Death by committee falls as heavily on art as on trade

"The camel," goes an old joke, "is a horse designed by a committee."

An unhappy outcome of inviting a plurality of opinions is that any final conclusion that seeks to please everyone will irritate most.

At the official opening of the King Shaka International Airport in Kwazulu-Natal, Andries Botha's pastoral Shaka surrounded by Nguni cattle met with a horrified response.  The Zulu royal house (supported by the combined taxes of 987 South Africans) has demanded that the statue be "fiercer" and so it is to be remodelled.

Remodelled by, according to Lionel Mtshali, provincial public accounts spokesman, "the royal household, historians, academics and leaders of our society to ensure the final sculpture reflects different features of our history."

That art is occasionally controversial is unquestioned.  That art is sometimes removed from display to alleviate public anxiety is accepted.  That art should be designed by - and I write this through clenched teeth - "historians, academics and leaders of our society", not to mention pinch-necked royals, sends shooting agonies up my spine.

The world is full of controversial public art.  A nude woman squats on her haunches in a privately-owned and publically-accessible park in Washington.  Northern Italy plays host to a frog nailed to a cross and carrying a beer mug and an egg in each hand. A commemorative artwork for the EU depicts each of its 27 members according to crude national stereotypes.

The intentions of artists are to interrogate, to emancipate, to provoke or inform.  No artwork is ever improved by satisfying a committee.  That doesn't mean that all art is justified or "important".  It must stand on its own.  However, it is hard to see how Shaka's image can be hurt by representing him as a promoter of initiative and trade rather than - in this most violent of countries - the ferocious leader of an imperial army.

This drive to satisfy the pleading of special interests is one that sullies all nations.  Some people just don't like being pressed and have the financial and political clout to raise their concerns to the front of the queue.  That doesn't make them right.

Imagine that smaller pleas could attract government protection.  The president turns up to defend your five-year-old's right not to go to bed before 8pm.  The corner cafe stops the opening of a new branch of a major supermarket chain in order to keep its prices high and its operating hours reduced.  The tailor next door objects to a cut-price clothing store and you're forced to buy custom-made T-shirts.

Preposterous.  You wouldn't stand for that.  But you do.

The FIFA World Cup wouldn't be possible but for open-markets and global interest in football yet local South African traders are all but ring-fenced from the event and exclusive monopolies granted to a few.  Certainly, those monopolies were paid for, but how is that different from when lobbyists spend dollops of cash "persuading" politicians to support their cause?

As the credit crisis takes hold more governments are demanding trade protection for their industries.  From textiles to vehicle-manufacturers, all must have prizes.

Consider the consequences.  World trade is unbalanced.  Countries that export the most need to start building local markets.  Countries that import the most need to start selling outside.  This imbalance is part of the problem.  Germany and China, the world's two largest exporters, use their trade surpluses to lend money to the world's importers.  The credit crisis has hit the lenders as badly as the borrowers.

Protectionism doesn't build global competitors.  It promotes puny weaklings kept afloat through state borrowing from taxpayers and abroad.  Businesses that receive "protection" are being granted a license to raise their prices and reduce their standards.  This is hardly like to create export champions.

As nations consider the route out of crisis they need to decide whether they will be led by artists or committees.