Think! (8 page)

Winston
Churchill once said: 'Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.' Though democracy isn't perfect, it is better than all the other systems – such as dictatorship, tyranny, absolute monarchy, and so on.

The Phoenicians had a different system of government. There was an upper chamber made up of representatives of different sectors of society – merchants, farmers, priests, workers, etc. This was the governing chamber. If they agreed on something it became law. If there was disagreement in this chamber then the matter went to the second chamber, which was a people's assembly.

The Venetians had a complex but successful system that lasted for a thousand years. In it, people were elected
to a chamber. Then a number of people were selected by lot (chance) to go to a second chamber. The same process was repeated in different stages until a government was formed. So there was the people element – they were voted in – but also the chance element, but from an enriched group. This method successfully prevented factions, party formation and corruption, which wrecked so many medieval republics.

Then there is the system with a monarch or sheikh and an assembly that can advise but does not have the final say.

Democracy is a pretty good system. It is better for stability than for growth. The greatest advantage is that people cannot complain because they made the choice. Sometimes this is rather like a condemned man asked to choose the method of his execution. He makes the choice.

There is also always the possibility of change at the next election. Many dictators have been in power for over 40 years; politicians have to be careful not to upset the people or they will not be elected next time round. The press, on behalf of the people, are ready to criticise the government. Democracy prevents tyranny, mistakes, excesses. Democracy is good at preserving stability. People see that they have made a choice themselves and
are prepared to live with this (provided elections are seen as fair).

Democracy was designed to prevent tyranny, not to facilitate progress. The emphasis is on attack, criticism and argument rather than the generation of new possibilities. It is much easier to be attacked for doing something than for doing nothing (even if existing systems may be deteriorating), so very little gets done.

The talent and skill of the opposition is largely wasted while they are in opposition, where they are confined to attacking and being negative.

The sharp division of the population into parties can create tensions and violence, as happened in 2008 in both Kenya and Pakistan. One group is set against another. Each feels it will be disadvantaged if the other group is in power – which is sometimes the case.

Blocked by openness

You are driving down the road and you come to a police barrier. You cannot proceed further.

We all know about being blocked by a barrier or something in the way. But what about
being blocked by openness? What about being blocked precisely because there is nothing in the way?

You proceed down the open and familiar highway. This very openness of the road prevents, or
blocks, you from taking a side road.

There are concepts and ways of doing things that seem so excellent that we are prevented, or blocked, from seeking alternatives. Democracy as a form of government is one such example. Because it is rather better than other and preceding forms of government, we never think how it might be improved by creativity.

Change

Democracy is not beyond change, although any change will be strongly resisted by those who benefit from the present system and those who believe it is perfect. Below I make some suggestions. These are only
possibilities.

A very simple change is to have parliament use the Six Hats framework – at least on one day a week. The Speaker would announce that it was Yellow Hat time, and members would be expected to make positive comments. At Black Hat time they would be permitted their usual criticisms. At Green Hat time there would be an opportunity for creativity, suggestions and modifications of ideas. At the end of the day there might be Red Hat time, when members could insult each other at will. I discussed this idea with the prime minister of Mauritius. He liked it and might try it some time.

Another suggestion is to create some new seats, equivalent in number to one-third of the seats in the
parliament (this number is only a suggestion and might need to be reconsidered). There would be no one sitting in these seats. These seats would be counted as voted for by public opinion. If the opposition put forward an idea and a poll of public opinion was 70 per cent in favour of that idea, then 70 per cent of the seats would have voted for the idea. In this way there would be a continuous input from the public instead of having to wait for the next election. The opposition could also bring forward legislation instead of just being in a critical role. In this model, however, public opinion would only be one factor, and not the sole factor in deciding legislation.

Another possibility is to have a National Council for New Ideas. This council would generate and collect new ideas. These would be tested in public opinion polls, pilot schemes, surveys, etc. If everyone liked the ideas, then the government could choose to use the ideas – but would not be compelled to do so. The government could also use the council to try out its own ideas (kiteflying, i.e. making visible an idea to judge reaction to that idea). This way the government could get the benefit from successful ideas without having to take responsibility for unsuccessful ideas if the public rejected them. I have set up such a Council in Serbia. It is currently very difficult for a democratic government to try out ideas in this way.

Constructive thinking

Someone who is charismatic on television or in the media stands a good chance of getting elected in a democratic system. Most people in democratic politics also tend to be lawyers, journalists and teachers. This is because architects, engineers, business executives, entrepreneurs and scientists cannot risk entering politics. If they are elected, they have to give up their current job. These jobs are in hierarchy organisations and depend on continuing public visibility. If you step out of a job in these careers you cannot go back to the same position so, if they are not elected next time, they cannot go back to their old job. The risk is not worthwhile.

