Good governance (I) - Introduction

Go-ver-nance: decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance. It consists either of a separate process or of a specific part of management or leadership processes.

In societies, and foremost in developed ones, a public post holds the responsibility for the area for which it is appointed to. A responsibility implies that such a governing body and its decision-makers are accountable for all the decisions and that those decisions should be for the benefit of general interest. Never to the interest of a few individual key-role players. In the "developed countries", where there is a long tradition of democratic political mechanisms, the term "good governance" is further defines the required (and acceptable!) aspects of the roles and responsibilities of such a public decision making organ.

Good governance, next to its implied management and leadership roles, adds a few specifics. In short one could put forward that the basis of good governance consists of participation, regulation, transparency, responsiveness, consensus, inclusiveness, effectiveness and efficiency. One could justly argue, that "leadership" itself implies these qualities, yet applying certain tools and therefore executing (even bad) leading functions at the exploit of others could also be regarded as leadership. This aside, however.

As we face a financial crisis (at least, at the time when I am typing this article), many public decisions are requiring some change and many organisations and governments are - sometimes somewhat startled and panic-struck - have halted some decision-making activities altogether. From a human point of view, understandably, up to a certain extent.

Yet, for the past few years, I have unfortunately observed a few trends (so even way before the crisis started) which cast deep doubts, whether the involved parties would have faintest notion of what good governance indeed is. Instead, there is visibly a high occurrence in indifference, favouritism, bureaucratic incompetence, even corruption. Whereas the public office is expected to act in the general interest, party politics and personal ties supercede any logical, visionary or strategic conduct. This is therefore completely detached from any crisis, global or regional. In the end, all benevolence of the public and credibility of yourself turns into a sour atmosphere of suspicion. In case of true interest to (in case the suspicion is not founded) reveal openess to assure the public of the right objectives. Yet, none of this happens, and the suspicion therefore is ... indeed: affirmed - at least to the appearance.

Such a state, is harming all involved, especially those whom the public organ is to serve.

MS

A lost speech

Yesterday I arrived home too late to pay attention to the news. Just another day. As I opened my news-bookmarks this morning, I noticed an entry of a speech of the Slovak President in parliament. Oh yes, I vaguely remembered it was mentioned on the news. Just taking a glance, and just before clicking away, suddenly my eye fell on the sentence with the word "culture"! I began reading and fortunately there was a link to the integral text of his speech. Especially this section caught my attention:

"Our culture is the fundamental character of our Slovak identity. Its uniqueness is being strengthened, even through its openess, its moving towards and exchange of other cultural values. Our culture is our principal message to Europe and to the world. Today it lacks a bigger courage in its view on us and the surrounding world. We need timeless visions, refusal of trash and quick commercial fame. This is especially the case in creative arts, which has started to copy cheap foreign successes. Bussiness is nowadays cruelly trampling on the qualities of culture. We need to change this and support every attempt into this direction. ... "

One could not agree more. While the message of this excerpt is touching, and true, the context of the President's speech including the reactions of various parliament members gives it a grim after-taste. Cultural life suffers quite much - not only to mention the sheer implementation of funding culture (and I am not talking of the effects of a financial crisis here) but also the visible abuse of some of those involved, where the artistic quality seems irrelevant but what counts is one's political allegiance. In the event, he would have really cared, he could have intervened. He has the tools to do so. He never did.

Knowing - although I greatly regret having to say this - that the speech will land on deaf ears, the short-lived excitement of having read such frank truth on culture from a politician's mouth has slowly faded already. For such issues one needs a true statesman. One still hopes though.

MS

source: SME Newspaper
translation by the author

Failing PR in the Opera

A few days ago, a news item appeared on the internet pages of the most prominent Slovak newspaper. Only on internet. It was an open letter from the previous General Manager of the Slovak National Opera Marián Chudovský, addressed to the present General Manager Ms Hroncová to step down for proven mismanagement, simultaneously appealing to the Minister of Culture to take adequate steps. The smashing facts - so obvious, that even a blind person could see them in the past few months - were fully justifiably summed up, and still in a courteous manner. The fierce discussion, which it unleashed afterwards - less courteous in some cases - revealed even further serious matters that lingered under the surface. It was a deed, which normally speaking demanded a reaction. Any rection would do.

I waited for a few days, till another article appeared... In my wildest dreams I couldn't have imagine this to be true. What was missing? Any official respons of any possible kind to the facts presented. Here we are slowly treading into a dramatically damaging situation. Ms Hroncová has managed the National Theatre (under which the National Opera falls) for 4 seasons. She holds an almost unique record of having used 5 managers in the Opera (which she appointed herself, then disposed off). What good does it serve? Especially the last 2 Opera Managers were the least successful - a conductor (Oliver Dohnányi) not paying any attention to his function of being a manager at all, then the renowned opera diva Ms Beňačková, who at the beginning perhaps did try to play the role of a manager, however, had no managerial skills at all and after only four months left, shrowded in deep mysterious silence. During her office, the Opera had the most performance-changes, replacements and/or cancellations in history (and not all because of indispositions of soloists...) The Guiness Book of Records can add another chapter.

