The Latin saying »Ignorantia iuris nocet« or »Not knowing the law is harmful« is interpreted as: unknowing the law is harmful and therefore, in breach of the judicial rules, it is simply impossible to refer to not having knowledge of the laws. However, this time ignorance is not understood in a sense of not having knowledge of, but in the sense of non-compliance. Otherwise, ignorance is certainly harmful in both senses.
The tone of ignorance is primarily defined by daily politics – when off the record, everyone knows everything, but officially, nothing happens. Nine controversial sales of Mercator, construction of Stožice sports park, several invitations to tenders, the lease of the National Bureau of Investigation building and numerous other cases, by which at least the professional public from different fields of expertise was much aware of the events and the main actors, however nothing was done. In the health care sector, it is openly talked about the lobbies and the pressures applied on the current Minister and other health policy-makers, but no one speaks out any names. This is also the reason the existing situation continues and above all encourages those who execute pressure. This way ignorance acquires its legitimacy.
The philosophy of ignorance is then transmitted from policy level to the whole society. Public figures in the economic and political world (mainly state-owned) are entangled in untruth, conflicts of interest and even bribery on a daily basis. Most get out of these situations unstained, but only after an adequate amount of time passes. The society apparently tolerates or ignores it. In developed countries, the standards are substantially different. I do not mean that in other environments they are immune to dishonest practices, but that from the moment of its disclosure the matter is resolved significantly more successful.
The spirit of ignorance can also be found in the attitude of large and recognizable brands to their (potential) customers. How many times has it happened that you got a terrible blow from a company you have for example concluded a service contract with, when you needed them most? Common in the case of having problems with the Internet, car insurance, etc. They do not perceive it as a big deal if you are unhappy or even left in the lurch. While abroad, in case of unpleasant situations they offer additional free benefit and an apology, here they usually use a co-worker or a failure in their system as an excuse.
It is sad that, except for the rare exceptions, ignoring of uninteresting or irrelevant content become a regular business practice. Probably in the belief that things will settle and go away by themselves. On the contrary, this is how we give certain content an extra weight even in cases when in fact it is not that important.
Above all, I don’t understand and can not understand such business (maybe even general) culture. Companies should, especially at times of stronger competition invest in relationships with their (potential) customers. Especially viable companies should. Usually, the latter being at the top of their success behave in the opposite way; as indispensable, but would go down a long time ago if they were present in a bigger market. Doing business with this kind of philosophy, I quite understand why the principles of corporate governance bounce off the walls and hardly end up in the offices of the liable persons. Actually, it all starts at the basics. But ignorance, none of the above mentioned, has no place in the orderly person’s ways.
The article was published in the online edition of David magazine and the printed edition nu. 12, year 2014 please find it here.