Democracy Under Attack: Top-level Leadership and Decision-taking

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

PARTICIPATIVE ORGANISATION: THE MEANING OF 'DEMOCRACY'

TOP-LEVEL LEADERSHIP TAKING OVER DECISION-TAKING IN BUSINESS, SERVICE AND COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS

Majority Shareholder Taking Over Decision-taking from Other Shareholders

Trade Union General Secretary or Leader of Political Party Changing the Rules to Increase Personal Power

Reorganising the National Health Service: Replacing Grassroots Decision-taking with Top-level Direction and Control of Spending

Controlling the Use of Capital: User-owned User-benefiting Bank Converted to Profit-motivated Shareholder-benefiting Ownership.

Senior Executives Taking Over from Owners: Co-operatives

Senior Executives Taking Over from Owners: Companies (Corporations)

Employee Participation in Decision-taking

TOP-LEVEL LEADERSHIP TAKING OVER DECISION-TAKING FROM THE POPULATION: BRITAIN'S LABOUR PARTY 1997/98

Deciding What is to be Done

Taking Over from the People: Labour Party's Annual Conference

Serving Big Business: New Labour

Telling Elected Representatives How to Vote and How to Behave: Members of Parliament (MPs)

Censoring and Silencing Alternative ('Opposing') Points of View: The Labour Party's National Executive Council (NEC)

Selecting and Electing Representatives: UK Members of European Parliament (MEPs)

Proportional Representation: 'Closed-list' and 'Open-list' Systems

Closed-list System

UK Members of European Parliament (MEPs)

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN TOP-LEVEL LEADERSHIPS

The 'General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade' (GATT)

The 'Multilateral Agreement on Investment' (MAI)

NOTES <..> AND REFERENCES {..}

Relevant Current and Associated Works

Relevant Subject Index Pages and Site Overview

SUMMARY

Discusses and illustrates the internal struggles taking place in companies (corporations), political parties and other organisations, for achieving greater democracy and against those wishing to overpower democratic processes of decision-taking.

Describes participative organisation (democracy), the basic criteria by which it can be judged and the processes by which leaderships attempt to take over the decision-taking processes.

Also discusses how recently negotiated top-level trading agreements (GATT and the proposed MAI) appear to be taking control over key aspects of the internal affairs of participating countries away from their elected governments, giving the control to multinational corporations.

INTRODUCTION

This is one of a series of four studies which were undertaken to obtain a better understanding of why people have to struggle throughout their adult lives, in all countries and organisations, at all levels, to maintain and improve their standard of living and quality of life.

We know what people are struggling to achieve {3, 34} and so these studies explore why people have to struggle by looking at what they are struggling against.

The main report 'What People are Struggling Against' brings together the work reported in the four component studies by extracting and rearranging key findings from them.

To get an overview, it would be best to read the main report first. If you want more information on particular aspects of interest, you could then go to the component studies (See Relevant Current and Associated Works).

PARTICIPATIVE ORGANISATION: THE MEANING OF 'DEMOCRACY'

Words like 'democracy' and 'democratic' can be used to imply that a system of government or management is socially fair and caring, and 'of, by and for the people', when this is not the case.

Hence the need to look at the meaning of 'democracy'.

Participative (democratic) organisation rests on the population electing representatives, on the basis of each person having one vote, for putting into effect policies decided by the population. Representatives are responsible to, and accountable to, the population for what they do or omit to do, and for the way in which they do this.

What underlies participative organisation (democracy) is decision-taking by the people at the level of the people.

A representative is selected by those whom he will represent so that his authority stems from those who elected him. The source of his authority is the consent of the managed to be managed or of the ruled to be ruled.

They hold him accountable by withdrawing their consent, by in the end electing someone else.

In the management area by the withdrawal of labour. In the area of government, by withdrawing co-operation from the political party or government by protesting, demonstrating, withdrawing support, replacing the party hierarchy or the government. {4}

And representatives, governments or government officials do not have the authority or right to change or sign away the participative (democratic) rights of the electors, of the population.

