Detlef Palm commented on "Democracy is very popular: Ramesh Shrestha"
Yesterday
👍
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Yesterday
Democracy is the West’s favourite export after fast food and financial derivatives.
One is tempted to respond to the “there are no real democracies” argument with a certain weary familiarity. Of course, there aren’t. There never were. Democracy has always been less a polished product and more a draft document under permanent revision, by committee.
The line often attributed to Winston Churchill still does most of the heavy lifting here: democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. But it was not a triumphalist statement. It was closer to a sigh.
The West’s chest-beating today does sound slightly hollow. We once marketed democracy as a deluxe package: free elections, free press, steady growth, expanding middle class, sensible politicians in sensible suits. Somewhere along the way, we kept the elections and misplaced the sensible suits and perhaps the expanding middle class as well.
Meanwhile, Singapore quietly demonstrated that you can run a remarkably efficient, low-corruption, high-income society without turning political pluralism into a national hobby. It did not hold seminars about “the end of history.” It simply built airports, schools, and fiscal reserves. That is awkward for Western self-esteem.
But before we trade parliamentary theatrics for administrative serenity, a small observation: democracy’s virtue has never been elegance. It is ventilation. It allows bad ideas to be shouted down before they become permanent architecture. It permits governments to be dismissed without barricades. It tolerates newspapers that irritate, courts that obstruct, and voters who change their minds.
Western democracies today look chaotic because they are noisy, divided, and occasionally absurd. But that noise is also a feedback mechanism. The very public display of dysfunction is evidence of pluralism at work. It is untidy, frequently embarrassing, and undeniably slow. But it contains within it a self-repair kit.
Singapore’s success is real, so is Western complacency. The lesson may not be that democracy has failed, but that the West mistook favourable economic winds for proof of moral superiority. When growth was easy, democracy looked brilliant; when growth stalled, perhaps not so much.
Perhaps the more modest conclusion is this: democracy is not a guarantee of good governance. It is a safeguard against concentrated power. It sometimes produces mediocre outcomes. So yes, the West should lower the volume on its lecturing, and practice less sermon and more housekeeping.
But abandoning democracy because it is flawed would be like giving up on plumbing because it occasionally leaks, and returning instead to the reassuring efficiency of the bucket.
One is tempted to respond to the “there are no real democracies” argument with a certain weary familiarity. Of course, there aren’t. There never were. Democracy has always been less a polished product and more a draft document under permanent revision, by committee.
The line often attributed to Winston Churchill still does most of the heavy lifting here: democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. But it was not a triumphalist statement. It was closer to a sigh.
The West’s chest-beating today does sound slightly hollow. We once marketed democracy as a deluxe package: free elections, free press, steady growth, expanding middle class, sensible politicians in sensible suits. Somewhere along the way, we kept the elections and misplaced the sensible suits and perhaps the expanding middle class as well.
Meanwhile, Singapore quietly demonstrated that you can run a remarkably efficient, low-corruption, high-income society without turning political pluralism into a national hobby. It did not hold seminars about “the end of history.” It simply built airports, schools, and fiscal reserves. That is awkward for Western self-esteem.
But before we trade parliamentary theatrics for administrative serenity, a small observation: democracy’s virtue has never been elegance. It is ventilation. It allows bad ideas to be shouted down before they become permanent architecture. It permits governments to be dismissed without barricades. It tolerates newspapers that irritate, courts that obstruct, and voters who change their minds.
Western democracies today look chaotic because they are noisy, divided, and occasionally absurd. But that noise is also a feedback mechanism. The very public display of dysfunction is evidence of pluralism at work. It is untidy, frequently embarrassing, and undeniably slow. But it contains within it a self-repair kit.
Singapore’s success is real, so is Western complacency. The lesson may not be that democracy has failed, but that the West mistook favourable economic winds for proof of moral superiority. When growth was easy, democracy looked brilliant; when growth stalled, perhaps not so much.
Perhaps the more modest conclusion is this: democracy is not a guarantee of good governance. It is a safeguard against concentrated power. It sometimes produces mediocre outcomes. So yes, the West should lower the volume on its lecturing, and practice less sermon and more housekeeping.
But abandoning democracy because it is flawed would be like giving up on plumbing because it occasionally leaks, and returning instead to the reassuring efficiency of the bucket.
