Home Headquarters versus Host Company Offices

1. Introduction

The worldwide approach to foreign markets forces Multinational Enterprises (MNE) to produce and market their products in more than one country, through foreign direct investments (FDI). By opening so-called host country offices and production facilities in foreign countries (host countries), MNEs usually have their headquarters located in the home country, the country where the business was started - sometimes decades or centuries ago. For example Nestle, the world’s largest food company, has its headquarters in Vevey, Switzerland, the home country where the company originally was founded, but operates globally through a large network of host company offices – and plants – in multiple host countries all over the world. MNEs often face challenges in host countries, such as lack of political stabilization, currency risks, legal requirements, and human resources issues. This paper will focus on human resources management with regard to the home country of a MNE, and its host country offices. The challenges and obstacles will be explained and analyzed.

2. Discussion and Analysis

2.1 Designing of the Work Force

The first obstacle a MNE has to overcome is the decision about its work force design in a host company office. It has to be defined how many people are needed, what their characteristics should be, and what salaries will be paid. The most difficult decision is usually the design of the sales force. Sales representatives are the most necessary factor when it comes to a successful marketing of a company’s products. “The sales person is a company’s most direct tie to the customer; in the eye of most customers, the salesperson is the company” (Cateora et al, 502). At the same time, management in the home country needs to understand what the requirements and expectations of potential employees are, if people need to be hired. Many German companies do not understand what the interpretations of defined titles in the U.S. are. A German manufacturer of food cutting machines could not find a sales executive for more than two years. The company asked the recruiter to hire a sales manager, even though the recruiting company tried to explain that for this particular job the title Vice President Sales would be much more appropriate. After two years the recruiter finally gave up.

Many MNEs try to hire as many local employees as possible. “[…] The picture is clearly biased in favor of the locals because they transcend both culture and legal barriers” (Cateora et al, 505). At the same time, the mindset of locally hired personnel may not be in line with the host country office/headquarters, since the host country culture, the specific business acumen and customs can differ significantly. Employees in the U.S. usually only take a thirty-minute lunch break, while French and Spanish employees consider a two-hour lunch break absolutely normal – including the consumption of alcohol. Another issue is the misunderstanding of hints, suggestions, and comments by local nationals of how to do business, how to approach a potential customer, and how to deal with executives of a potential customer company. The mindset in the host-country office might not be open enough to see business opportunities, while employing different business acumen. It is not sufficient to visit a potential customer in Brazil only once, since a true business relationship is almost considered a friendship, whereas in the U.S. business is solely profit oriented and usually based on the “time is money” approach. “The main disadvantage of hiring local nationals is the tendency of headquarter personnel to ignore their advice.” (Cateora et al, 506).

If a company opens a new host country office, one usually finds a mix of local nationals, also called host country nationals (HCNs), expatriates, and third-country nationals. The tendency of hiring third-country nationals, employees from foreign countries who work for a foreign company in a third country, is increasing. These employees are considered “truly global executives” (Cateora et al, 507), since they usually have vast international experience and an understanding of foreign cultures. For example Burrough’s Corporation hired six third-country nationals for six host country offices in Europe and South America, and was apparently very successful by doing so.

Expatriates, also known as parent-country nationals (PCNs), are employees who are citizens of the nation in which the parent company is headquartered (Ball et al, 543; Daniels et al, 778). The advantage of expatriates is the knowledge of the parent company, its product lines and communication systems, and the usually received technical training, besides the already proven dependability. The disadvantages of expatriates are the enormous costs associated with the move to a host country, the salary and expenses, but also cultural, legal, and language barriers. The chemical company BASF has reduced its staff of expatriates significantly over the last three years – for cost reasons and the obviously increasing legal hurdles to receive working permits and visa for the PCNs. Another issue is the high failure rate of expatriates who are not willing or not capable of dealing with a foreign environment that is hardly known and certainly challenging at times. The failure rate of BASF-expatriates in Asia is the highest by far, since many have to face a culture that is totally different from the European (German) one.

2.2 Host-country restrictions

Many host countries do not necessarily welcome foreign direct investments, and the associated intrusion of foreign workers in the host country. France has restrictions about how many expatriates can be employed by a company, based on the size and the amount that will be invested. But even if a company follows the legal rules implemented by the country, it might face severe resistance. After having bought the French company Ricale, the German packaging provider Bericap intended to send a German sales manager to Paris in order to manage the sales force in its new Paris office. Not only did the French staff refuse to work with the expatriate, but the French union also protested, even though there were no legal grounds for doing so. Bericap finally hired a local national. The fear of foreign corporate domination, local unemployment and other issues, such as the fear of losing national identity, force nations to restrict the number of non-nationals allowed to work in the host country (Cateora et al, 508). Also, the U.S. has imposed restrictions, especially after September 11, 2001. Meanwhile, granted work visas are limited, and the possibilities to extend a work visa multiple times are low.

2.3 Culture

As already briefly discussed in 2.1, the understanding and interpreting of culture plays a major role when it comes to host country offices. The identification of Geert Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions that differentiate countries, are very helpful tools for MNEs. Employees of individualistic societies, such as the U.S., have to overcome major hurdles and issues to understand employees in a host country like Japan – and vice versa -where the collectivistic society is embedded in the culture. High versus low power distance plays a larger role in South American countries, even though these barriers seem to shift slowly but surely. One reason is certainly the influence of MNEs, operating in these countries. Masculine versus feminine, and weak versus strong uncertainty avoidance (Kotler et al, 610) are the two additional factors identified by Hofstede that have to be kept in mind when working in a host country, and leading a host country office.

