Competition requires Co-operation

If you are a winner consider the losers.

Competition has become a global addiction. It is a ubiquitous belief that competition is good and drives societies, organisations and individuals forward. This has led us into a winner takes all world that is the engine for global inequality. In geo political terms competition is casually referred to as constant.

Whilst clearly competition has benefits it comes at a cost. It is often applied in a myopic drive for efficiency above efficacy and effectiveness and as we have seen in the Covid pandemic the elimination of resilience. Competition works in sport as the winners and losers know that there will be other opportunities to compete. Hence the basis for successful competition is co-operation.

Competition is not the foundational concept that it is held up to be. Competition is dependent on co-operation. Competition designates winners and losers. The winners need to consider the losers not only for the competition but also to consent to the defeat and to participate in the outcome of the victory, usually without any of the resulting benefits. The winners of the competition may also benefit from considering that they may become losers in the future.

History can be viewed as a series of competitions between nations, organisations, and people. This perspective lies behind phrases such as; ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘competition drives innovation’. Co-operation is the foundation of survival and and is the essential element of human progress.

This is not an argument against competition rather it is the case that co-operation should be given equal consideration. A healthy first step is to have greater consideration for the losers; a reduction in the rewards for winning and the consequences would narrow global inequalities. When the competition is over the winners need the consent of the losers in the order that results from the competition. It would be a good step for the winners to consider how that consent is sustained.