2 days ago
Interestingly, Thomas invokes Diversity, Equity and Inclusion as though it were some recent add-on to an otherwise streamlined machine. By definition, the United Nations is an elaborate exercise in diversity, equity and inclusion. It was designed that way in 1945. One hundred and ninety-three member states, multiple official languages, geographically distributed agencies, carefully balanced recruitment formulas. If DEI did not exist, the UN would have had to invent it.
For at least three decades, DEI has not merely been present; it has been central to organisational leadership doctrine across the system. Workshops were held. Strategies drafted. Scorecards updated. Entire departments flourished. It would be impossible to argue that the concept has lacked attention.
And yet, even the most loyal defenders of the UN and its many agencies would hesitate before describing organisational excellence as its defining comparative advantage. Noble purpose? Certainly. Normative influence? Often. Managerial precision and accountability? One senses a more reflective pause.
This raises an uncomfortable and slightly impolite question: can an organisation be so committed to being representative that effectiveness plays second fiddle? At what point does geographic balance overtake competence? When does inclusion become an end in itself rather than a means to institutional strength?
To be clear, diversity is not the villain. The UN, as a global body, cannot credibly function as an exclusive club. But it is possible to elevate process over performance. If every post must satisfy a matrix of nationality, gender balance, political sensitivity and internal optics, merit risks becoming one criterion among many rather than the decisive one.
And fragmentation adds another layer. When headquarters functions are distributed across multiple capitals, Florence here, Rome there and Berlin somewhere else, one wonders whether this is strategic design or diplomatic choreography. It may be equitable. It is less clear that it is efficient.
Perhaps the real genius of the system is that it manages to embody every virtue simultaneously: inclusive, geographically balanced, politically sensitive, and administratively diffuse. No single failure can ever quite be traced to a single decision. Accountability, too, becomes beautifully inclusive.
So yes, DEI may well contribute to legitimacy. But legitimacy without operational excellence is fragile. If the UN struggles with coherence, speed and clarity of direction, it is reasonable to ask if an overcorrection has occurred.
After thirty years of elevating DEI to the forefront of management philosophy, it would not be entirely unreasonable to request some empirical evidence that this has produced an organisation renowned for managerial brilliance. Until then, one might gently suggest that diversity and competence need not be opposing values, but they do require hierarchy. And institutions, like orchestras, only function when someone is actually conducting.
For at least three decades, DEI has not merely been present; it has been central to organisational leadership doctrine across the system. Workshops were held. Strategies drafted. Scorecards updated. Entire departments flourished. It would be impossible to argue that the concept has lacked attention.
And yet, even the most loyal defenders of the UN and its many agencies would hesitate before describing organisational excellence as its defining comparative advantage. Noble purpose? Certainly. Normative influence? Often. Managerial precision and accountability? One senses a more reflective pause.
This raises an uncomfortable and slightly impolite question: can an organisation be so committed to being representative that effectiveness plays second fiddle? At what point does geographic balance overtake competence? When does inclusion become an end in itself rather than a means to institutional strength?
To be clear, diversity is not the villain. The UN, as a global body, cannot credibly function as an exclusive club. But it is possible to elevate process over performance. If every post must satisfy a matrix of nationality, gender balance, political sensitivity and internal optics, merit risks becoming one criterion among many rather than the decisive one.
And fragmentation adds another layer. When headquarters functions are distributed across multiple capitals, Florence here, Rome there and Berlin somewhere else, one wonders whether this is strategic design or diplomatic choreography. It may be equitable. It is less clear that it is efficient.
Perhaps the real genius of the system is that it manages to embody every virtue simultaneously: inclusive, geographically balanced, politically sensitive, and administratively diffuse. No single failure can ever quite be traced to a single decision. Accountability, too, becomes beautifully inclusive.
So yes, DEI may well contribute to legitimacy. But legitimacy without operational excellence is fragile. If the UN struggles with coherence, speed and clarity of direction, it is reasonable to ask if an overcorrection has occurred.
After thirty years of elevating DEI to the forefront of management philosophy, it would not be entirely unreasonable to request some empirical evidence that this has produced an organisation renowned for managerial brilliance. Until then, one might gently suggest that diversity and competence need not be opposing values, but they do require hierarchy. And institutions, like orchestras, only function when someone is actually conducting.
