Want to change the ‘system’? If yes, then read this

Changing the purpose of a system changes the system profoundly, even if all the elements and interconnections remain as they are

“If a revolution destroys a government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves…

There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.” 

– Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

As Sri Lanka gets ready for another Presidential election to choose the country’s leader for the next five years we are hearing the same slogans, “we need a system change”, “we need to change the system” again. But how do we do this, practically? 

We have come to treat leaders, whether they are in the fields of politics, business, community, or any other, as some magical creatures who can perform wonders. Management literature has contributed to this thinking, conceptualising various leadership styles, from servant leadership to transformational leadership. However, a critical missing component in this thinking is the ‘link’ between leaders and the rest of the ‘system’— the people of a country, an organisation, a community, etc. We often forget that leaders are in that leadership position because of the interrelationship that they have with those they lead. When we replace a leader, what we do is that we change the person, but we fail to change the other side of the link— ourselves!

A ‘system’ is made of three key aspects: elements, interconnections, and purpose. Elements include all of us citizens, our resources, and leaders. Interconnections are all the policies, rules, customs, and values that hold the elements together. Purpose, the most important determinant of how a system behaves, is the outcome that we are aiming to achieve. 

I’ve read social media posts where some claim/imply that replacing everyone in the Parliament will bring about a system change. In reality, however, even if we substitute every single person in Parliament (elements), there will be no change in the system, if the interconnections and purposes remain unchanged. 

On the other hand, changing the interconnections may change the system significantly. For example, what if we change the election laws? If I take the example of cricket, changing the rules (interconnections) of the game will create a whole new ball game! What if we change our ways of doing things — for example, instead of treating political leaders (whom we appointed, by the way), as demi-gods, treat them as those answerable to us, to serve us? Changing interconnections in a system can change it drastically. 

Now think, what if we keep the same parliamentarians and the election laws, but we change the ‘purpose’ of the system. What is the purpose of our government? One thing about purpose is that it’s not what is written or said by the leaders; the purpose is deduced by actions. Having seen what our national leaders are doing, I am not sure what the purpose of our Government is. 

Let me take an example that is closer to my profession. The purpose of education institutes, we would like to think, is to disseminate knowledge and create a society with knowledgeable citizens. However, from what I see, I question whether the purpose is to maximise profits! Again, a system’s purpose is ‘seen’ in what the system does rather than what the system says it aims to do. 

Changing the purpose of a system changes the system profoundly, even if all the elements and interconnections remain as they are. What this means is that by changing a leader, we can’t change the system UNLESS changing the leader also results in changing the interconnections and purpose! The million-dollar question is — where do we find such a leader? 

Would a President without the majority support in Parliament be able to change any interconnections (e.g. laws) or the purpose of the Government? Are parliamentarians capable of understanding the gravity of this complex situation? Another perplexing issue: who is responsible for choosing the parliamentarians? Answers to these questions reveal the complex nature of the system we live in. It’s easy to blame something or someone else, to shift the responsibility away from ourselves, but the reality is that we cannot absolve ourselves of the responsibility of creating this system. 

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates compares the State to a ship: “The uneducated voting on policy is as illogical as a ship taken over by a crew with no knowledge of sailing”. Education doesn’t come through the gaining of a university degree — that is only a measure of education. Anyone can be educated by reading and updating their knowledge, thinking deeply and rationally about what we want our country to be (the purpose), and participating in the democratic system by voting. Democracy is only as good as the people that take part in it. 

Instead of voting for ‘hope’, ‘change’, ‘someone different’, or ‘incorruptible’, we need to look at prospective candidates’ policies and plans, and then question whether these are, in fact, achievable and practical, and whether these address systemic issues. Think carefully whether the much-talked-about plans are aiming at the elements, the interconnections, or purpose.

Let’s not get fooled by flashy words that, at the end of the day, are hollow. It’s fine to offer a ‘vision’ but it’s crucial to know how we as a country move towards that vision during the five-year term of a newly elected President. Further, what are the smaller steps that will be taken? How will the success of initiatives be measured? 

So, you want a system change? Let’s start by acknowledging that it cannot be achieved overnight. Systems have a way of recreating themselves because of the complex nature mentioned above. But a starting point is to look in the mirror!

(The writer is a Lecturer and a member of the Public Service Research Group at the School of Business, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia.)