Business-Leaders As Thought-Leaders: How It Affects Our Democratic Decisions

Often, I see success and financial wealth confused by people as being one and the same thing. I believe there is a distraction from credible sources of knowledge that is gained by academics & scientists in place of the interests of business leaders which are often opposing.

Richard Dawkins has shown how some elements of society are blind to rational thought through their religious beliefs - it is thought the same distraction occurs through the portrayal and citing of business leaders as authoritative sources on important democratic decisions.

I exact that this is a dangerous frame of mind, and one of the thought processes encouraged by conservative and neo-liberal politicians, especially in the past few years.  I feel this is one of the thought processes of those who campaign for a yes vote in the upcoming referendum in Ireland on the Fiscal Stability Treaty.

There exists a frame of mind which equates earning power through business as something to aspire towards, and if you cannot achieve this, the next best thing appears to be to respect those that do. To earn financial wealth requires the initial financial means, the time, dedication and the will to do so. It requires confidence, along with an ability to sell something, whether it's of value or not - as long as you can illustrate a value effectively.  There is nothing necessarily wrong with this kind of ambition as long as the kind of people who achieve such financial success do not become thought leaders in our society.

But this is not the case.  Most of our greatest academics, intellectuals, artists, activists, scientists and so on, are not wealthy in relative terms.  To achieve success in their fields, these individuals too require time and dedication to their discipline, but it comes at the expense of financial wealth and a public profile.  Ironically however, these are the individuals whose thoughts we might prioritise.

A college lecturer may be belittled by those in a position of power, and overlooked in turn by the media when it comes to issues of political importance (we can see this kind of business machoism - the "I earn more than you" argument, in the video below).  The fact that mass media often overlook such knowledgeable sources is not a new claim and has been researched perhaps most notably by Chomsky in his illustration of the Five Filters of Mass Media and occurs for many reasons.

This distraction away from facts and more pertinent and long term issues has been particularly evident in the debate about the existence of global warming during the Bush administration years between conservatives and the scientific community.  Admitting global warming was a serious issue, or an issue at all would have been detrimental to the US economy, in the eyes of the Bush administration (See here)

An example of the portrayal of successful business people as thought leaders in Ireland, was during the last Referendum, for the Lisbon Treaty, where two businessmen, Michael O Leary and Declan Ganley, received a prime time slot on RTE, Ireland's state broadcaster.  O'Leary may have been seen as the dominant figure on the occasion due to his boasts of being a more successful business person.








Even if "self-interest" was not the only motivator that these business leaders had in this debate, the fact that self-interest existed at all, should discredit their arguments; hence their opinion should not be a trustworthy source.

The meaning of the socialist-liberal revolutions in Europe and America have become warped so that freedom equates to the right for one to become disproportionately wealthy, at the expense of others, and to be worshipped for it. Because business leaders are not accountable and responsible to the electorate, they do not take the brunt of the blame for economic failings as elected representatives will.  Is it wise to reduce our sovereignty as citizens to further their interests?

The principles of the aforementioned revolutions promised to ensure the citizen's rights to personal freedom so that one might choose their own path in life whilst having the assurance of being protected from abuse of those in power through the safeguard of democratic processes.  For many, their chosen path is not a path to become powerfully rich.

The outcome of those horrific wars are now used as a justification of unrestricted freedom for those with means to become as wealthy and as powerful as possible.  These business leaders are obliged to compel those without the same means to subjugate themselves to the interests of the former, so that the latter might live relatively peaceful and convenient lives.  But as we are seeing in Europe, especially in Greece, there is a limit to this subjugation.