Personally Stung by Partisanship

The term “old-boy network” is used in many conversations without people asking what it means. It is as if everyone knows something about a network of old boys who run things.

Let me suggest a definition: An old-boy network is a small group of highly privileged people who enhance their own status and wealth at the expense of equal opportunity for the general population.

When I was a young man, I responded to the call to run for political office in 1954 in opposition to an old-boy network. The Big Five companies controlled the economy and, as a consequence, we did not have equal opportunity.

Although I had grown up with a generally positive view of society, I was distressed to learn that opportunity was limited by an “interlocking directorate” among the big companies that had grown out of the plantation era. A handful of closely related people served on each other’s boards of directors and kept the higher reaches of management and ownership to themselves. This was so obvious a pattern that it was graphed by researchers.

Through a coalition associated with the Democratic Party, we challenged this particular old-boy network. We found allies among Republicans who, along with us, wanted to usher in a society based on equal treatment of all, including a new balance between labor and management.

From 1954 to 1962, we struggled to change and innovate. When John A. Burns became governor in 1963, we accelerated our drive for an open society. Burns’ attorney general, Bert Kobayashi, quietly delineated the interlocking directorate. The message was, “We can change this situation either through your voluntary action or through antitrust litigation.” Kobayashi succeeded without ever engaging in court action.

The government sector changed rapidly. The business sector changed more slowly, but it, too, became more open in terms of background, ethnicity and gender. To those who would dismiss this as ancient history, I would say that many people who are currently prominent in business would not be enjoying their successes had we not waged our battle for equality of opportunity.

As I have discussed before, I am concerned about a new generation of national and international corporate owners who do not understand Hawaii’s past.

I am also concerned with the current state administration. It does little to encourage participation by the citizenry. It is narrowly partisan. It has a with-us-or-against-us mentality. Appointments to key boards are on a political-party or who-you-know basis.

I admit to having been personally stung by this kind of partisanship. I served six years on the board of governors of the East-West Center. I worked hard behind the scenes to save the center when Congress threatened to close it. As part of this effort, we reorganized the center, reinvigorated the student programs, lobbied in Washington, D.C. and reached out to the 44,000 alumni around the Earth.

When my term was up, the staff, my fellow board members and alumni all wanted me to serve another term. I felt obligated to continue serving, but nonetheless was replaced by a partisan appointee. I felt that what I knew about nurturing the East-West Center suddenly mattered less than partisanship.

Such a thing is not “just politics,” but a reminder: An open society cannot be taken for granted, but rather requires a certain amount of vigilance, careful thought and careful use of words.

George R. Ariyoshi, chairman and cofounder of Convergence CT and Cellular Bioengineering, is the former president of Prince Resorts Hawaii Inc. He is active in international business circles, particularly in Asia. An attorney by profession, Ariyoshi served in elective office in Hawaii from 1954 to 1986. He served as governor of Hawaii from 1973 to 1986 and was the first Japanese American to be elected governor in the United States.

Do you like what you read? Subscribe to Hawaii Business Magazine »