2 days ago
Brilliant. This comment is better and more important than the article
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Feb 12, 2026
There was a time when organisations were dismantled with drama: commissions of inquiry, funding cuts, political showdowns. Today, the UN has discovered something more elegant. If you truly want to make an institution disappear without anyone noticing, you distribute it.
A division to Berlin. A centre in Florence. Another hub to Rome. A liaison office somewhere pleasantly coastal. A “centre of excellence” in every country willing to provide office space, tax privileges and a decent lunch subsidy. No one closes headquarters; they merely become plural.
Fragmentation has the advantage of sounding like reform. Future Focus Initiative has a nicer ring to it. And decentralisation, we are assured, reflects modern governance. The world is now multipolar; surely headquarters should be too.
One might even admire the subtlety. When funding tightens, dispersed units can be quietly folded into the wallpaper. An office in Berlin disappears. A programme in Florence is reconfigured. A Rome centre is reassessed. No grand collapse, just gentle evaporation. Of course, this is presented as cooperation. In practice, it increasingly resembles competition. Member states bid for functions like cities competing for a sporting event.
And then there is accountability. Who exactly is responsible for what? Which city holds which lever? Who answers when strategy dissolves into coordination meetings across time zones? If everyone hosts a piece of headquarters, everyone has skin in the game, and no one can afford to let the structure change too radically. This may, in fact, be the genius of it. Reform becomes structurally impossible because too many capitals now have an interest in the status quo.
As for staffing philosophies, we are often reminded that diversity, equity and inclusion are pathways to excellence. Perhaps they are. But excellence also requires clarity of purpose and unity of direction. An organisation can be diverse, equitable, and inclusive, but still administratively diffuse.
None of this is to argue that decentralisation is inherently wrong. But what is striking is the absence of a system-wide conversation about what headquarters functions are actually for. Strategy first, geography second, would be a novel approach. Instead, the map appears to be shaping the mission.
If the UN were ever to fade from relevance, it may not do so with a bang. It may become so widely distributed that it is nowhere in particular. An organisation present everywhere and of importance nowhere.
But perhaps this is unfair. Perhaps the proliferation of centres will generate unprecedented synergy. Perhaps the multiplication of headquarters will produce unity through complexity. History will tell us which it is. In the meantime, one cannot help admiring the efficiency of a reform process that makes disappearance look like expansion.
A division to Berlin. A centre in Florence. Another hub to Rome. A liaison office somewhere pleasantly coastal. A “centre of excellence” in every country willing to provide office space, tax privileges and a decent lunch subsidy. No one closes headquarters; they merely become plural.
Fragmentation has the advantage of sounding like reform. Future Focus Initiative has a nicer ring to it. And decentralisation, we are assured, reflects modern governance. The world is now multipolar; surely headquarters should be too.
One might even admire the subtlety. When funding tightens, dispersed units can be quietly folded into the wallpaper. An office in Berlin disappears. A programme in Florence is reconfigured. A Rome centre is reassessed. No grand collapse, just gentle evaporation. Of course, this is presented as cooperation. In practice, it increasingly resembles competition. Member states bid for functions like cities competing for a sporting event.
And then there is accountability. Who exactly is responsible for what? Which city holds which lever? Who answers when strategy dissolves into coordination meetings across time zones? If everyone hosts a piece of headquarters, everyone has skin in the game, and no one can afford to let the structure change too radically. This may, in fact, be the genius of it. Reform becomes structurally impossible because too many capitals now have an interest in the status quo.
As for staffing philosophies, we are often reminded that diversity, equity and inclusion are pathways to excellence. Perhaps they are. But excellence also requires clarity of purpose and unity of direction. An organisation can be diverse, equitable, and inclusive, but still administratively diffuse.
None of this is to argue that decentralisation is inherently wrong. But what is striking is the absence of a system-wide conversation about what headquarters functions are actually for. Strategy first, geography second, would be a novel approach. Instead, the map appears to be shaping the mission.
If the UN were ever to fade from relevance, it may not do so with a bang. It may become so widely distributed that it is nowhere in particular. An organisation present everywhere and of importance nowhere.