3. Conclusion

Besides the knowledge of foreign markets, the way these markets operate, and the competitive landscape, it is of utmost necessity for a MNE to understand the local workforce in the host country. A ‘healthy mix” of expatriates and local nationals in the host-country office is recommended. In order to overcome unnecessary barriers, such as miscommunication, misinterpretation of rules, behavior and attitudes, both the home country office/headquarters, and the host country office have to find a common working ground in order to be successful in the long run. In order to establish this common ground, the executive management has to implement a policy that fosters cooperation and communication, by establishing a sensitive and sophisticated human resource management. Highly successful MNEs base their success on a distinguished human resource management that is embedded in a company’s strategy, and is understood as a major pillar of a company mission.

References:

• Ball, Donald E, Wendell H. McCulloch Jr., J. Michael Geringer, Michael S. Minor, Jeanne M. McNett. International Business: The Challenge of Global Competition. 11^th ed. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2008. Print.

• Cateora, Philip R., Marcy C. Gilly and John I. Graham. International Marketing, 14^th ed. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2009. Print.

• Daniels, John D., Lee H. Radebaugh, and Daniel P. Sullivan. International Business: Environments and Operations. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Print.

• Kotler, Philip, Keller, Kevin Lane Keller. Marketing Management.13^th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Print.

Global Integration versus Local Responsiveness

Internationally operating companies have to face two major challenges on how to configure and coordinate their value chain in the most efficient and most profitable way: global integration and local responsiveness (Daniels et al, 428). On the one hand, the growing globalization in the business world requires companies to adapt to global strategies, which emphasize product standardization and globally functioning infrastructures (customer service, supply chain management, communication). On the other hand, consumer preference and host-government policies forces companies to tailor their operations and/or adapt to local market requirements (Daniels et al, 430). It is and will remain a huge balancing act for all international companies to manage the gap of this apparent conundrum.

However, distinctions have to be made when it comes to specific industries. The Integration Responsiveness (IR) Grid (Daniels et al, 431) illustrates for instance that bulk chemicals require high standardization and central control regarding global integration, whereas local responsiveness is of minor necessity. BASF, the German based and estimated biggest chemical company in the world, operates 330 production sites around the globe. Since most of its produced chemicals are considered commodities, the focus of the company’s global production is efficiency and economies of scale. “ The more a plant produces, the lower the fixed costs per ton of product (economies of scale). This is why BASF operates such cost-efficient large-scale facilities in all regions.” (BASF Website). Their so-called Verbund-System, the German translation of a combination of plants that interact on a global basis by consistently informing about best practices, makes use of integrated production processes to manufacture as inexpensively and as efficiently as possible. Hence, local responsiveness plays a minor role, but cannot be disregarded completely. Environmental requirements and production processes, especially concerning member states of the European Community (specific filters for steam that occurs during cracking processes, handling and transportation of residues and waste streams) forces the company to act indeed on host-government policies.

Nestle Waters, the world’s largest food company, owns about a third of the global bottled water market, with seven regional water brands only in the U.S. (Nestle Website). In addition, Nestle owns various imported brands, such as Perrier. The company’s strategic marketing approach is to act and react locally, by serving specific customer groups in designated geographical areas, based on its acquired local water springs. (Poland Spring - Northeast, Deer Park - Mid-Atlantic, Ice-Mountain – Midwest, Ozarka – South, Arrowhead – West, Zephyrills – Florida) (Huser, 84). So far, Nestle seems to be successful. The company was able to gain a strong position in the market based on local consumer loyalty to its regional brands. At the same time, marketing communication seems rather difficult, since the company cannot easily reach all its bottled water consumers with an efficient “one message for all”-approach, as done for instance by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. It has to adapt to regionally based brands. A unique advertisement, usually measured as per person reached nationwide, does not apply for Nestle’s strategy and forces the company to pay “ […] a substantial up-charge to reach the consumers in its different regional markets.” (Huser, 84). In addition, plastic packaging providers, such as Graham Packaging (plastic bottle blow molder) and BERICAP (plastic closure supplier) have to follow Nestle’s segmented marketing approach, by designing specific bottles and closures for the various geographical regions. The global integration idea regarding production processes and economies of scale – as described above for the chemical industry – falls short. A Poland Spring bottle looks differently than an Arrowhead bottle, and the closures are of different sizes (Nestle Website). Therefore, also suppliers and other stakeholders have to adapt to local responsiveness, and moreover, to additional requirements such as designs, smaller production lots and rather complicated distribution networks.

Nevertheless, globally operating Multinational Entities seem to be successful for the most part, by gaining sufficient profit through a functioning value chain that is integrated globally, and by adapting successfully to local requirements at the same time - as the example of Zara shows (Daniels et al, 405-409). Efficiency seems to be one of the core secrets to be successful. Flexibility and fast deliveries are certainly two other variables in order to gain profit, market share, and finally to be sustainable on a global scale.

Reference:

BASF Website, Oct. 11, 2009. www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/about-basf/worldwide/index

BERICAP Website, Oct. 11, 2009. www.bericap.com/index.php?pg=menu_160

Daniels, John D., Lee H. Radebaugh, and Daniel P. Sullivan. International Business: Environments and Operations. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Print.

Graham Packaging Website, Oct. 11, 2009. www.grahampackaging.com/markets/food-beverage.asp

Huser, E. Ann. Marketing Concepts. Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ, 2009. Print

Nestle Website, Oct. 11, 2009. www.nestle.com/Brands/BottledWater/BottledWaterListing.htm

Looking Inside for Competitive Advantage

Jay B. Barney – Looking Inside for Competitive Advantage
Academy of Management Executive, 1995, Vol. 9, No. 4

Summary
A competitive advantage is shaped by both environmental threats and opportunities, and internal strengths and weaknesses. The author Jay B. Barney indirectly states that valuable tools are available to analyze external forces, but there seems to be a lack of valuable tools to analyze internal threats and opportunities – in the article referred to as “internal attributes” or “resources and capabilities” that are built on a company’s financial, physical, human, and organizational assets. In order to overcome this gap, which the traditional SWOT analysis leaves out, Barney suggests focusing on:
1. The question of value – Is the organization able to consistently add value?
2. Rareness – Resources and capabilities must be rare in order to guarantee a competitive advantage and/or a unique selling proposition.
3. Imitability – Companies who enter the market might have a cost disadvantage by imitating e.g. production, design, distribution channels.
4. Organizations – A culture that fosters competitive potential towards competitive advantage