Where people work, some disaccords or mistakes do take place. When we work with transparency, we have some extra credit to mend our wrong decisions. The Opera seems to live in a phantasy world, where management is convinced that deceit and lying will remain within its walls as long as you keep your mouth shut.

The discussion after the aforementioned article proved exactly how well informed people are, and thanks to internet, insiders have a way - even as anonymous discussion partners - to reveal inside information without limits. Ms Hroncová and the Ministry of Culture should be much at guard; exactly their silence, trying to ignore signals, will prove deadly. If Ms Hroncová - by way of her spokesperson - refuses to react because Mr Chudovský's accusations are "emotional", this exactly arouses the suspicion. Why is it so problematic to admit flaws and explain what your strategic planning is? One doesn't refute news or rumours by refusal to communicate. In short: Ms Hroncová is not able to prove Mr Chudovský's points being emotional (thus implying they are false) because they are correct and valid points.

Likewise, when Ms Beňačková left, not even a press-release was issued, the spokesperson was too busy "because of a première". What foul business must be hidden behind doors of Ms Hroncová's office? As the State Opera (c.q. National Theatre) is a public entity, government (tax-payers' money) goes there. But neither the Ministry has an interest in clarifying the matter. But in a country, where the Ministry pays the Slovak Philharmonic a budget, plus stashes additional sums (quasi for extra projects) into the pockets of its Director, meanwhile refusing to support other ensembles, which have even more to offer, it obvious how the political maffia systematically misappropriates funds. In other EU countries this is a punishable offense. In plain language; it's criminal behaviour. In Slovakia it's a sad reality. If we imagine how public broadly reacted on Emile Zola's newspaper article J'accuse, Slovak leaders are marked by an all present stiffening authism when fishy business is being addressed.

My recommendation; why doesn't the Ministry and its comrades-in-arms apply to go on a course "Basics in PR within Public Administration" (If it's too much of a luxury; you could request even EU-Funding for it!). There is still much to learn. Good governance is a rare asset these days.

MS

A Message from Obama

Even though Slovakia's economy has still the highest growth (!) within the EU, the effects of the crisis are slowly being noticed around. Foreign and national investors are pulling out the plug - be it partially or completely, and some closing down of factories has been reported already. The negative effect on arts is therefore even harder felt. It is not so much that the audiences are no longer coming out of their houses to attend concerts or galleries. It's rather the attitude of the institution which is in charge of exactly these arts that is pulling out and many performances and exhibitions are simply smothered by the Ministry of Culture for not receiving any support any longer. One would perhaps argue that if there's no money, then the state can no longer finance. OK, point taken. But in this fact, the money is certainly there (meant for this purpose). The sad thing is, that the money goes into the wrong pot, while at the same time, it gives a wrong signal to the public too, causing even private sponsors to lose the little remaining interest, which was still left. And thus the downwards spiral is created.

Therefore, the election of Barack Obama seems to be a promising turning point. As the most powerful person on earth, who has all the media's close attention, he has not only openly and unequivocally criticised managements of the large corporations for their money-covetting behaviour. What is a most astonishing signal, is that Mr. Obama has openly demonstrated his concern about the state of the arts. Not just by mere mentioning in one of his speeches. He called in several managers of arts institutions to the state's capital (even before he was inaugurated) to discuss the problems.

As most US presidents have - perhaps to add a tiny extra boost to their image - invited various pop-stars, playing the saxophone with them, president Obama seems to have a different type of interest in arts. Not to mention, that during the inauguration we could witness even a few minutes of a classical genre music. Obama seems to see a clear link between the role of (quality) arts and the strengthening of social cohesion. A valuable lesson from FDR? The unifying bond of a society in times of crisis. Where, as I have repeatedly pointed this out, art i.e. culture is a public domain, which comes initially from the people itself. As we (i.e. the tax payers) finance our government offices, it is the responsibility of the government, to have a solid and an empirical understanding of the function and value of arts. If the government refuses to see these connections, it is slowly tending to a kind of misappropriating of funds (I repeat: for which we pay). When giving a positive signal on culture, it will influence the general attitude towards culture and the more funding from outside somehow will be a result. Culture as a prestige still works. And as we look with envy to culture hotspots like Paris, Rome, New York, Milan, we don't even consider the question; how these cities ever became such important centres. It is unfortunately that so few people realise that everything has a start somewhere. And not that "we are not, so we will never be!". Staying passive is never a good strategy to advance. It is especially in these times, that we need to be creative and try to make a difference.