Policies state what has to be done and by when it has to be done. What needs to be stressed is that in a participative (democratic) organisation policies are decided by a well-informed population at the level of the population and that policies then become binding on management or government. <2>

In an authoritarian organisation the policy decisions are taken at the top or near the top by the hierarchy (establishment) and are binding on the organisation's members. Decision-taking at the top is sometimes referred to as 'deciding centrally'. Authoritarian organisation is the opposite of democracy and underlies dictatorship. {4}

And what we see is conflict between authoritarian minds wishing to dominate, control and exploit on the one hand and, on the other hand, citizens wishing to maintain and improve the standard of living and quality of life for the population as a whole by democratic (grassroots level) decision-taking.

So the real struggle is not between political left and right, but is a struggle for participation (the right to take decisions).

We can see the struggle in all organisations and at all levels. It is a struggle against authoritarian management or government for the right to take decisions. And in all democratic organisations it is a struggle against the authoritarian mind taking over the decision-taking. {3}

A continuous battle is taking place between on the one hand policy-deciding by the many through elected assemblies, and on the other hand policy-deciding at the top, by a few. This is clearly shown by the way in which full-time officials and executives attempt to take power away from their policy-setting assemblies, after which they attempt to impose their will on the membership or population.

The confrontation between on the one hand elected policy-making bodies, and on the other hand those who are supposed to put their policies into effect, can be seen in many areas.

We are here looking at decision-taking in the management and control of companies, corporations, enterprises and all types of community organisations. Looking at the ways in which authoritarian minds attempt to take over and place democratically controlled organisations under authoritarian control.

This is an age-old problem we need to be aware of so as to counter it effectively, and the following sections look at how this struggle manifests itself.

TOP-LEVEL LEADERSHIP TAKING OVER DECISION-TAKING IN BUSINESS, SERVICE AND COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS

MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER TAKING OVER DECISION-TAKING FROM OTHER SHAREHOLDERS

A majority shareholder can decide who, apart from himself, is appointed to the board of directors. In this way he determines the policy of the enterprise and thus top-level decisions. To that extent he takes possession of the ownership rights of the other shareholders and can use the company's assets for his own ends. Other shareholders may then have little say or interest in deciding policy or in the running of the company. What is left for them to decide is whether to sell the shares they hold or whether to buy more. {5, 14}

TRADE UNION GENERAL SECRETARY OR LEADER OF POLITICAL PARTY CHANGING THE RULES TO INCREASE PERSONAL POWER

Another example is that of the trade union General Secretary or of the leader of a political party who after being elected attempts to change the rules so as to make his appointment more secure or permanent. {3}

Doing so to stay in power regardless of how ineffectively he may be serving the members who elected him, doing so to avoid offering himself for re-election at regular short intervals. Attempting to take away from the membership, who in effect employ him, the right of any employer to appraise and evaluate performance. Preventing them from expressing support or disapproval by the extent to which they support or wish to replace him.

REORGANISING THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE: REPLACING GRASSROOTS DECISION-TAKING WITH TOP-LEVEL DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF SPENDING

Health service policies were decided by a process of consultation and participation at all levels. This process worked well and provided the kind of effective treatments and services needed by patients and the community, whose needs were expressed by and through various Community Health Councils, Joint Staff Consultative Committees and community organisations. {1}

A conservative government began to reorganise the British National Health Service (NHS) in 1984. The planned changes appeared to run counter to good management practice and were likely to greatly reduce the effectiveness of the NHS {1}.

However, the government went ahead and the changes were made. The making of policy decisions at local levels by local management teams was replaced by what appeared to be a rigid system of direction from, and accountability to, the top. It became apparent that direction and budgetary control from the top was taking precedence over and replacing local policy setting by teamwork, that higher authority was to decide what and how much was to be done for patients and community.

CONTROLLING THE USE OF CAPITAL: USER-OWNED USER-BENEFITING BANK CONVERTED TO PROFIT-MOTIVATED SHAREHOLDER-BENEFITING OWNERSHIP

The Trustee Savings Bank (TSB) was run for the benefit of its depositors. Massive funds were serving the working population and the community, were a source of strength and support. Trustees held the Bank 'upon Trust' for the depositors who in turn could appoint and remove trustees. The use of these funds was in effect being controlled by depositors, by the working population.