Evaluation
By reading the article only once, the reader could wrongly assume that the SWOT analysis solely focuses on the external environment, while neglecting the internal environment at the same time. Organizations usually use the SWOT analysis to evaluate both external and internal threats and opportunities.
The author mentions various examples of how organizations were and are able to react in the market place. In order to be successful in adding sustainable value, he suggests to reward risk taking and creativity. Some organizations do not foster risk taking at all, and creativity falls short. But there are still successful entities in the marketplace, and consistently able to add value – for other reasons (monopoly, backward-integrated feedstock, etc.).
When he talks about rareness as a means for an organization to position itself, he does not mention the possible downsides of decentralizations (see AT&T e.g.), and the possible time frame necessary to not only prepare and educate the people involved, but also to implement what can be considered a cultural change in the organization.
Regarding Imitability, Jay Barney does not mention that entire industry segments, mainly in Asia, exists and operate successfully, simply because they only produce and offer me-too products. In addition, a company that is able to simply copy a product successfully without spending millions of dollars on research and development has a clear cost advantage, and not – as he describes it – “firms [have] a cost disadvantage in imitating another’s resources and capabilities”.
Last but not least, Mr. Barney mentions organizations as such that need to focus on the competitive potential of its internal attributes. His examples are valuable, but he does not mention leadership as a powerful part of an organization that basically can create this competitive potential. Sam Walton (Wal-Mart) and Michael O’Leary (Ryanair) are only two excellent examples as leaders as well as entrepreneurs.

How to write a really Great Business Plan

William A. Sahlman (1997) - How to write a really Great Business Plan
Harvard Business Review, July – August 1997, pp. 98-108

Summary
In his essay, William A. Sahlman states that too much time is wasted on number crunching, and figures, such as capital, time, predicted revenues and profits regarding business plans for new ventures. Since accurate numbers related to a business plan are difficult to predict anyway, he suggests to focus on a framework that is based on four critical factors: people, opportunity, context, and possibilities.
Sahlman considers most entrepreneurs as wide-eyed optimists, who naively believe in their ideas, but who fail to ask “the right questions” related to the above framework. When it comes to the first factor – people, it should clearly be determined in a business plan who the people are who start the venture, what their experience and their knowledge is regarding the product or service, moreover production processes, the market itself, the competition, the customers etc. Questions to ask: What do these people know? Whom do they know? How well are they themselves known in the market place?
The second factor, opportunity, should explain the profile of the business, its economics, the expected success, but also what could possibly hinder that success (vulnerabilities). The necessary questions focus both on the market (Is the market large enough, or rapidly growing, or both?) and on the industry (Is the industry and its structure indeed sufficiently attractive?)
The context defines the macroeconomics, or – in other words – the external factors that cannot be controlled by the entrepreneur, such as demographic trends, a possible inflation, regulatory environment, government rules, etc. However, the question remains how the entrepreneur reacts when this context inevitably changes.
The last factor, the possibilities regarding risk and reward, determines the scenario of what can possibly go right and wrong, and how to respond to it. What magnitude of reward can be expected, and when can the reward be expected?

Evaluation
William Sahlman is obviously a person who is very familiar with new ventures and the countless business plans that go in line with start up companies. His view is based on observation and experience that lead to above conclusion. His valuable insight and knowledge can help and support new ventures that have to present a business plan sooner or later. But his framework is not a scientific model that can be discussed on a scholarly level, since it lacks representative observation and results.
Similarly, Peter Drucker offers seven sources as “diagnostic disciplines” in his book “Innovation and Entrepreneurship” (1985) that need to be considered not only when starting a new venture, but also when writing a business plan. Drucker describes the first four as internal sources, including industry and market structure (see Sahlman’s “Opportunity factor” above). The so-called outside factors include macroeconomic issues, such as demographics and changes in perception of the customers (see Sahlman’s “Context-factor”).
Gundy and Kickul (see “Entrepreneurship Strategy”, pp. 63-64) offer a similar approach for strategic assessments of new ventures, by also focusing on four factors: people, available resources, knowledge and information that are possessed, and the idea’s ability to generate revenue.
While Sahlman considers people and their skills the most necessary factor, other potential investors might consider the financial outlook, or marketing strategies and sales programs the most necessary issues when it comes to evaluate a business plan. The framework he suggests seems to be very helpful, but remains a subjective tool that might fall short when generalizing all ventures and all potential investors.

Owner-Managers and the Practice of Strategic Management

Adrian Woods, Paul Joyce – Owner-Managers and the Practice of Strategic Management
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 21 (2), pp. 181-194

Summary
Based on Mintzberg’s organizational studies of entrepreneurship (1979), where he argues that small business owners use personal and arbitrary forms of control to conduct their business rather than strategic management (anti-planning theory), Woods and Joyce researched whether Mintzberg’s theory still holds true, or whether small businesses have adopted both the language and practice of strategic analysis and planning.

Assumptions:
Planning in general is positively linked to growth.
Managers who use strategic planning will achieve optimal development regarding their ventures.
The knowledge of strategic tools suggested by theories and theoretical frameworks will lead managers to value the results of applying these tools.
The access to this knowledge is possible through business school programs, management consultants, business books etc.
Managers may use the tool to make judgments and apply these judgments to decision making processes.
Decision making processes lead to feedback loops.
The use of tools can lead to better management strategies.
The benefits may result in improved business performance.

Research:
Five hundred and thirteen small business firms were selected at random and interviewed by asking among other questions, if the interviewees had heard about/were familiar with strategic tools, such as cost benefit analysis, scenario planning, SWOT analysis etc.