Last weekend, there was an artist ball in Snina. Probably, you have never heard of this city. It's perhaps the most Eastern town in Slovakia (near the Ukrainian border) with a population of only about 40thousand. No highway going there. Yet many guests (included the undersigned) had travelled for many hundreds of miles to be there, while the capital of Bratislava was celebrating mostly commercial-tabloid-type balls. When chatting with various artists - from Slovakia, Ukraine, etc - you sense a positive energy and a certain optimism as well. Hopefully, the clear message of president Obama on the value of culture will reach other political leaders as well and we will realise that perhaps our materialistic days should be replaced by priorities with a more intrinsic value. It would enrich all of us.

MS

Thank you for the financial crisis

Although the heading of my today's blog may sound a bit cruel, nevertheless I would like to make a kind of comment on the crisis from a different angle. Within the art-sector - though not exclusively - the pain of dried-up grants and subventions is being felt quite heavily. Yet, as a manager, I am a bit amazed by the fact how things are going.

First and foremost, the crisis was not too unexpected. For financial experts and economists, it is already an obvious given, that a crisis is a cyclic occurrence, which we are faced with every 10-15 years. The sad thing is, however, that mostly we hardly ever learn from the previous. Despite these signals, those who are in fact the experts, are also the ones who deliberately create the next crisis. What did we learn from the hedge-funds? Nothing: We just jumped into a similar empty bubble.

Ever since the rise of Liberalism there is a group of people (mind you: wealthy people), who somehow are trying to find a way, to become more wealthy. And mostly at the expense of others, and to be more exact: the poorer masses. I am definitely not talking of solutions like those by Karl Marx (although, in the light of miserable poverty during the industrial revolution era, quite understandable). When we just take a look at the Great Depression of the 1930s, where through thorough government interventions of President Roosevelt, the United States were able again to slowly crawl out of the ditch. As we compare later the total opposite political programs of the let's say Reagan and the Bush (Jr) administrations, we see again sharp declines. And although Republicans complain about the Democrats, who - in their view - have a devastating economic policy, it is exactly the Republican administrations that cause soaring huge state deficits and an ailing economy, while the Clinton administration has left the White House with the biggest surplus in history.

History clearly showed, that Reagonomics, Thatcherism and other laissez-faire inclined politics have led our world economy to the edge,by becoming so greedy, that those empty bubbles (like the internet bubble, the finance bubble) were the obvious result of uncontrolled money-hording, which slowly has become a norm. Our society is hardly interested in culture or arts anylonger. What is cool nowadays, is a big jeep, a big house (with a number of rooms, you hardly will ever use yourself). Now that joy is over. And the crisis is again - like a catharsis - showing us a mirror, giving us a change - to cleans ourselves where we should earnestly ask; "what have we done?". Mind you that those CEOs or CFOs, who were heading with these companies into this mess (and they should have known in the first place), are - at worst - leaving the almost bankrupt companies with a multi-million severance package, while those, who were down the ladder face perhaps long-term unemployment, losing everything they have. Should we just tolerate such??? Well, we agreed somehow to let loose the control mechanisms, as we were so eager to reap the seemingly unlimited profits. Lulling ourselves into a comfortable worriless sleep. Another question springs up in my mind: Since economic theories - in their whole extent - can hardly withstand time and prove to be fully invalid after a number of decades, how can some Nobel-Prize winners seriously be convinced of their theories - knowing that economics is no dogma - or is it because they get the benefits of it too (as was the case in the LTCM crisis)?

It is perhaps time, finally to wake up and to reconsider our values; that perhaps we really don't need a jeep to bring our kids to kindergarten or for going to the supermarkets. Maybe other values in society - e.g. to enjoy reading, art galleries, concerts, are contributing far more to our character-building than that what we have been doing for the past years, by consumption-materialism beyond belief. Perhaps, this can be a good starting point to re-design our societies; to prioritise again, and choose for more sustainable values in life.

MS

Bio-Music...

A few days ago, while I was somewhat hastily shopping in our local supermarket, I stopped pondering over the choice of buying a box of regular tomatoes, or the (much more expensive) biologically grown equivalent. As we prefer tasty, fresh, Mediterranean delicacies, my choice was easily made. Sorry for the bleak, cheaper-produces, glass-house tomatoes from Holland. This time it was not only a matter of "better taste", but also the knowledge that one would not be chewing some chemical residues or pesticides along with it. At the same time, an older article by Christian Holst crossed my mind, where he made a striking comparison between strawberry flavoured Bio-yogurt and an artificially modern manufactured flavoured strawberry yogurt as a metaphor for recordings of Rene Jacobs and those of Herbert von Karajan. As I am - personally - not very much inclined to Karajan at all, nevertheless I do try to make the choice between the modernistic approach and the Historically Informed Performance practise. And, as Christian Holst correctly mentioned: "The modern artificiall strawberry jogurt may taste more-strawberry-like, yet it does not make it a better yogurt". Why do I expand on this right now?