A conservative government decided to convert the TSB into a shareholder-owned profit-maximising bank just like the commercial banks, by selling ('privatising') it.

'As there was deemed to be no owner to receive the purchase money, buyers received not only ownership of the bank but also the money they bought it with.' <3> {13}

The funds were thus placed under the control of people who would be more likely to maximise profits for the new owners than to consider the money-needs of the working population.

SENIOR EXECUTIVES TAKING OVER FROM OWNERS: CO-OPERATIVES

Co-operatives belong to their members and operate for the benefit of their members. Policies are decided by members at general meetings held at regular intervals. Agreed policies are mandatory, have to be put into effect. Directors are elected from the membership and their role is to have these policies put into effect by the Chief Executive and managers. {2}

In the Mondragon co-operatives the policy setting and control of management activities have apparently moved away from owners (producers, workers) towards an upper level of senior executives. {11}

More information on the internal confrontations within co-operatives and mutual societies can be found in {2} and in associated case-studies on Building Societies {8}, Kibbutzim {12} and the John Lewis Partnership {15}.

SENIOR EXECUTIVES TAKING OVER FROM OWNERS: COMPANIES (CORPORATIONS)

Owners (Shareholders) balance the power of the Chief Executive and of executive directors by appointing part-time directors which correspond to community-representatives on decision-taking bodies.

Consider the Chief Executive or Managing Director of a company who, with the other executive company directors, controls the company's day-to-day activities and whose job it is to put into effect the policy of the Board of Directors.

Executive directors, generally being heads of departments, are responsible for their day-to-day work to the Managing Director. They are thus unlikely to contradict him in the Boardroom, and are unlikely to criticise their own results and their own efficiency.

So shareholders balance the decision-taking power of the executive (full-time) directors by appointing outside (part-time) directors to the Board. Part-time directors, when completely independent of the chief executive (managing director), can be relied on to represent shareholders' interests, to criticise on behalf of the shareholders what the executives are doing. {3 <1>}

EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-TAKING

The policy-making body of the Histadrut, Israel's general federation of trade unions, decided some time ago that worker participation in decision taking was to be introduced in the Histadrut's own enterprises. Twenty years later the workers in Histadrut-owned enterprises still had a long way to go before achieving this. {3}

TOP-LEVEL LEADERSHIP TAKING OVER DECISION-TAKING FROM THE POPULATION: BRITAIN'S LABOUR PARTY 1997/98

What follows is based on newspaper reports <4> and articles which seemed relevant to this discussion of the ongoing struggle to maintain and improve democratic rights within the democracies.

We are looking at recent and ongoing events and it is difficult to separate facts from opinions. However, an overall pattern emerges which appears to reinforce and strengthen what is said here about top-level leadership attempting to take over decision-taking from the grassroots population, about the consequent struggle in all organisations and at all levels.

What is surprising is that these attempts to take over and control decision-taking processes appear more one-sided than would be the case if we were looking at unrelated chance events, at unrelated local struggles. What is disturbing is that the pattern seems progressive as if it were planned.

DECIDING WHAT IS TO BE DONE

Taking Over from the People: Labour Party's Annual Conference

In 1979 the UKs oil wells started to produce and the UK became a net exporter of oil, as far as I know the only one of the industrialised countries to be producing more oil than it consumed, extremely well off as a result. A conservative (Tory) government was elected in the same year, harvesting the benefits and staying in power for 18 years. But by 1997 poverty and wealth differentials had increased by so much, and the rights and social security of the working population had been reduced to such an extent, that it was clear that this time the Labour party would be elected.

Before the general election (May 1997) the Labour party's leadership changed and under the new leadership some fundamental changes were introduced.

The Annual Conference of the Labour party consisted of delegates from local branches and was policy setting. Resolutions, proposed policies, were submitted by local Labour party branches, debated by delegates at the conference. If passed then it was up to the party's executive (its leadership) to implement the policy, to put it into effect. The decisions were mandatory, had to be put into effect.

