We want change, but our governments keep doing the same thing. In many cases governments exert stronger control to ensure things stay the same. The irony here is that, over time, the more our leaders attempt to hold things the same, the more things change and slip out of their control. That’s the nature of complex systems. (Part 3 in our change series.)
“All governments in time begin to decay.” So said Australia’s longest serving prime minister, Robert Menzies, in his memoirs; and you’d have to think he speaks with experience having seen the ups and downs of politics and witnessed how his own Liberal Party changed over time. (He led the Australian Government from 1949 till 1966.)
I think it’s a particularly insightful observation about governments, political parties and, indeed, social systems in general. Things change and no matter how much we want to keep things constant, no-one is in control and you can’t hold a system in the same condition indefinitely. These are truths evident to anyone associated with any organisation for any length of time. These are also basic precepts emerging from complex systems science and resilience theory, yet they go against deeply entrenched beliefs that (1.) humans are in charge and (2.) our mastery means we can hold the world in a state that gives us maximum benefit ad infinitum.
The paradox is that the longer we hold a system in a particular state through our command and control approach, the more that system organises itself around our control and, as this happens, our command becomes less flexible and less resilient. Over time our ability to control the system degrades, or as Menzies phrased it, decays.
So how does this fit in with our discussion on bringing about change?
Demanding change, seeing little
In my last two blogs I have been discussing the challenge of change. Increasingly large portions of society are demanding change as the environment declines (Time for a change – how are you going to make it happen?) but no matter what our political leaders promise us, policy solutions usually only involve incremental shifts or nothing at all (Changing things for sustainability: How come we get increments when we need giant leaps?).
We know, for example, that economic growth founded on the use of ‘cheap’ fossil fuels is pushing the Earth system out of a safe space for humanity, but rearranging the economy away from a priority of growth and increasing energy consumption is beyond the capacity of any nation state. There are moves towards renewable energy in many places, and token efforts to restore degraded ecosystems, but the changes we see are small against the scale of what’s needed, and too slow given the irreversible nature of much of the damage being done. You don’t unwind extinctions, for example, and we’re witnessing catastrophic declines in biodiversity.
The changes that are implemented are only tolerated by the existing system – Business as Usual – because they don’t upset the status quo of rapid economic growth and they don’t diminish the power of vested interests (see the ‘boundaries to environmental policy’ discussed in the last blog). So, while there’s a growing chorus that we need more change, and faster; the ongoing response is ‘don’t rock the boat’, humans are clever, the future will deliver us a solution.
Bringing about change
Consequently, the status quo reigns and has proved highly resistant to all manner of change agents thrown at it.
Here’s a few possible change agents I listed two blogs ago. We’d like to believe we change…
…when a majority of the population want change
…when the evidence suggests we need to change
…when the economics provide an overwhelming case for reform
…when an environmental advocate (person or group) galvanizes us into action
…when a sudden shock shakes us out of complacency
But then I discussed how there’s ample evidence showing how even these factors often, indeed usually, don’t lead to change.
So, what does this add up to? On the one hand, we want change but our demands rarely shift the status quo. On the other hand, efforts to hold thing steady and stable are unable to stop things changing. That sounds contradictory but it makes sense if you acknowledge the complexity of the world around us.
It’s complex
To help unpick this seeming contradiction it helps to think about the system you’re interested in – be it a political party, a country, your family, etc – as constantly coping with shocks and disturbances. The definition of (ecological) resilience is the ability of your system to absorb these shocks and maintain its identity (that is, to retain essentially the same function, structure and feedbacks).
Today’s world is based on a status quo of neoliberal economic growth. Everything is focused on keeping that growth powering along, and there are many rich winners and vested interests (including political actors) working hard to sustain this status quo. This system is very resilient to disturbances, and in this case we might think of the ‘agents of change’ listed above as being disturbances seeking to shift the status quo.
Most of the time the size of the disturbances, demands for change for example, are insufficient to overcome the resilience of the system. The system may make small adjustments, but its identity remains effectively the same.
However, the thing to remember about complex systems is that they are always changing, always self organizing, nothing stays the same forever in a complex world, and the system ultimately defeats all efforts to hold things steady.
The status quo of neoliberal economic growth (Business as Usual) has done many wonderful things, including lifting billions of people out of poverty, but it’s not sustainable, not in the long run. It’s pushing the planet out of whack, while creating a class of super rich with whole generations trapped in intractable poverty. This balance can’t go be sustained ad infinitum yet no disturbance currently threatens to shift it.
Things are changing – ready or not
But things are changing even though the status quo holds firm. Pressures are mounting. Communities are suffering increasing levels of dislocation from wild weather, resources (eg, land and water) are degrading while demand for food is growing, the sea is rising, autocratic states are becoming more common, communities are becoming more polarized while support for mainstream political parties is fracturing and disagreements between countries are erupting more frequently into armed interventions. Just read today’s papers if you’re in any doubt.
There’s a lot to be worried about at the moment but the status quo (Business as usual or BAU) will brook no opposition. BAU will tell us that the answer to our growing problems is more of the same; more growth, greater efficiency, higher productivity.
However, over time, the resilience of this status quo is eroding. Ruling parties are increasingly sclerotic as their leaders age and agencies are captured by vested interests and powerful industry sectors. People grow disenchanted, are ignored and turn their support away. Levels of trust decline, and society becomes distrusting of government and the public services it provides.
In resilience thinking, complex systems held steady for long periods of time enter what is called a conservation phase (or K phase) in which the system is more oriented to keeping things the same rather than adapting to a changing world. A government in a late K phase is characterized among other things by:
-an obsessive focus on efficiency;
-subsidies being more about not changing than helping people to change;
-increased command and control;
– novelty being suppressed, with less support for experimentation; and
-rising transaction costs in getting things done.
Windows of opportunity
In many ways, these characteristics add up to the ‘decay’ that all governments go through over time as they try to hold things the same. Associated with this decay is a loss of flexibility, vitality and a loss of resilience. And, as the government becomes less resilient, it becomes more vulnerable to disturbances of all kinds.
And this is when the change agents (public sentiment, champions, shocks etc) come into their own. They may not have been able to overwhelm the identity of a strong government in its prime, but they could well precipitate transformative change in a brittle government locked in a K phase with a prime focus on just keeping things the same.
So, does this mean that creating change is merely a matter of waiting for the existing order to fold? Yes and no. I’ll explain what I mean by this in the next blog. For now, just remember that change is remorseless. Like time and tide, it won’t be denied. And this doesn’t just apply to the physical world around us, it also applies to political parties, corporates and governments that want the world to continue just as it is.
Banner image: Changing tracks often seems impossible. It’s important to keep in mind that the status quo that makes it so hard is also changing over time, losing its vitality, flexibility and resilience. (Image by Yvette Salt.)
0 Comments