Autocracy or custodianship

Here's an interesting article about the above topic. It doesn't frame it in P2P terms, but that's how I see it. One social organizational example in the emerging P2P meme is holacracy, as we've been discussing in the IPS thread anti-capitalism continued. (See the main discussion and comments starting on this page.) A few excerpts from the article highlighting the difference in leadership approach, noting of course that the autocratic way is the dominant one and why of course we have rampant inequality of the kind still maintained since feudal lords. And it ain't democracy in any way, for custodianship is built into its design.

Following are excerpts of the general idea. He goes into specifics for government, corporations and universities.

"Institutions in the United States are not meant to be owned by those who lead them. They are not possessions to be disposed of according to the will and inclination of managers or governors. Leaders are custodians who supposedly act in the collective interest of all those who have a stake in the institution's performance. The principle holds for public bodies, for private entities certified, charted or endorsed by the government, and indeed any organization whose purposes and modes of operation are stipulated in an enabling constitution or a basic set of rules. This conforms to norms and legal traditions of liberally constituted societies.


"Consequently, it follows that office-holders, directors and managers are authorized to exercise their proper powers within a set of constraints. Empowerment together with accompanying limitations are designed to ensure that the functions of leadership are performed in a responsible manner. It is a fiduciary responsibility in a broad sense. Custodianship is a concept applicable to government offices, public agencies of all kinds, incorporated businesses, colleges and universities, even rule-bound social associations.

"Custodianship in concept and practice is the antithesis to autocracy, to rule by diktat. Yet, today we observe the abuse of power in arbitrary action on a growing scale. It is coming to challenge traditional norms of institutional authority nearly everywhere. Most noteworthy is the conduct of high public officials who see no obligation to explain or justify why and how they do things that drastically affect the general welfare. That disdain often is accompanied by deceit and outright lying, lying whose eventual revelation evokes a shrug of the proverbial shoulders rather than a mea culpa or repentance. The examples are legion.

"Money has become not just the measure of worth and status. It is used to separate the few rulers from the mass of ruled.[...] Money and other comforts are companion to the autocratic style of leadership. Incommensurate riches are permitted by a culture that has replaced republican simplicity with tinsel grandeur as the dominant motif. Those incommensurate riches, in turn, give institutional heads the wherewithal to reinforce their dominant-subordinate relationship with those they rule - both by material means and by conveying the impression of superior status. [...] Too many leaders think and act as a separate caste who covet status and privileges that match those of crowned heads and their mandarins."