister of defence in Iraq’s interim government, Allawi wrote a book called The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace, which was hailed as the blueprint for achieving peace in that country.

Though I spoke to him in London a couple of years ago, I’ve never forgotten what Allawi said about power. Defining power as the potential to dominate, Allawi talked about power having a life of its own. He said: “Those who appear in possession of power are not in possession of power. Power is in possession of them. Power tends to dominate those who wield it because it has an inherent dynamic that feeds on itself and wants more and more. Those who are put in charge of it think that can control it, but in reality it dominates them. They merely become grist to the mill.”

Of course Allawi was speaking about political power, but what he said remained top of mind while I was writing about Google. Like politics, original intent often gets lost in business’ pursuit of dominance and profits above all else. In a capitalist world driven by extreme self-interest, benevolence is often consumed by power as the quest for growth surpasses every other intent.

The only thing that can balance or contain power is the division of power. When we spoke, Allawi talked not of checks or balances, but rather of the fragmentation of power, saying that power has a self-serving core that becomes a leviathan and must be weakened all cost. He added that power doesn’t allow for foresight, saying that foresight is an advantage people have before they are given the opportunity to exercise power. “Once you are in it, it is like a leviathan. Then the only way to deal with it is to fragment it, distribute it and turn it into something less like an ever-growing machine.”

In economic terms, what Allawi is referring to is some mechanism of self-regulation or self-cannibalisation that may seem like an anathema to capitalism. However, for monoliths like a Google that is growing at break-neck speed and already facing the Department of Justice on the Yahoo! deal, fragmentation makes sense. Instead of spawning products and buying brands that exponentially feed the power core, why not fragment into satellites of entrepreneurship that build local economies? Rather than consolidating wealth and dominance at the Googleplex, spin off myriad opportunities that empower and uplift entrepreneurs in emerging economies around the globe.

While Google has shown extreme prowess in technological innovation, it has yet to demonstrate ingenuity in economic constructs. Google’s pending patent for a floating armada of data centres may revolutionise server hubs by pioneering the way for cheaper, greener data centres that are powered by fuel-efficient wave electricity. But it’s hardly a panacea to poverty and the global greed that’s really killing our world.

The US economic crash shows that avarice has a toxic end tail that spreads poisons far beyond the reach of the destructive maw that spawns it. As Google’s tentacles reach deeper into China, India and Russia to complete its grip on the world, perhaps they could consider the legacy they’re leaving.

Instead of indexing a trillion unique pages that include nebulous content you’ll need more than one life time to consume and spawning products that offer Google even more of our personal and corporate information, they could invent a more useful machine. One that reconstructs power and profit as tools that build and uplift humanity.




Related Posts
  • None

6 Responses to “The leviathan”

There’s a flipside to all of this. If you want the human race to progress any further than the dark ages, you need people to form companies to control power. If you keep fragmenting power, you never establish new levels for anything.

The government of any one country has a lot of power, and for the most part, its used to provide basic services to its residents. If Google rises to supreme Internet dominance, they’ll be able to provide even more advanced services to the global populace. If a single automobile manufacturer rises to global dominance, they’ll be in a position to push innovation to new frontiers, without having to worry about being competitive or profitable.

That’s something else to think about. People keep wanting to move forward, but they leave their thinking in the dark ages, and they wonder why everything keeps going so wrong.

(Report abuse)

Wogan on December 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am

Wogan - there’s a flip side to everything, but that doesn’t mean that such a binary view is useful.

Then one must beg the question whether economic and technological progress is in fact advancement. I think given the recent financial crisis that has plunged sectors of the world into further poverty, some may argue against a world that is that connected and over dependent.

And then you assume that dominance means service and innovation. As Enron, WorldCom, The ANC, George Bush, Robert Mugabe, Rod Blagojevich, Tiger, Adcock Ingram etc etc etc would attest dominance does not auto assume benevolence.

Economic history shows that supreme dominance is usually tied to the supreme abuse of power.

(Report abuse)

Mandy de Waal on December 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Actually, modern history only shows us that we’ve gotten worse at choosing our leaders.

Compare democracy to monarchy. Democratically elected leaders are the ones that can rally support, appeal to the masses, and recruit good advisers. In monarch families, children are probably bred from day 1 to eventually take over his father’s kingdom.

Which would you rather have? A smooth talker, or someone that literally has leadership in their blood?