Results:
Owner-managers do not have as much access to strategic tools as other managers, and as a result do not use as many.
If owner-managers had access to these tools, they would value them and use them as much as other managers.
If tools are used, the strategic planning will improve.
Business performance will improve.
By using the tools, the more critical the users become of their ability in the specific area the tools apply to.
The knowledge about tools increases, as well as the richness of the strategic language being used and the quality of their plans.
If the application of tools available lead to beneficial results (outcomes), the tools will be used. If they are considered not useful, the tools will not be used.

Evaluation
Peters and Waterman in their revolutionary book “In Search of Excellence” (1982) describe the typical entrepreneur in a similar way as Mintzberg did in his study only three years earlier: Intuition and gut-feeling in combination with the right business sense and sufficient self-confidence (self-efficacy) will lead to successful small business ventures, if the market and the consumers will adapt and accept a new and/or innovative product/service. Woods and Joyce are taking this theory a step further, by acknowledging that times have changed, and that more access to above management tools are possible. The overall result is that small businesses are led in a much more professional way than some 20 plus years ago, but that tools are only used if they make perfect sense. There will always be owner-managers who do not appreciate management tools for whatever reason. Nevertheless, the trend seems to be that these individuals are smart enough to at least hire managers who already had access and possess applicable knowledge, and who are able to help run a small business through strategic planning and with the help of strategic analysis. The business world has changed significantly during the last two decades. Therefore Mintzberg’s study, conducted in 1979, became a still valuable but also a rather antiquated research these days. Frederick Taylor’s assumption based on observation and personal experience about scientific management a century ago cannot hold ground to Vroom’s Time-Driven Decision Tree (1998) these days, but one should not neglect Taylor and his revolutionary ideas either. The same goes for Mintzberg.

U.S. Democracy compared to ancient Athenian Democracy

The Political System of the Unites States of America
The political system of the United States of America is a so-called constitutional republic – a form of liberal democracy - framed by the U.S. Constitution, which protects individual rights and freedom (The Bill of Rights), such as assembly, freedom of speech, religion, privacy, property, and equality before the law. All citizens are subject to three levels of government: the local, the state and the federal government. Concerning all three levels, officials are mainly elected by voters, who have to be at least 18 years old and all voters are individually responsible for their registration to vote. In some cases, officials are appointed or nominated by an executive branch, and the nominated officials have to be approved by the legislature.

The federal government is divided in three distinctive branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive branch is the President. He is the head of the States, and the commander-in-chief for the military. The President has the political power to administer and enforce federal laws and policies. He can veto bills, and he is able to appoint the Cabinet besides other federal officers (Head of the CIA, FBI etc.). Both the Senate and the House of Representatives in combination function as the legislative branch, a so-called bicameral Congress. They are responsible for federal laws, they can approve treaties and they are able officially to declare a war. In addition, the Congress is in charge of the purse and of possible impeachments against members of the Congress and – by exception – against the President of the United States. The judiciary branch is the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, whose judges are not elected – but appointed by the President, followed by the Senate’s approval. The Supreme Court has the power and the ability to interpret and to overturn laws.

The goal of the constitutional republic of the United States (and others) is that no individual group is able to achieve absolute power, but is controlled by the constitution, which limits the power of the government, and therefore makes it constitutional. The political decisions of the President and other officials are subject to judicial review.

The Athenian Democracy
The Athenian Democracy, also known as the Classical Democracy, was a direct democracy, where people did not elect representatives, but participated actively and directly by voting on legislation and executive bills in their own right. All free Greek male citizens of Athens were allowed to participate in political decision making and governed themselves. Both Solon in 594 and Cleisthenes in 508 B.C. contributed to the distinctive and remarkable development of Athenian democracy through reformation and
adjustments. Ephialtes later revised Cleisthenes’ constitution slightly (462 B.C.), but the Athenian democratic structure that is discussed here is the one Cleisthenes implemented.
He changed the political map of Athens and its neighborhood significantly.
The city of Athens and the villages that surrounded the city (demoi) became constituent units of the Athenian political organization. Cleisthenes divided Attica into thirty units (trittyes), which were further divided into three groups of ten tribes. The three groups represented the coastal, the urban and the inland areas. Each trittys consisted of several villages/neighborhoods, called deme. All adult male citizens, at least 18 years old, could participate directly in the running for the government. Women, children and slaves were excluded. The number of representatives from each deme was proportionally based on the size of its population. The so-called Council of 500 (formerly established by Solon as the Council of 400) was made up of 50 men from each of the ten tribes, all selected by lot. These members had to be over 30 and could only serve for a year, but could be re-elected a second time in their lifetime. Considering the fact that approximately 25,000 to 30,000 adult male citizens were allowed to vote, almost every Athenian citizen would have to serve at least once in a lifetime. The council oversaw the Assembly, and a farmer could sit next to an aristocrat, with equal voice and opinion, and the right to vote. The Assembly, probably more than 6,000 people, summoned whenever life-and-death decisions had to be made about war, peace, military issues (navy, hoplites, and armor) and food supply. All free male citizens were allowed to attend an assembly meeting. They could vote, speak up, and persuade or influence various political decisions.

Differences
When we compare the United States with classical Athens, we certainly compare two very different forms of democracy: Athens’ direct democracy (also referred to as a pure democracy) and the liberal or constitutional democracy of the United States.
Cleisthenes, and probably many of his fellow citizens, believed that to practice “true democracy” was only possible with a maximum of 30,000 people – very much the number of eligible voters during the classic Athenian era. The size of the population in the United States is estimated to be 300m; in 2004, approximately 72% were eligible to vote, hence 216m people. In terms of an Athenian understanding of democracy, the sheer size of the population would make true democracy impossible. The U.S. is one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations, which has to be understood as the product of large scale immigration from many countries all over the world, ever since the foundation of the United States. In comparison, Athenian citizenship was only guaranteed to freeborn citizens, whose father was also a freeborn Athenian. Pericles changed this law in 451 B.C. by stating that both the father and the mother had to be Athenian born.
All free male citizens of at least 18 years were directly involved in political decision making, hence, political power as known and practiced in the U.S., was not dependent on winning election terms and consensus decision making, but rather speaking and specifically persuading people in the assembly. Issues were discussed, voted and decisions were finally put into action. Political parties with a specific message and ideology were unknown. Each individual could speak for himself, and was able to choose
a position or standpoint that was to his liking or that suited him well. The Athenian constitution – though never officially a written constitution - required that all citizens were involved in political issues. Women, children and slaves were excluded from any political activity. Equal rights for all people were not known in Attica. It was clearly distinguished between Athens born citizens and “other Greeks”; non-Greek citizens had no rights whatsoever.