In their training, lawyers, journalists and teachers are good at talking and arguing; they are more used to criticising than to
creative and constructive thinking. Since they outnumber more creative and constructive thinkers, this is a serious
structural problem with democracy.

There is a great need for creativity to challenge ideas with which we are perfectly happy. Such ideas may be blocking the path to better ideas.

Perhaps there could be a way of allowing constructive people to participate in government without giving up their current job. Perhaps the endless debates in the legislative chamber are no longer so essential. Perhaps it could all be done by e-mail!

In today's age of new technologies, we do not have to be restricted to the methods available to the ancient
Greeks, who created democracy. There could even be an ongoing assessment of each member of parliament by their constituents, and their vote in the chamber would reflect this assessment. So if someone got a 50 per cent rating, he would have half a vote in the chamber. A 20 per cent rating would mean only a fifth of the vote. Technically this is possible today.

Creativity is not only involved in changing ideas and processes that are in use, such as democracy. Creativity can be involved in designing completely new things that take advantage of changes in technology, etc. With Facebook, YouTube, eBay, etc., the Internet has given some people the opportunity to design new programmes.

So creativity in design may involve getting rid of problems and inconveniences. Creativity in design may reduce price or increase longevity of the product.

And creativity in design may involve putting together familiar ingredients in a new way – just like creating a new dish from traditional ingredients.

Democracy is designed to keep society stable and to protect it from tyranny. It is not designed for progress. More thinking is needed.

As I mentioned before, I have been to a number of universities (Malta, Oxford, London, Cambridge, Harvard) as an undergraduate, a postgraduate and in a teaching post. I also have a collection of degrees (BSc, MD, MA, DPhil, PhD, DDes, LLD). Four of these were earned, and the others were
honoris causa.

I have a great respect for universities, but the theme of much of this book applies to them as well: 'Excellent but not enough.' In other words, universities are excellent at the game they have come to play, but this game is not enough.
Being blocked by excellence is always the danger.

An obsession with the truth can hardly be criticised as wrong. But this obsession can prevent development of the
mentally important role of speculation and possibility. When the world was full of speculation and fantasy, this obsession with the truth served society very well. Today the world is not so full of fantasy, and attention to possibility has become rather more important.

The original purpose of universities was to bring the wisdom of ages and make it available to students of the present. That
role of scholarship is still performed very well. It is, however, not enough.

When as an undergraduate I was reading psychology at Oxford, I found that it was all about the history of psychology. There was very little consideration of current
concerns, speculations, problems or practical points. It was enough to know that someone had proposed an idea in 1850, and then in 1922 there was another theory, and so on.

At Harvard I was interested in the control of blood pressure in the human body. I found it more useful to discuss matters with the Professor of Aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), because he was interested in systems behaviour, whereas Harvard had this scholarship attitude to historic events and ideas.

I had had an operation and was unable to attend an international conference on thinking. So I had a long conversation on the telephone with a friend of mine, Professor David
Perkins of Harvard University, and this was broadcast to the participants.

I remember his frequent emphasis on 'understanding'.
If we have knowledge we have understanding, and from that we can proceed to action. Of course, I agree with this. But understanding is not itself enough. We also need frameworks of possibility in order to make progress.

I admit that it is not easy to keep an ultimate concern with the truth and yet to open up creativity and possibility as well, but it is necessary.

Because of the concern with the truth, universities have had to concentrate on critical thinking. Once again this is excellent but not enough. Creative thinking, design thinking and perceptual thinking should also be included.

Truth may prevent stupid and nasty things from happening, but truth in itself does not make things happen. For that we need design thinking.

I would suggest that every university course has a foundation year with two main subjects. The first of these would be thinking. This would include my thinking (practical creativity) and any other approach that is operational rather than descriptive.

The second subject would be the state of the world and society. It is not enough for anyone to know a particular subject in great depth while remaining ignorant of the world around them.

Analysis is wonderful but it is not enough. Knowledge and analysis may give us the road map but then we have to design our journey. Where do we want to go?

Design means putting together what we have in order to deliver the
values we want. Design is all about the real world. Design is all about the world outside schools and universities. How do you design your career? How do you design your life? How do you design a car park? How do you design a political manifesto?

Right from the beginning, students should be set simple design exercises. These need not be relevant to the subjects they are studying. The purpose of these exercises is to develop the thinking skills of design. The exercises may include designing a bus; designing a holiday resort; designing a sport for old people; designing a café; designing a car park; designing a new type of examination.