So the Labour party's annual conference took binding decisions on policy proposals brought up by grassroots membership. They decided policy which the executive had to follow and put into effect.

In the autumn of 1997 the conference voted for a system which transferred the choice of what could be debated from grassroots membership to a policy commission chaired by the party leader {16}. This in effect took away a vital aspect of decision-taking from the working population and placed it in the hands of leader and leadership.

In January 1998 it was announced that forty-five policy forums were to be set up in which members would be invited to express their views on policies, from social issues to local government and that such views should eventually work through to the annual party conference.

Although members would be able to discuss policy, it seems the leadership can either take note or else ignore the proceedings. {17}

The annual conference ceased to decide policies, ceased to decide what had to be done. Instead of deciding mandatory policies based on direct policy proposals from local branches, the annual conference became a talking-shop, discussing and expressing views on subjects selected and approved by the leadership.

So a continuing process appears to be taking place which seems to be aimed at concentrating decision-taking in the hands of the top-level party leadership.

Serving Big Business: New Labour

The leader of the Labour party is apparently determined

to forge an alliance between Labour and the business community, banishing the old image of Labour as the party of the unions. {18}

In a hard-hitting and relevant article, Paul Foot points to the differences between social-democratic pro-people policies and those of a market system in which irresponsible corporations have economic power. {19}

He makes the point that when British social democratic leaders became Prime Ministers

'they set off enthusiastically in pursuit of the mildest possible reforms of the market system. Then .. they found themselves .. blown off course .. . So they turned round and set off in the opposite direction.' 'Once this subservience to the market becomes clear, so do all the other rather apparently inexplicable actions of the government.'

In September 1998 an opinion poll reported that the majority of people felt that the leader of the Labour government was closer to big business than to ordinary people. {20}

TELLING ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES HOW TO VOTE AND HOW TO BEHAVE: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (MPs)

'Labour MPs who persistently defy the party line at Westminster can expect the chief whip <5> to send a report to their constituencies which could determine whether or not they are deselected, according to plans adopted yesterday.' {21}

Which is softened a little by

'A constituency which receives a bad report from Labour's chief whip ... will take its own decision to deselect or endorse its local member.' {21}

So in effect the local parties are to be informed of the extent to which their MP follows policies determined by the party leadership.

CENSORING AND SILENCING ALTERNATIVE ('OPPOSING') POINTS OF VIEW: THE LABOUR PARTY'S NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (NEC)

The Labour government's proposals for changing the UKs system for electing its MEPs (Members of European Parliament) led to the temporary suspension of four Labour MEPs, apparently because they discussed in public the merits of different systems of proportional representation, favouring as more democratic a system disliked by their party. {22}

The Labour party then 'took the unprecedented step' of expelling two of its MEPs because they argued against the party's proposals for centrally-controlled candidates lists for next year's European elections. {24}

'Even moderate MEPs fear the list will be dominated by loyalists'. {23}

It was also unprecedented when in May 1998 the Labour party's MPs were told by their party whips <5> to tell their local parties who to nominate for the next elections to the Party's National Executive Council. {25}

MPs had been told that the ballot for places on the NEC would be in secret but

MPs and Euro-MPs protested when they discovered their ballot papers were numbered and complained that Millbank (the Labour Party's head office) would be able to trace who had voted for leftwing candidates. {26}

It seems that the Labour Party leadership had been campaigning against 'leftwing' candidates. However, four 'Grassroots Alliance' members were elected to Labour's NEC.

One of these newly elected members, Liz Davies, said

On the NEC, we will do our best to ensure that debate in the party is conducted in an open, tolerant and inclusive manner and that party members are genuinely consulted and involved in decision-making. {20}

So the new NEC contains at least four members likely to be speaking for matters of concerns to grassroots members and who may be publicising their points of view so as to inform and consult party members.

Before the first meeting of the new NEC, a party official asked NEC members to agree to an unprecedented rule ('guidance') {27, 28}

which would require them to inform the party's press office "before discussing NEC business with the media".

Also

"NEC members should try to avoid going head on head with another NEC member and, where possible, with another member of the Labour Party."