In Athens, the so-called strategoi or generals were determined by election of each tribe. The ten generals, who had the most political and military power, were only allowed to serve for one year, but could be reelected again (see also Pericles who was reelected ten times). In the U.S., the President has the most political power. He serves for four years and can be reelected for a second term. However, his decision making power is subject to laws and a balanced control system, that also involves the Congress as well as the Supreme Court. The members of the Supreme Court, however, are appointed by the President, and therefore not elected. The people of the United States have no say in this individual decision making process – most likely the most undemocratic issue compared with Athenian’s judiciary. As per James Woodburn, “[…] the ability of the people to choose officials in government is checked by not allowing them to elect Supreme Court Justices.” In addition, the people are not allowed to make laws directly. The majority rule, however, is tempered by minority rights protected by law – as per U.S. governmental law. The Athenian assembly, however, made laws and rules, and all male adults were responsible for all internal and external political decisions concerning the Athenian City State. The people were voters, political parties, legislative, judiciary, and executive at the same time. The power truly was in the hands of the people, instead of voting for representatives to decide for them.

Similarities
What was known as true democracy in Athens, where sovereignty was lodged in the assembly of all citizens eligible to participate, does not exist in the U.S. or other democratic countries. Various forms of democracies are known, and the constitutional democracy of the United States can be considered a liberal democracy, based on tolerance and pluralism. All legal citizens have the right to vote, and even extremely differing social and political views are allowed to exist and to compete for political power. Despite the fact that only certain citizens were allowed political power in Athens, its democratic structure has to be considered liberal as well. As long as the speaker was convincing and able to persuade the assembly, his opinion could influence or change political decisions. But, even if he was against a decision, he might not have been able to change it, but was allowed to speak up. Ordinary citizens were able to set the political agenda. Farmers sat next to aristocrats. Anyone could become president of the council for 24 hours and was able to rule Attica. This, in principle, is possible in the United States as well. Any American born citizen with more or less valuable experience in law, business or political power can theoretically become president; serve in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, and in many other federal, state or county offices.

Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton are examples of rather poor, though well educated people who were able to win a presidential election. Political leaders in Athens were able to attempt bribery and could make secret political deals in order to favor themselves or their cause. This is still possible in modern United States democracy (as well as in all others); where either individual politicians or a whole political party or wing can make deals under the table in order to gain advantage.
In Athens as well as in the U.S., politicians were/are subject to scrutiny. In the case of mistakes, failure or misbehavior, they could/can be removed from office and had/have to face both political and personal consequences.

Arguments for and against direct democracy
As stated above, direct democracy as understood by the ancient Greeks is only feasible with a limited number of participants. City States with a few thousand inhabitants as known in classic Greece had the possibility to implement and maintain pure democracy, but modern States with a population of several million people are not able to support this form of democracy efficiently. Also, a direct democracy can be unrepresentative, since voter turnout is not necessarily equally distributed among various groups and since not always all eligible voters participate in each vote. However, a direct democracy is inherently representative, since everyone can vote.
Wealthier citizens in Athens certainly had easier access to education than did poor farmers. The higher the level of education, the greater the advantages concerning political influence, rhetoric, law making etc. The art of speech and fundamental knowledge of rhetoric, combined with charismatic arguments and convincing gestures could have led to unreasonable decisions and laws, because the speaker was just able to paint a picture to his benefit and yet was able to convince the majority – but not necessarily for the greater good and public cause. The speaker and/or the voter might have selfishly focused on needs and values, which benefited him, to the disadvantage of the majority. On the other hand is it well known that less educated people were also able to submit their point of view and were able to influence or even change decisions. It is generally difficult to make a law, which benefits a smaller group and hurts a larger group, even if the benefit for the smaller group outweighs that of the larger one. The decision making process tended to be slow and inefficient at times. By keeping in mind that basically all matters of public importance had to be discussed prior to a final decision, questions might have been asked several times, and unimportant issues might have come up during a discussion that caused delays and finally public apathy and voter fatigue – which unfortunately can also be seen in contemporary democracies. Many voters were not interested in politics and considered it a burden to participate while the farm needed attention, or just because they had a general lack of political interest. Special interest groups would have fought for their specific cause, where others ignored the issue completely and did not vote. Group interests shifted, and a full assembly would have decided otherwise. By allowing salaries for Greek politicians, it became much easier for less rich or simply poor people to work effectively in office. It also reduced the likelihood of corruption, which is considered intrinsic concerning the concentration of power in a representative government.