As we find it nowadays necessary, in general, that we inform people about health hazards and being conscious about our weight, dietary habits, etc., yet the promotion of early music in Slovakia is not always regarded as being nonsensical, unnecessary, even up to the extent of being perhaps blasphemic. And while the rest of the world already accepts Historically Informed Performances, the Slovak Culture Ministry - including the Bratislava Music Academy - seems to smother every serious attempt to have early music thoroughly researched and studied. Moreover, the Ministry of Culture holds back grants, referring to the already active music repertoire of early music of the Slovak Philharmonic. The times that - let's say - the New York Philharmonic or the Philadelphia Orchestra played e.g. Bach or Handel are way back in the past, and no serious conductor would dare to put these compositions with such orchestras on the bill, since it does require a bit of a different apporach. Yet the Slovaks have still the idea, that they live in a time-capsule; we still live somehow in the 1960s, and that Bach can still equally be performed à la Karajan, Ormandy or Stokowski.

A few weeks ago, the Slovak violinist Juraj Čižmarovič (currently concert-master at the West Deutsche Rundfunk Orchestra) was playing - together with befriended musicians/quartett players - Antonio Vivaldi's The Four Seasons in the historic building of the State Opera in Bratislava. What was so sad about this action: This was not Vivaldi. Even if Mr Čižmarovič and his colleagues have no interest at all for the permormance of baroque music, he even showed off in front of the camera his virtuoso-techniques... by not even being able to play the correct notes, playing the ones left even embarrassingly out of tune.

If this is the level, how an instrumentalist is still being hailed (despite the embarrassment he demonstrated so publicly) as almost "the greatest Slovak violinist", it says a lot about the audience as well as the arrogance of a certain group of (colleague)musicians and their political patrons. Ignorance and arrogance is widely ruling, and they have become - thanks to the label of playing under the Slovak Philharmonic, Opera, or whichever institute - thoroughly and utterly complacent. But still: you may prefer the artificially flavoured jogurt, just because your taste-buds are spoiled by mere chemicals, the only truth about which product is truly of better quality is very obvious. Perhaps to think whether we should invest more into the musical bio-strawberries before they completely die out.

MS

Culture is not about just being old-fashioned...

Writing a blog is fun to do; it gives you an opportunity to analyse your own thoughts, it saves time as potential customers can scan your opinions (or let's say; free advertisement) and you don't have to go through time-consuming publishing processes. When placing a web-counter/stats application it gives you also a feedback of who is reading your blogs and ... for what reason.

For the past few months, I have analysed my page hits, and come up with an odd finding: whether readers are from India, Nigeria, Canada or the UK... I can see remarkably many search requests for "is culture static/dynamic?". Scaringly similar! And although financial crisis or not, whether a certain political coalition is favourable to culture or not, it seems that there is a universal quest for finding out whether culture is something that is static (stiff, unchanging, conservative) or dynamic (subject to changes, flexible...). And it makes you think even more about exactly these search queries.

When taken only at our modern setting's outlook, we consider perhaps modern mass-media culture as being dynamic. In my case, I am referring actually to culture as not being MTV-spots but to culture of music traditions. Music from the Renaissance, Baroque, Cassicism, Romantic period... Music of our forefathers - therefore long long ago,.. thus "static". Yes, music of our forefathers, but nevertheless so much alive and exciting to fathom. Why fathom? Because through time, to a certain level, we have lost touch with it. Now, in our modern era of almost unlimited access thanks to internet, we can re-discover the dynamism of early music even re0invent the clear sound of late-romanticism, which we have unfortunately polluted with overly-zealous vibratos losing cristal clear intonations and harmonic cleanliness, making the music more alive and appealing.

A few weeks ago, I have invited some friends - who would hardly ever go to a classical concert - to a concert of the ensemble Musica Aeterna. Playing French baroque music, this would perhaps be a different planet to them. Although they would never tune their radio to a classical station, or buy a CD with Pinnock, Gardiner and whoever else, they were much astonished about the vibrant vivacious nature of the performance, even intrigued to the very end.

Pursuing research regarding old manuscripts, performance practices, is usually an exciting quest -almost an adventure. You blow off the century old dust and find out about the lively emotions of musicians of centuries' ago. And discover that we do hardly deal with stiff two-dimensional painting like figures but true people living through all strata of human feelings, which resemble ours. When approaching early music with such a "jazzy" attitude, it can be demonstrated that even "early music" is hardly a kind of dinosaur skeleton in a dusty museum, but a exciting encounter with our forefathers who are exactly... like us. It shows us, how wrong we have perceived their lives. Culture is hardly from static; it is dynamic and fully alive.

A happy and musical 2009 to you all!
MS