And

... a veteran former NEC figure protested: "Party officials would never have dared tell senior MPs and trade unionists what to do. The NEC would have discussed something like this and instructed officials. Now they seem to be instructing us."

It seems to me that breaches of these guidance rules would be noticed and tell against the individual with party leadership. And it looks as if NEC members should not argue with each other or with other party members in public.

I do not see how Labour party members could find out about alternative proposals or viewpoints except by them being discussed openly in the media.

There appear to have been

widespread protests against (the) draft code restricting NEC access to the media {29}

and Liz Davies' comments on the draft code were reported as

"It seems to be designed to stop the constituency members of the NEC, elected by ordinary Labour party members, from speaking (their) mind," Ms Davies said. "If we shut up, party members will find out what happened at the NEC from the Millbank (Labour Party head office) machine ... . I don't think that's acceptable." {29}

SELECTING AND ELECTING REPRESENTATIVES: UK MEMBERS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (MEPs)

Proportional Representation: 'Closed-list' and 'Open-list' Systems

Voting by proportional representation (PR) decides how many candidates of a party are elected. If 300 seats are available and the party gets one-third of the votes, then it gets one-third of the seats, that is it gets 100 seats.

If the party put forward a list of 300 candidates, only 100 can become representatives.

With a "closed list" system of PR, the electors vote for the party and not for a local candidate. They thus vote for the party's list. In the above example, it is the first-named 100 names on the list which become representatives.

With an "open list" system the electors have the chance of voting for candidates of their choice from the party's list.

Closed-list System

Whether or not one is placed on the list, and one's position on the list, determines whether one is elected or not.

With this system it is not really the electorate which decides whether one is elected as a local representative. Whether one is elected depends on whether one is placed on the list and on one's top-to-bottom position on the list. So whether one is elected depends on the party leader or leadership.

So one's chance of being elected depends on doing as told by leader or leadership, on supporting their policies, instead of depending on serving one's constituents (local electors), instead of being responsible and accountable to the electors, to the community one is supposed to represent and act for.

The higher up one's name appears on the list, the more likely is one to be elected, the more likely is it that one benefits from the high salary, excellent allowances, good working conditions and good pension rights which go with the job. Loyalty to leader or leadership replaces loyalty to electors.

It is the grassroots membership which should select and decide who is to represent them. The party leadership seems to be close to taking over both functions.

What we see taking place with a closed-list system is far removed from being responsible and accountable to one's local electors, to the local community, for the way in which one represents them and looks after their interests both at local and national level. Democratic decision-taking is reversed by a system of closed-list proportional representation as decision-taking by representatives is replaced with obedience to dictates from the top.

UK Members of European Parliament (MEPs)

There was widespread criticism from Labour MEPs, the Liberal Democrats and constitutional reform groups when the Labour government proposed to change the selecting and voting for UK MEPs to one which allowed parties rather than the electorate to select who was to be their MEP. And

'The proposals led to the temporary suspension of four Labour MEPs who violated a ban, under a new party code of conduct, on publicly debating the type of proportional representation they wanted Labour to adopt.' {22}

A position near the top of a party list would be crucial to success because seats would be allocated proportionately to the party, not the individual. 'Even moderate MEPs fear the list will be dominated by loyalists' {23}. But

'Labour took the unprecedented step of expelling two of its MEPs last night. ... Both have criticised welfare reform (cuts) and centrally-controlled candidates' lists for next year's European elections.' {24}

'The Government (in its European Parliamentary Elections Bill) has insisted on a "closed list" system, allowing voters to choose only a party label, not an individual candidate - leaving the selection of would-be MEPs in the hands of the party bosses. This kind of centralisation breaks one of the cherished features of our democracy, namely the link between elector and elected. Under Labour's proposed system, our representatives will owe their place not to the voters, but to the apparatchiks who granted them a high place on the list.' {30}

In Israel the democratic system of proportional representation has been defeated by the way in which prospective members of the Knesset (government) are selected by party hierarchies and also by the way in which, after an election, minority parties can combine to replace the majority party. {3}

Reason would suggest that the largest parties should get together and compromise.