Political parties are considered the “necessary evil of a representative democracy”. The party representatives often have to compromise their own values and the values of the electorate to be in line with the party’s ideology or strategy to win the next election. Influential lobbyists, such as religious groups, the American Firearm Association etc. tend to influence and/or financially support political parties or politicians in favor of their
policies and goals. Political parties also tend to focus on subjects that interest the public – such as abortion or gay marriage – but would have no significant influence on external policies or other subjects that might be much more necessary to discuss at certain times. Especially in the U.S., a tendency can be seen that candidates are more focused on personal image, reputation and personal opinions being in line with lobbying groups or popular opinions rather than political issues that would be significant for the greater public cause. Representatives have a tendency to compromise in order to achieve other or additional objectives (e.g., minimum wage measures are combined with tax relief).
The financial resources spent for elections are enormously high and could possibly be spent somewhere else. The money that is needed to support either a party or a candidate makes both the party and the candidate vulnerable to funneled opinions and might jeopardize their objectivity. Moreover, elected candidates often appoint friends and supporters to positions in order to reward them for their loyalty during a political campaign. Lack of knowledge and competence can cause serious damage for the public with long-term negative results to follow (see Michael D. Brown’s appointment as head of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency and his devastating performance during and after the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe). Another serious issue is the lack of accountability concerning elected representatives. Once in office, elected representatives are basically free to act as they please. Promises are sometimes broken and the actions taken are often contradictory to the desires and demands of the electorate. Theoretically, these candidates can be removed from office. In reality, this hardly takes place. Especially when the candidate acts shortly after being elected, the public tends to forget his failures and broken promises. In Athens, a political party would have had no effect, because there was no need for people to conform to popular opinions. Moreover, each issue was decided on its own merit.

There are many more arguments for and against a direct democracy, and in return, for and against a representative democracy. The arguments cannot be seen as right or wrong, or black and white. But feasibility is certainly one major issue that has to be considered while discussing the matter. The United States as a constitutional republic, and therefore as a representative democracy, based on its Constitution, guarantee freedom and pluralism for each individual. Alexander Tsesis has stated this clearly and significantly, “A representative polity established on fundamental law, each person has the right to pursue and fulfill his or her unobtrusive vision of the good life. In such a society, the common good is the cumulative product of free and equal individuals who pursue meaningful aims.” However, corruption, conflicts of interests, practicality and efficiency, lobbies and personal interests can deteriote and finally weaken any political system until it collapses. Democracy means also that the people allow political things to happen – to a certain degree. It is then up to the people indeed to oppose and to react upon political
issues that could jeopardize a democracy as a whole and the freedom and the power of the people that lives in it.

Neulich beim Tauchen

Ankunft
Alles war soweit glatt gelaufen. Der Flug von Newark ueber Miami war ausnahmsweise einmal puenktlich, der Weiterflug nach Cozumel etwa zwei Stunden spaeter verlief ebenfalls ohne erwaehnenswerte Zwischenfaelle. Die Weiterfahrt vom kleinen Inselflughafen bis zum Resort im aeussersten Suedwesten des Eilandes dauerte gerade mal eine halbe Stunde, und eine ganze Armada von Hotelpersonal hiess uns herzlich willkommen am Eingang des fuenf Sterne-Komplexes. Rebecca und ich inspizierten zunaechst einmal die weitraeumige Anlage nach dem ueblichen einchecken, Koffertransport, zum zehnten oder elften Male “Bienvenidos a Mexico” usw. Hier musste man sich einfach wohl fuehlen. Aufbau und Layout der Anlage erinnerten unweigerlich an das Gallierdoerfchen von Asterix und Obelix, das den Roemern unter Julius Caesar in zahlreichen Scharmuetzeln und mittlerweile unzaehligen Comic-Abenteuern die Stirn bietet. Das wir einem obelix-aehnlichen Krieger aus einer dem Gallierdorf aehnlichen Region, naemlich aus Gelsenkirchen, schon kurze Zeit spaeter begegnen wuerden, konnten wir bis dahin natuerlich noch nicht ahnen. Die mit Palmwedel gedeckten kleinen Huetten, maximal zweistoeckig und fuer jeweils vier Parteien konstruiert, waren alle mit einer kleinen Holzveranda versehen. Darauf standen jeweils ein kleiner Tisch und zwei Stuehle, und eine Haengematte war geschickt verknotet zwischen einem Wandhaken und einem der Veranda-Holzpfeiler. Zwischen den Huetten hatte man entweder die zahllosen Dschungel- und Schlingpflanzen einfach belassen, oder irgendwelche Farne, Palmen und Straeucher gepflanzt, welche eine natuerliche Grenze zur naechsten Huette bot, die durch das ueppige und uebersatte Gruen oft nur zu erahnen war. Die Verbindungswege glichen einer Art Dschungelpfad, gesaeumt von Pflanzen aller Art und teilweise ueberdeckt, belebt mit Papageien, Schmetterlingen, Flamingos und Leguanen aller Groessen und Farben. Die Poolregion mit Bar in der Mitte, an der man entweder im Wasser stehend oder sich an Unterwasserstuehlchen festklammern konnte, wuerden wir zu meiden wissen in den naechsten zwei Wochen. Hier fanden sich Menschen aller Art, flirtend und feiernd, groelend und lallend, die durchaus schon mal ein warm gewordenes Bier ins Wasser kippten, oder ihrer Blasenfuellung den Weg in die Freiheit ermoeglichten, ohne etwa den beschwerlichen Weg – immerhin etwa 30 Meter - zur naechsten Toilette antreten zu muessen.
Unsere Vorstellung von Urlaub und Erhohlung war eine andere: Wir wollten tauchen, tauchen im zweitgroessten Riff der Erde, nach dem Great Barrier Reef in Australien, tauchen in einem Unterwasserparadies, welches schon Jacques Cousteau fuer seinen allerersten Unterwasserfilm im Jahre 1948 auserkoren hatte, tauchen mit Unterwasserschildkroeten, Haien, Barrakudas, Schmetterlings-, Doktor- und Papageienfischen, Moraenen und Zackenbarschen, Seeanemonen und unzaehligen Korallenarten, die sich im Hochgesang der Farben und Formen gegenseitig zu ueberbieten scheinen und einen Menschen mit seinen unzureichenden Hilfsmitteln und Instrumenten geradezu laecherlich unvollkommen und als duemmlichen Eindringling in einer Welt erscheinen lassen, die ihm immer noch fremd und teilweise unheimlich vorkommt.