But perhaps this is unfair. Perhaps the proliferation of centres will generate unprecedented synergy. Perhaps the multiplication of headquarters will produce unity through complexity. History will tell us which it is. In the meantime, one cannot help admiring the efficiency of a reform process that makes disappearance look like expansion.
Julia Stockwell-Hamid commented on "A Group of Buddhist Monks Completes its March for Peace : Shared by Mary Martin / Jim Mohan"
Feb 11, 2026
Hi Jimmy /Mary
Now that’s the kind of march that needs to happen everywhere - it reminds me of the women’s peace marches in Northern Ireland in the 1970s.
Now that’s the kind of march that needs to happen everywhere - it reminds me of the women’s peace marches in Northern Ireland in the 1970s.
Kul Gautam commented on "A Group of Buddhist Monks Completes its March for Peace : Shared by Mary Martin / Jim Mohan"
Feb 11, 2026
Bless the venerable Buddhist monks, and their companion dog Aloka.
And may their prayers for peace & harmony be heard by the powers that be.
Om Mani Padmé Hum!
And may their prayers for peace & harmony be heard by the powers that be.
Om Mani Padmé Hum!
Soma De Silva commented on "PORTRAITS (by Myra Rudin)"
Feb 10, 2026
Yes, photos speak volumes about human emotions. Your writing is truly a joy to read.
Isolene Rebello commented on "PORTRAITS (by Myra Rudin)"
Feb 9, 2026
Beautiful photos, Myra! Thank you for sharing!
Unknown commented on "Should News Links continue? : Tom McDermott"
Feb 9, 2026
Please keep sharing as we don’t always have access.
Unknown commented on "PORTRAITS (by Myra Rudin)"
Feb 8, 2026
what an eloquent capture of character. Habib
Horst Max Cerni commented on "PORTRAITS (by Myra Rudin)"
Feb 8, 2026
You have captured the human spirit - from young to old. Beautiful.
Rosa Cruz commented on "PORTRAITS (by Myra Rudin)"
Feb 8, 2026
very interesting pictures Myra. Thanks for sharing
Rohini de silva commented on "Letter to Marta Santos Pais on the Need for the SG to Phone Trump : Shared by Kul Gautam"
Feb 8, 2026
Absolutely. That is part of diplomacy. Know your partner/client and establish personal relations and communication - more so when you know how the partner works.
Paula C. commented on "PORTRAITS (by Myra Rudin)"
Feb 8, 2026
What a slice of humanity, Myra! These are all beautiful, some sad, others uplifting. Thank you.
Unknown commented on "Mini-reunion in Amman : Mary Sidawi"
Feb 8, 2026
Looking as vibrant and vigorous as ever! Thankyou for sharing this lovely photo. All the best, Rozanne
Unknown commented on "Should News Links continue? : Tom McDermott"
Feb 8, 2026
Yes, please, long may it continue! I read it through the weekly update rather than every day but much appreciate the curated collection as it includes articles that i haven’t come across in my own news scan. Thankyou, Tom, for all that you do to make this meaningful! All the best, Rozanne
Unknown commented on "Something different !! : Shared by Sree Gururaja"
Feb 8, 2026
Beautiful
Niloufar Pourzand commented on "Taliban plunges Afghanistan into un-Islamic nadir : Shared by Kul Gautam"
Feb 7, 2026
Oh Belquis is a good friend who spent her last night fleeing Taliban with us with her siblings. She is a brave & intelligent Afghan activist.
Gourisankar Ghosh commented on "Missing You - 'Tim' Journey by Ken Gibbs"
Feb 7, 2026
Tim was a committed to the cause , warm to the friends and at heart a simple honest person . I was specially attracted to him in the pump crowd where he was straight to his point , articulate with simple explanations and a clear scientific mind . His life journey must have ended but Tim will be in our mind forever . RIP 💐 Gouri
Unknown commented on "PORTRAITS (by Myra Rudin)"
Feb 7, 2026
Myra, beautiful portraits. I really enjoyed seeing them. B Hetzer
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Labels
Comments
Labels:
Comments
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment
If you are a member of XUNICEF, you can comment directly on a post. Or, send your comments to us at xunicef.news.views@gmail.com and we will publish them for you.