Design brings in aspects of action, practicality and value.

You can analyse the past but you have to design the future – or else you will just fall into it.

Universities and all educational institutions completely ignore value. It is assumed that everyone knows about
current values and that this will therefore guide their thinking, behaviour and designs.

A very important operation is to be able to extract 'value' at every point. What is the value here? For whom is there a value?

The value may indeed be hidden in a lot of negatives, but you need to identify that value.

In the end creativity has to show value. Being different for the sake of being different is not creativity.

Values may seem intangible, but they do need more direct attention.

In my book
The Six Value Medals,
I look at six different types of value:

Gold Medal:
Human values – the things that matter directly to people, both positive and negative: praise, achievement, humiliation, and so on.

Silver Medal:
Organisational values – whether the organisation is a corporation or a family unit. This involves the purpose and mission of that organisation. How do the values help or impede that purpose?

Steel Medal:
These are the quality values. Whatever something is supposed to be doing, how well is it being done? Steel has certain quality requirements.

Glass Medal:
Glass is a simple substance, but with
creativity much can be done with it. So the Glass Medal is concerned with innovation and creativity. What is new?

Wood Medal:
Ecology values. This is ecology in its broadest sense and not just nature. It includes the impact of any action on the world around.

Brass Medal:
Brass looks like gold but is not. This medal is concerned with perceptual values. How will something be perceived? Something worthwhile might be perceived badly. Something less worthwhile might be perceived more favourably. We may wish it otherwise but we need to pay attention to perceptual values.

The book includes methods of carrying out and displaying the results of a 'value scan' so that people can compare their own subjective scans and focus on the points of disagreement.

Universities should look at teaching values.

It is also important to identify under what circumstances the values would be present. How durable would these values be?

In the end, 'value' is the currency of creativity. If creativity does not deliver value it is a pointless exercise.

Universities are much concerned with argument as a way of arriving at the truth. This goes back to medieval days, when verbal disputes were used especially in matters of theology.

While argument has a value, there is also a genuine need to understand the other point of view and to seek reconciliation. There is a need to design a way forward rather than just to win an argument. What are the values, perceptions and fears of the other party?

With theology,
constructive thinking probably suggested compromise, but in other matters, constructive thinking is a powerful way forward.

I used to examine for the medical finals at Cambridge University. About 10 per cent of the candidates were so poor you wondered how they had ever got so far and whether they could ever become doctors. Eighty-five per cent were competent and grey. They had the right answers but nothing more. Only about 5 per cent showed some spark of originality or even thinking. Perhaps that is the nature of medicine as a subject – competence is all.

Examinations are good for testing whether someone knows what he or she is supposed to know. They are even more useful for getting people to study.

I asked students where they picked up their knowledge. They told me that seeing patients in a hospital ward was motivating but that very little could be learned because the variety of different cases was necessarily limited. They said they went to lectures to know the 'bandwidth' of the knowledge they were expected to have. They said they got almost all the required knowledge from books. So maybe the role of the university was just to recommend the right books.

Possibly, instead of formal exams there could be random micro-exams. A computer screen would ask for a particular student, who would be given simple questions to answer there and then. The results of these micro-exams would then be put together to create a final mark. This would test thinking and knowledge in a different way.

The game

Over time, and for good reasons, an academic 'game' has developed. You are supposed to play that game. A very eminent scientist once asked me why I did not have lists of references in my books. I replied that it was because the ideas were mine and not obtained through scholarly research into other people's work. He told me that nevertheless I should 'fake' a reference list, whether or not I had read the works, because this was what was expected – this was 'the academic game'.

I have mentioned earlier that the main role of universities in the
future might be to teach skills. These skills might include:

Information skills:
How to get needed information from various sources, including digital sources, books and university staff.

Thinking skills:
How to think critically, creatively, constructively and in a design mode.

People skills:
Dealing with people, managing people, understanding people.

Professional skills:
Skills relating to the chosen profession.

I was once invited to speak at the World University Presidents' Summit held in Bangkok. I told the audience that in a digital age, universities were out of date.

The original purpose of a university was to bring the knowledge and information of the past and make it available to the students of today. In a digital age it is possible to get all the information you want without going
to university. With the development of a new profession of 'information provider', you will simply contract with the provider to get you the needed information. Today, universities should be concentrating on thinking skills, design skills, people skills, and so on.

Universities are excellently placed to do wonderful things for society. They just need to have the will to do them.