The recent everything-collapse is probably more due to the fact that there were immoral people in positions of power, than the existence of that power itself. Like hedge funds - things done in the dark, with no concern for the endgame.

True, technological advancement can’t replace moral advancement, and I think that we’re more morally bankrupt than anything else. But moral advancement isn’t something you can enact a policy for - it’s the collective choices of the individuals, something that no government has control over.

Personally, I’d rather live in a world with it’s eyes focused on the horizon, than on the next politician’s rear end.

(Report abuse)

Wogan on December 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Hi Wogan

Parts of your argument are logically fraught.

You can’t really compare a democracy to a monarchy - they are two completely different political systems.

You cannot assume that a democracy automatically means a ’smooth talker’ wins the day. Thabo Mbeki is a good case in point (as is George Bush). Mbeki is hardly charismatic while Bush is anything but a smooth talker.

Then your assumption that Monarchy and royal blood lines ensure good leadership. Did you take history? If you did you will know that there were more lunatics, power hungry maniacs and blood thirsty rulers ensconced in power thanks to a monarchy than any other political system in the world.

Monarchy is a Machiavellian construct of absolute power that is the perfect example of the fact that ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

Then there’s the fact that no two democracies have ever gone to war against each other.

You may be interested to read about the psychology of fraud and corruption. Here the experts say in generalist terms that it is not people who are you are immoral and who cause large scale fraud - rather that they are corrupted by power and by environments that enable fraud.

Then it is widely known that the current economic crisis was caused in the US by the sub prime mortgage crisis and in the rest of the world by economies over reliant on oil, high commodity prices, inflation, poor governance, inflation and the knock on effect of the credit crisis.

I am not knocking technological advancement or saying that technological advancement replaces moral advancement. If anything it is the pervasive consumerist and commercial values which have largely replaced moral values that are at fault.

The piece was rather written as a warning on the dangers of power, and the tendency of power to corrupt.

I am sure the people who started Google have significant good intent. But do country managers and growth obsessed sales people in far flung emerging territories share that benevolent intent.

My research on this story has shown that is not the case.

(Report abuse)

Mandy de Waal on December 16th, 2008 at 11:37 am

The only ‘balance’ to google would be Microsoft buying Yahoo. Apart from Bill donating billions in his pare time, microsoft has a pretty bad reputation, deservedly. If they joined the ’search engine wars’ and won, then we’re done for. So, it’s get a ‘new boss, just like the old boss’ really.

As an aside, I find it interesting that microsoft is suddenly pushing internet standards in microsoft expression web 2, why is this so?

(Report abuse)

nugeneration on December 18th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

(Report abuse)

Gold on January 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm

Leave a Reply

All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.

Send me the Thought Leader daily newsletter

profile
Mandy de Waal is a columnist, writer and journalist. A former broadcast journalist, de Waal is writes for Noseweek, ITWeb, MarkLives, Brandchannel and MarkMagazine. She is part of the judging panel of the Discovery Health Journalism Awards and the MPASA PICA Awards. In her spare time she writes poetry and fiction.

Read her blog Artificial Intelligence: Articles, essays and riffs about new media, media, branding, economics and current events.

Read her fiction, short stories and poetry.

Follow her on Twitter.
Tell a Friend Technorati RSS
Mandy's links
Artificial Intelligence
MdW's articles, essays and riffs about new media, media, branding, economics and current events.
ITWeb
Read Mandy de Waal's columns and articles on people in social media and the convergent economy on ITWeb.
MdW on Twitter
Follow me tweeple.
Portfolio:
Mandy de Waal's profile and writing portfolio.
Thought Leader
MdW's regular column on Thought Leader.
Three Strange Angels
MdW's poetry, essays and short form fiction.
more posts
Mandy de Waal speaks to The Internet & Social Media Guy, Andy Hadfield about online banking trends. What's the biggest challenge facing banks...
Do you have faith in internet content? As search marketing soars, insidious content spammers are overwhelming and choking the net. Only a return to va...
In a multi-platform world where the news waits for no man or network, traditional media would do well to heed the call of the Beowulf that would consu...
Don't you love a creative business idea whose time has come? One that rewards local ingenuity, funky design and distributes wealth to smart people who...
Context is a hell of a thing. That point was driven home to me today when Muti deleted a link without explaining how or why the post was deleted. A so...
latest activity
Blog Statistics
Total reads 3902
Total comments 51
Mandy's tags
advertisement
All material copyright of the author, or the Mail & Guardian, unless otherwise specified
Author Login
Afrigator