Jorgovanka Tabakovi: Debating is a man's duty
Speech by Dr Jorgovanka Tabakovi, Governor of the National Bank of Serbia, at the
founding assembly of the Banking Law Association, Belgrade, 20 February 2024.
* * *
I congratulate you on your courage to take on the defence of law, to enter into a debate
and, guided by the principle of justice - albeit imperfect - to win, ALWAYS!
I will speak about the traps in YOUR/our way of defending justice on behalf of people,
and which I want us to recall: traps which man has set for himself, caught in his own
web of fighting for profit.
One of the definitions says that law is a set of legal and customary rules and regulations
which society adopts and applies to regulate the relations between people in order to
ensure peace and order in society.
Law is the body of legislation, such as court decisions and other provisions which
regulate the behaviour of people and the relations between them. This includes the
legislative, judicial and executive branch. The executive branch implements law and
executes justice (which includes the police, secret services and other services
authorised to implement laws and fight crime), while the judiciary and the legislative
branch are responsible for the implementation and supervision of law.
And what is JUSTICE? - It is a term that pertains to a just and fair treatment of people,
to the relations between people, as well as to justice in social institutions and systems.
Why are LAW and JUSTICE so far apart in the modern world? Why do they need the
support and voice of all those who are in some way involved in the creation and
implementation of LAW, as well as those who expect JUSTICE?
Because rules are often not put in place with the aim of benefiting as many people as
possible.
The reason for this is the unsurmountable wall that stands in the way of any reason and
any justice, the wall of personal interests. No matter how much we beat on it, no matter
how much we try to climb over it, it often remains impenetrable and unsurmountable.
But when we write laws, when we implement them, when we interpret them, we must
put aside our personal interest and make decisions guided by reason and justice. This
is a necessary precondition for the survival of all of us who are responsible.
Everything we do in the field of law is in the name of justice. This is why we must accept
responsibility and stand in defence of law and justice.
Had one of us discovered a cure for some terrible disease, it would be our duty to share
our discovery with mankind, wouldn't it?
Each of us has something to offer because each of us is unique. That is why it is our
duty to share our knowledge and skills - the unique skills - with others? It is our duty to
build our skills into the system that narrows the gap between law and justice. Because
we need justice more than anything.
Justice, albeit imperfect - said Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen.
One of the ways to attain this justice is by talking, which in this field is called debating.
This is why I say that debating is man's duty.
Debating was the duty of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, John
Brown, Christ, Mohammad, Buddha, the Apostle Paul, Joan of Arc. Debating was the
duty of Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, Ralph Nader ((1934) -
US attorney, "whip of corporate moral", led many campaigns on behalf of consumers).
Debating is our duty as well.
When we witness injustice, it is our duty to fight against it - by debating. When we hear
statements devoid of justice, it is our duty to prevent them from spreading their venom
unhindered. It is our duty to debate with the ones we love, with friends and with children.
But debating in a field where we have banks and companies on one side and people,
clients, consumers, on the other, comes with particular challenges.
What is a company: a company is not a human being. Nor is it a set of living beings. It
is an artificial creation. A form that does not breathe, that is not human - an invisible
form. You can see the building, but you cannot see a company, or a bank. Companies
exist only on paper. We can see what the company produces, but no one has ever seen
a company, just as no one has ever seen a thought. A company is nothing more than
an idea. It is no wonder that we so often lead fruitless debates with them.
Though companies are not alive, they have a life. Many of them seem immortal, just like
banks. Their founders die. Their founders' sons die. Then their grandchildren. Yet
companies continue to live.
A company is like a ship, only a skeleton, nothing more. People are not ships. People
are not companies.
Who runs companies? It is true that in theory, companies are run by a collegium of
directors, and current matters are handled by managers and the other staff. But the
company lives by its own inertia, for the most part.
The company, though lifeless, mostly drives itself. Charles A. Reich, of Yale Law
School, says that a company is "an immensely powerful machine, ordered, legalistic,
rational, yet utterly out of human control, wholly and perfectly indifferent to any human
values". Like a ship at sea, it will float and sail wherever it goes, regardless of whether
someone is standing at the helm or not. One of the main traits of managers is their skill
of selling the illusion of keeping the ship on course. Sometimes the course is wrong and
sometimes the officer on duty is completely lost, but the goal is to keep the ship afloat
so that a bystander can tell that someone is still at the helm and that the ship is going
somewhere. If those who run the company are able to create such an illusion, other
companies will grab onto them, everyone will admire them and consider them extremely
successful.
Who is responsible for the company's conduct? The ship is not responsible for itself.
Ships cannot think. Ships have no soul and conscience. Ships are not accountable. And
what about the crew? To say that the crew on a company ship is the same as the ship
is not true. They just work on the ship. They're just the crew. The captain is not the ship
either, he only serves on the ship. Furthermore, the ship continues to live even when
the captain dies or is killed in a mutiny. And what about the shipowners? The
shipowners manage the ship as much as the shareholders manage the company on a
daily basis. Most owners have never even seen the boat they own. Most have nothing
to do with what their money bought. In the end, the shipowner is money, dead money.
But money has no responsibility. No one has yet managed to find any sign that
banknotes have a soul.
It is no wonder that the shipowner - money, in which there is no life, and the ship itself,
in which there is no life, decide on moves in which there is no responsibility towards the
living. The ship cannot be held criminally liable. We cannot put it in jail or publicly crucify
it because, like the company, it is invisible.