Doch zunaechst zu den Vorbereitungen. Zugehoerig zum Resort gab es eine Tauchbasis, mit sechs Tauchlehrern aus fuenf verschiedenen Nationen, die sich durchweg alle als sehr erfahren und hervorragend ausgebildet herausstellen sollten. Der erste Tauchtag wurde gleich nach unserer Ankunft fuer den naechsten Tag geplant und gebucht. Danach flaetigten wir uns am Strand herum, zwischen Palmen, die den noetigen Schatten spenden sollten, schneeweissem Sand und tuerkisblauem Meer, dessen sanfte Wellen beinahe zoegerlich den Weg zum Strand suchten.

Begegnung
Wir treffen uns um kurz vor acht Uhr morgens an der Tauchbasis. Die ueblichen Fragen: Wie lange taucht ihr schon, wieviele Tauchgaenge, wo usw. Man erklaert uns, Tom, der deutsche Tauchlehrer, suche uns schon und wolle unbedingt mit uns sprechen. Ich bin einigermassen ueberrascht. Kurze Zeit spaeter stellt er sich vor und zieht uns zur Seite. Er habe ein Problem, es gaebe ein deutsches Ehepaar hier, das sich weigere mit Amerikanern zu tauchen. Es sei ein Segen, dass ich hier waere, und er habe endlich eine Gruppe fuer die Landsleute. Ich erklaere meine Frau sei Amerikanerin, und ich haette grundsaetzlich ein Problem mit solchen Leuten. Egal, Hauptsache, es sei ein Deutscher auf dem Boot. Dieser Gast und seine Frau seien da sehr empfindlich.
Wir finden uns schliesslich auf dem Boot ein und stellen uns gegenseitig vor. Da ist John aus Kalifornien, mit einem offenen, herzhaften Lachen, das mir gleich sympathisch ist. Mo aus Israel stellt sich vor, sehr zurueckhaltend, sehr nett und ruhig, sagt “Welcome aboard”. Ein Englaender, Robin mit seiner etwa 14-jaehrigen Tochter, schuettelt mir die Hand und laechelt gewinnend, seine Tochter tut’s ihm nach. Steve aus Canada gibt mir einen Klapps auf die Schulter, und endlich setzen wir uns achtern und warten bis das kleine Boot schliesslich ablegt. Erst dann registriere ich das Ehepaar, das sich etwa drei Meter abseits plaziert hat. Im Gegensatz zu allen anderen auf dem Boot sind beide erheblich uebergewichtig. In dem Moment als das Boot ablegt, steht er auf und will seine Ausruestung richten. Um ein Haar faellt er hin, seine Frau kann ihn gerade noch halten. Ich nenne ihn Sergeant Schulz (aus “Hogan’s Heroes”) – ihn Obelix zu nennen, obwohl sein auesseres Erscheinungsbild unweigerlich an jenen Gallierrecken erinnert, waere eine Beleidigung meines Helden. Unser Sergeant Schulz ist eine Karrikatur seiner selbst, eingezwaengt in seinen Tauchanzug wie eine Fleischwurst in ihrer Pelle, sitzt er auf dem kleinen, unbequemen Baenkchen, seine Pobacken verteilen sich gleichmaessig massig ueber die Flaeche, und seine Arme sind verschraenkt vor seiner flachen gelsenkirchener Brust, dabei eitel ruhend auf dem ueberdicken Bauch. Sein Blick verraet die Groesse des in allen Belangen ueberlegenen Kolonialherren. Er beobachtet seine Tauchkameraden mit geradezu hoehnischem Blick, so als schaue er angewiedert aus Gelsenkirchen auf all die seiner Persoenlichkeit und Grazie unwuerdigen Moechtegern-Tauchfetischisten herab. Das ist er also, der Tauchmessias aus deutschen Landen, der den anderen Tauchnationen das Fuerchten lehrt – ich bin begeistert! Seine Frau, etwas kleiner als er, aber nicht weniger massig, schaut verloren gen Horizont

Nach etwa zwanzig Minuten stopt das Boot – Briefing vor dem Tauchgang: Stroemung, Tiefe, Anweisung des Instructors die Gruppe nicht zu verlassen, die ueblichen Zeichen unter Wasser, Dauer etwa 50 Minuten, drei Minuten Dekompression auf fuenf Metern. Alle haben verstanden, Sergeant Schulz und seine Frau nicht. Das ganze noch einmal in deutsch, danach geht’s endlich los. Alle sind fertig zum Sprung ins Wasser, Sergeant Schulz hat Probleme mit seiner BCD, die er nicht anbekommt. Rebecca, bereits fertig aufgeroedelt, watschelt zu ihm herueber und hilft ihm hinein. Er schaut sie nur an, sagt aber nichts. Sie guckt zu mir herueber, zuckt mit den Achseln, ich signalisiere ok und springe ins Wasser. Die Gruppe wartet auf unsere Deutschen. Sie verliert die Maske beim Sprung, Tom rettet sie. Er springt als letzter, plumpst ins Wasser wie eine Weltkriegsbombe, und taucht wieder auf, die Brille bereits beschlagen. “Kamera vergessen!” hechelt er; er muss wieder aufs Boot. Der Bootsfuehrer hilft ihm an Deck – ein Schauspiel, das allein schon filmreif ist. Wir duempeln noch ca. drei Minuten an der Oberflaeche, bevor Sergeant Schulz zum zweiten Mal ins Wasser plumpst, aehnlich dem ersten Aufschlag. Endlich geht’s hinunter, zunaechst nur auf 18 Meter. John, Steve und Mo erweisen sich als Tauchveteranen, was sogleich ersichtlich wird nach ein oder zwei Minuten unter Wasser. Alle drei gleiten ruhig dahin, mit nur den notwendigsten Bewegungen, allesamt perfekt austariert. Robin, der Englaender, braucht etwas laenger um herunterzukommen, hat aber dabei staendig seine Tochter im Auge, die ebenfalls fuer ihr Alter schon sehr erfahren und sehr ruhig wirkt. Rebecca gleitet in perfekter Koerperhaltung, laesst sich von der Stroemung tragen. Als ich mich umdrehe, sehe ich gerade noch, wie Sergeant Schulz am Boden ankommt – mit der Flasche zuerst. Seine Frau haengt im Wasser wie ein Fragezeichen, mit viel zu schnellem Abwaertstrend. Sie laesst Luft ins BCD, was sie gleich wieder nach oben an die Wasseroeberflaeche befoerdert. Tom steigt wieder auf, zieht sie mit sich, versucht sie auszutarieren. Inzwischen hat sich Sergeant Schulz aufrecht hingesetzt und versucht vom Boden wegzukommen. Dabei benutzt er seine Haende und wirkt wie ein verendender Schmetterling. Es gelingt ihm schliesslich halbwegs, sich vom Boden zu befreien, dabei jede Menge Sediment aufwirbelnd.