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN TOP-LEVEL LEADERSHIPS

THE 'GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE' (GATT)

GATT is a treaty between many countries in which they agreed that changed and new life-forms can be owned by multinational corporations, generation after generation. {7}

The GATT agreement apparently gives exclusive protection to patent holders for 20 years and imposes strict enforcement criteria. Huge royalty payments will have to be made to multinational corporations. 'Astonishingly, the rules place the onus of proof in case of dispute on the farmers, a provision going against normal rules of justice' {31}. The resulting costs could prevent the vast mass of small farmers from disputing the source of the seeds they are using. {7}

So multinational corporations have been given ownership over new life-forms and the power to force farmers world-wide to pay the multinational each year for seeds even when these seeds were grown by the farmer the previous year. {7}

It appears that GATT serves the interests of multinationals, that is of those who own and control them, at the expense of the economic and social interests and welfare of individual countries, of their people, of their citizens. {7}

And that a situation has been created in which the nature of profit-motivated and profit-orientated multinationals threatens human independence and freedom. {7}

In 1998 a US multinational 'announced plans to unravel the entire human genetic code by 2001', saying it intended to patent 'the most valuable gene sequences', and to sell the information to scientific institutions and drug companies. {32}

Combining this information with recent developments concerning the cloning of animals and human beings raises disturbing and even fearful prospects.

'Ownership' has been defined as 'the right to possess an item of property' and so one has to look closely at where the right comes from and how it is exercised.

Ownership rights are the property of a country's citizens and communities {14}. As far as I know, no elected representative, government or government employee has the authority to hand over to multinational corporations (that is to those who own and control them), or to anyone else, such ownership rights.

So it would seem that the patent provisions of the GATT agreement are big-business-serving and arbitrary. {14, 7}

THE 'MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT' (MAI)

MAI stands for 'Multilateral Agreement on Investment'. But its name does not reflect those aspects which are of deep concern. What is disturbing are not only the provisions of this proposed treaty but also that the provisions were debated in almost complete secrecy.

It appears that representatives of multinationals and governments representing the 29 richest industrialised countries, all OECD members, had been developing the MAI's provisions at the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) since 1995. This seems to have been done in complete secrecy till a leaked copy became available on the Internet in 1997.

It seems that the agreement was to have been finalised in February 1998. Apparently it was adverse publicity relating to its restrictive provisions which delayed completion as concerned groups of citizens publicised their concerns. And some governments have now withdrawn their support.

So let us look at the kind of provisions this almost-agreed agreement on 'Multilateral Agreement on Investment' contained {9, 10}:

Democratically elected governments

• Would have had to allow multinationals access to the country.

• Would have been prevented from discriminating against foreign firms, would not be able to refuse any form of investment in any sector apart from defence.

• Would have been prevented from reducing or controlling a multinationals profits, say by minimum-wage or anti-pollution legislation, or by legislation to ensure local employment.

Multinationals would have had the right to

• Sue national governments for any profits lost through laws which discriminated against the multinational, and which harmed a multinational's interests.

• Sue national governments in an international court which would have been closed to public scrutiny.

We saw that multinationals can legally avoid paying corporation tax by transfer pricing {6} and that unitary taxation <6> {6, 33} can overcome this tax avoidance by assessing the actual profits being generated by a multinational in a particular country. Multinationals could, under MAI, have refused to be taxed by a system of unitary taxation.

Socially responsible and caring governmental legislation has to take precedence over the profit-motivated activities of corporations.

But it appears that under MAI the national governments would have handed over control, that is authority to act, over much of the economic and social welfare of their citizens to multinational corporations (that is to those who own and direct these corporations), if they had agreed to this treaty.

In other words, multinationals would have been given overriding authority over democratically elected governments.