Companies are generally immune to serious fines. Hence the great demand for a
company structure as a business form. What can a businessman ask for more than the
protection afforded by that mostly immune, invisible structure, without responsibility -
the protection given to him by that "idea", i.e. the creation of a "legal entity" that can
commit any act for the sake of profit with a free hand, while the company owners are
insulated from all responsibility.
Isn't it strange under such circumstances that crime becomes the most convenient way
to achieve justice, an unreasonable means by which the poor and the damaged parties
want to achieve justice?
work, ethics are often reduced to instruments of hypocrisy in order to make
I quote: "At
the employees abide by standards, to which the employer is immune. The teller who
immorally embezzles from the bank where he works has had the opportunity to see how
the bank immorally steals billions from the weak and disadvantaged ones for years
through unreasonably high interest rates. 'In any case', thinks the teller, 'my crime,
when I steal from the rich, is not as serious as when the bank recklessly robs the poor'.
A stockbroker who unscrupulously trades stocks based on insider information has seen
many times his company make a huge fortune by selling people worthless bonds.
'Anyway', the stockbroker thinks, 'my crime of giving away insider information to make a
little more money isn't so serious'. Business ethics are often reduced to the preaching of
hypocrites and phariseeism. How can these hypocritical, duplicitous companies, which
cheat, steal and cause evil for the sake of money, expect their employees to live in an
antiseptic, moral vacuum for the good of the company ?" End of quote.
Most often, companies look for honest employees, not because they value honesty, but
because it is much more profitable to hire honest workers than thieves. However, theft
is simply accepted as business and usually enjoys the protection of the law. Everyone
celebrates the one who blew the whistle and pointed the finger at his colleagues, not
because stealing is something wrong, but because he thus saved the company's profit
that would otherwise be lost.
And what is the role of law in all this? Very often the ways laws are written are not
conducive to justice. Law becomes a means for those who have power, whether justly
or not, to continue to hold that power in their hands. The law protects power - the
power of money. The law will, almost always, rather characterise some evil as
precedent, than offer justice through amendment of an unjust legal regulation.
How, then, can we succeed in the fight for justice?
Those who do succeed are the ones who DO NOT ENTER THE COURT
BLINDFOLDED.
It is possible to succeed in this endeavour if we have a very clear and comprehensive
view of the court.
If we properly understand the system in which we are fighting for our life, for the right
principles. If we can identify who and why will hear our reasons, our arguments, the
debate in general.
I do not want to awaken rebels in you. Rebels are rarely successful. Rebels are not
understood, and people are afraid of those whom they don't understand.
Besides, it is one thing to be independent, respect the authority of your own personality
and use your strength prudently. It is quite another thing to kick up dust and make
noise. A man should stand up for his principles, openly and courageously. What I am
trying to say is that we usually gain nothing from making a show of the fight for justice
and principles. A man who unpretentiously respects his moral principles is in
possession of much stronger arguments than the one who is so loud that it's giving us a
headache.
The success in this work boils down to a concept, an idea - Your idea. When the head
of a large company appears in court, to testify against a client, he is usually surrounded
by a whole suite of conniving, well-paid people who awkwardly bow, smirk, pass him
notes and constantly reassure him that he is in charge. There is little true wisdom in
this. These people are often experts in trampling on those beneath them.
But such people know how to climb. They are not successful people, except when it
comes to climbing ladders, although they may retire with a golden parachute worth
millions of euros.
A decision such representatives fight for does not refer to a person they know, to his life
which is about to be turned upside down, to his family that is threatened, his children
who will be humiliated and maybe bitter for the rest of their lives, his house from which
he might have to move out, to a person who will suffer or even die with a sense of
injustice. The decision does not pertain to a living human being whom they know. The
decision pertains to a number. There are thousands of such numbers, and they will
treat them all the same. It's nothing personal - they say!?
I am not against companies. I am against senseless, lifeless leviathans which rule over
helpless, innocent people. I am against corporate power that has no corporate
accountability. I am not against profit. I am against inhuman and false doctrines which
worship profit as the most precious virtue. My goal is to inspire thinking. My goal is not
to judge, but to expose the myths which allow our system to exploit powerless myths
that lead to it falling into disrepute and weakening. I wish for us to see things for what
they are, so that our work could rest on the power of our knowledge, our authority and
justice.
In case of state institutions, the profit motive, which is a ruthless driving force in the
private sector, here takes the apparent form of the structure that maintains the
continuity of power. In the civil service, a man has a job that he supposedly cannot lose.
What really pays off in the civil service is - power. Finally, power itself can be converted
to money, because from a position of power in civil service a man can always jump over
the fence - to the private sector, where one can cash in on all his powerful connections
and contacts.
In civil service, and this often holds true for corporate employees as well, you win by
managing not to lose. You win by being satisfied with your work because you do it well
and honestly. You win by not expecting a pat on the back from a lifeless bureaucracy,
but by giving credit to yourself, because you are satisfied with yourself.
Remember, no matter who signs off our paycheque, we always work for ourselves. No
matter who is doing the hiring and laying off, the satisfaction is always on our side. We
always live by our standards. And there is nothing that fulfils a person more than the
feeling of justice, the faith that justice is attainable. Finally, that is how we always win, if
we believe that we are doing our job honestly and in the interest of many people.
So go ahead, join the debate and guided by the principle of justice, albeit imperfect,
ALWAYS win! In the name of the people. That is the responsibility of us all!