Wir naehern uns dem Korallenriff. Jeder ist bemueht, nichts zu beruehren, sondern den Anblick zu geniessen, als Besucher, als unbeteiligter, staunender Betrachter in einem perfekt abgestimmten Oekosystem, in dem jeder Einzeller, jeder einzelne Fisch, jede lebende Kreatur ihre oekologische Nische besetzt und als kleiner Teil zu einem funktionierenden, faszinierenden grossen Ganzen beitraegt. Die Vielfalt an buntem Leben und Treiben erstaunt immer wieder neu. Meine Kameraden gleiten langsam und kontrolliert mit der Stroemung. Rebecca verschwindet in einem Schwarm von Blaustreifen-Schnappern. Ploetzlich bekomme ich einen Schlag auf den Hinterkopf. Ich drehe mich um und kann gerade noch einem zweiten Schlag von Schulzes Schwimmflosse ausweichen. Er landet auf einer Koralle unter mir. Tom eilt heran und ist ausser sich. Er zeigt unmissverstaendlich, was er von einem solchen Akt haelt. Eine Koralle solchen Ausmasses benoetigt etwas 150 Jahre um zu ihrer vollen Groesse zu gelangen. Diese unter mir ist zwar nicht zerstoert, jedoch erheblich verletzt. Schulzes Frau segelt geradewegs von oben auf sie zu. Ich packe sie gerade noch rechtzeitig und ziehe sie weg. Sie schaufelt sich einen Meter hoeher, ich versuche zu entkommen.
Wir erreichen eine Art Unterwasserportal, dessen Eingang gerade gross genug fuer einen Taucher normaler Groesse und Umfang ist. Auf der anderen Seite eroeffnet sich ein tiefes Blau, das ins Unendliche abzugleiten scheint. Hier beginnt die Tiefsee, im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes, laesst den Kontinentalrand mit seinem faszinierenden Grottensystem hinter sich - und Sergeant Schulz. Er bleibt im Portal haengen, seine Frau versucht’s garnicht erst. Tom und Mo ziehen ihn wieder heraus, natuerlich auf der Eingangsseite und mit einiger Anstrengung. Kurze Zeit spaeter versucht er, einen am Boden sitzenden stattlichen Zackenbarsch zu fotografieren. Allerdings sinkt er so schnell auf ihn herab, dass dieser unweigerlich das Weite sucht. Das Blitzlicht geht ins Leere, und die deutsche Antwort auf Jacques Cousteau schlaegt zum x-ten Male auf.
Nach ca. 25 Minuten ist der Schulze-Spuk vorbei. Beide muessen auftauchen in Ermangelung ausreichender Atemluft. Tom haelt die Signalboje, waehrend er ruhig weitergleitet. Unsere beiden deutschen Tauchexperten sollten zur Dekompression fuer etwa drei Minuten in einer Tiefe von etwa fuenf Metern verweilen, bevor sie schliesslich auftauchen. Stattdessen versucht sich Sergeant Schulz an der Leine festzuhalten, die Tom zwangslaeufig ruckartig nach oben katapultiert. Seine Reaktion ist entsprechend. Irgendwann ist dann die Karibik befreit von den beiden Filigrantauchern, und der Rest der Gruppe geniesst den vormittaeglichen Tauchgang. Eine stattliche Meeresschildkroete zieht vorbei ohne uns zu beachten oder gar ihre Richtung zu aendern. Rebecca hat einen mittelgrossen Blacktip Hai entdeckt, den sie aufgeregt anzeigt. Der Fisch gleitet ruhig und gewandt dahin, und auch er scheint uns nicht wahrzunehmen. Ein kleiner Schwarm von zebragestreiften Pilotfischen begleitet ihn. Wenig spaeter sehen wir fuenf Barrakudas, silbrig glaenzend im Wasser stehend und anscheinend auf Beute wartend. Wir gleiten ruhig vorbei, als Tom das Zeichen zum auftauchen gibt. Ich schaue auf meine Uhr, 51 Minuten unten, kaum zu glauben wie hier die Zeit verfliegt.

Zurueck auf dem Boot herrscht Hochstimmung, alle sind zufrieden, bis auf Tom, den Tauchlehrer, der noch immer an der verletzten Koralle zu knabbern hat. “Bloeder Idiot” zischt er beinahe nicht hoerbar, als er mir den Bleigurt abnimmt. Sergeant Schulz isst bereits Papaya und Melone, und will angeblich einen Bullenhai gesehen haben. Dann setzt er sich zu mir herueber. “Ich tauche eigentlich nicht mit diesen Amis, die haben alle keine Ahnung. Wo bist Du denn zertifiziert?” Ich sage “Urspruenglich mal CMAS.” “Aha”, sagt er mit erhobenem Zeigefinger, “wir natuerlich auch. Es gibt also doch noch ein paar Vernuenftige unter uns.” Ich setze mich sogleich rueber zu John, dem Amerikaner, der bereits mit Rebecca plaudert.

Namen geaendert