As far as I know, no elected representative, government or government employee has the authority

1. to hand over to corporations (that is to those who own and control them), or to anyone else, an overriding control over the present and future, economic and social, welfare of its people, or

2. to sign away the democratic rights of their people for the self-determination of key fundamental aspects of their lives.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

NOTES

REFERENCES

{ 1}  Reorganising the National Health Service: An Evaluation of the Griffiths Report

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{ 2}  Co-operatives and Co-operation: Causes of Failure, Guidelines for Success

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{ 3}  The Will to Work: What People Struggle to Achieve

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{ 4}  Style of Management and Leadership

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{ 5}  Ownership and Deciding Policy: Companies, Shareholders, Directors and Community

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{ 6}  Transfer Pricing and Taxation

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{ 7}  Creating, Patenting and Marketing of New Forms of Life

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{ 8}  Building Societies

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{ 9}  Globalisers run into the buffers

Larry Elliott and Charlotte Denny
Guardian, 24/03/98

{10}  Move to revive world pact

Larry Elliott
Guardian, 10/09/98

{11}  Mondragon Co-operatives (Mondragon Corporacion Cooperativa)

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{12}  Kibbutzim

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{13}  The Trustee Savings Bank Give-Away

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{14}  Understanding How Society is Organised for Controlling and Exploiting People

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{15}  John Lewis Partnership PLC

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{16}  The heirs to Trotsky

Mark Seddon (Editor of Tribune)
Guardian, 11/08/97

{17}  Labour gives grassroots a voice: Forums hand policy-making power to ordinary members

Ewen MacAskill
Guardian, 02/01/98

{18}  Blair opens Lords attack

Ewen MacAskill
Guardian, 02/08/97

{19}  Nasty dose of contagion

Paul Foot
Guardian, 22/09/98

{20}  So there is an alternative

Liz Davies
Guardian, 28/09/98

{21}  Labour whip plans new crackdown on dissident MPs

Michael White and Anne Perkins
Guardian, 19/05/98

{22}  Straw retreats over option for PR pol

David Hencke
Guardian, 26/11/97

{23}  Labour MEPs face cull; Row looms over Blairite poll lists

Michael White
Guardian, 27/12/97

{24}  Labour expels rebel MEPs

Stephen Bates
Guardian, 09/01/98

{25}  Labour whip plans new crackdown on dissident MPs

Michael White and Anne Perkins
Guardian, 19/05/98

{26}  MPs cry foul on ballot

Ewen MacAskill
Guardian, 30/09/98

{27}  Labour gag on NEC members

Michael White
Guardian, 13/11/98

{28}  Davies the lone rebel on NEC rules: Scaled-down control 'guidance' wins backing

Michael White
Guardian, 18/11/98

{29}  Peers defied as vote bill returns to Lords again

Michael White
Guardian, 14/11/98

{30}  Editorial

Guardian, 20/11/98

{31}  Seeds of discontent

Walter Schwarz
Guardian, 11/03/94

{32}  US company plans to patent key gene codes

Paul Brown and Martin Walker
Guardian, 13/05/98

{33}  Taxing the Population for Private Profit

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

{34}  Motivation Summary

Manfred Davidmann
https://www.solhaam.org/

Relevant Current and Associated Works

Back to Contents list

Relevant Subject Index Pages and Site Overview

• General Management  (Middle, Senior and Top Level)
• Motivation
• Community  (Social Responsibility and Accountability)
• Economics

• Judaism
• Christianity
• Islam
• Religion, Government and People

• Teachings  (Quotations, Summaries, Current Problems)
  
  
• Press Notices

• About Manfred Davidmann and his Works

• Home, Site Overview  (solhaam.org)
• Terms of Use

• Contact form   (Suggestions and Comments Welcome)

The Site Overview page has links to all individual Subject Index Pages which between them list the works by Manfred Davidmann which are available on the Internet, with short descriptions and links for downloading.

To see the Site Overview page, click Overview

Back to Contents list

Copyright    ©    1998    Manfred Davidmann
All rights reserved worldwide.

History
11/12/98 Completed
03/01/99 To Website
30/01/99 Minor style changes
07/02/99 Main report published. Reference added.
02/06/02 Added 'Relevant Current and Associated Works'

Updated   2021:
Links to 'THEME OF THE WEEK', 'BOOKS', 'Donations' and 'Privacy Notice' were added
Terms of Use
Privacy Notice