Change: An Inside Act or an artifact of time?
The average self-proclaimed liberal of today would declare that impactful change has often been brought through by revolutions, people and liberal forms of expression. Granted, it is the people that define and constitute a nation and it is the people that impose morally absolutist forms of conformance towards nationalistic sentiments, especially in this time and age. With democratic systems of governance seeing universal adoption, it puts a greater power on people to put systems that can create meaningful policy decisions. However, it is well-accepted by the free-thinkers of today that fascism still has its roots entrenched in political institutions, and in the way policy is made. Where does this dissonance come from? And why are today’s morally safe systems also ineffective in certain cases, times and countries? This are the questions where anyone from a naive kid to the seasoned statesman would say it depends. But, giving room for doubt, ignoring perfect outcomes and seeing things from an absolutely objective standpoint, and only finally mutating ideas for ethical conformance can lead to certain arguments.
Historically, we have seen a majority of some form dictate most of the 21st century law-making, and to put people in power. People politically align themselves on either wing, depending on how much control and regulation they think the country needs. Periodically, there are regulations that are placed to hinder people and organizations from hitherto unseen sides of themselves, and for taking advantage of systems or reclaiming human rights. Ideally, this could be akin to pet training (or) parenting toddlers, where there is a balance between strictness and free will but in a time-dictated way. There are periods where we have less regulation in places which leads to the morally ambiguous ways of individuals and organizations making use of it, followed by rigid policies which doesn’t give people enough space to breathe. As we gambol between balancing these systems as people with relativistic opinions on what policy is best for our version of the country, it is easy to forget about minorities and people who are conflicted. There are also groups that see less difference or an actual choice between their options. But these are the groups that actually have all the power and choice since their vote/voice might matter more than the average citizen. It’s no surprise that campaigning ideologically and pleasing such groups can help attain favorable outcomes. Well, it is a bit surprising how easily some of these groups can be motivated to pick a side/even lobby for one thorough non-solid but passionate schools of thought. However, one objective statement people can’t ignore is that we have been swinging across centuries between these two poles trying to attain a balance but we probably never might. And that’s alright. Because time and human nature for both — to indulge in excesses and fight for what’s right, is always at play.
The problem multiplies when it comes to what happens once people wielding power is determined and is also considered unhealthy. Considering protests at unacceptable forms of power, it is also surprising how similar early businesses and protests have the same problem:- scaling responsibly. It is easy for scaling to be done in ways where the business loses its vision, or its profits or does an entire pivot to sell something else. And today, with demonstrations, for a critical mass of people to join and make an impact, there is always a question if the average participant or the least purposeful one has the same fervent motivation. Markedly, this is what leads to in-person form of protesting inefficient. The second parallel would be the horizontal expansion component which stands for how focused the protest is, and in part determines its outcome and the extent of aggression which is a strategy call, which can be varied. One rogue supporter inciting violence can turn a peaceful and righteous protest seem like an uncivil group banded together with little purpose and individual gains. Funnily enough, the limitations of what one can do on social media and having one or a few leaders who embody the cause can make a form of dissent seem focused, even when it isn’t as long as the narrative is controlled. And in there lies the paradox that which are controlled by a small self-elected founding group of people, can be more efficient than unorganized opposition that can easily turn into a violent mob. Notably, this could be an example that circumstantially and in the right time, and especially for the average liberal reader that more regulated means can be a form of better expression for even a protest which is based on one’s rights. The time does play some role as do the people, and there’s a need for an intrinsic balance on some level, which the universe delivers on some level.
The argument we just made doesn’t stand only for picking lawmakers and elections. But, even for overthrowing dictators from positions of power, and people in power asserting their dominion in ways that make their reign markedly authoritarian this argument would apply. Revolutions have been led by the people, through blood, sweat and tears and we have pushed for human to live life in a free, responsible and healthy way without affecting the fellow human being. And this has been made possible through policies and protests. But time and history repeats itself. People pick confident people that have a way about things, orate well, have conviction in their beliefs, and have a vision for the future. And at times, we iterate over to non-equal systems when equal systems get inefficient. There are parallels to this from the stock market to organizational structure. Unlike unhealthy standards on beauty that might consider flat as unattractive, flat organizations work fast and are attractive for startups to scale since there’s lesser levels and paperwork to push through to take important decisions. By that logic, going with today’s bubble system that dominates organizational culture, why can’t governments just be a number of departments which are all elected over independent elections? We probably would never know. Delving further, the efficiency of decision making can be tied to the attractiveness of a style of governance from authoritarian to idealistically speaking, anarchism. Then there’s the Stock market. We have had bear markets every now and then, but that enables people to invest and buy stocks which they sell during the bull market phase that comes for years after. One would say, if not for when the market goes down, people wouldn’t even invest much since the amount of potential reward could never be higher. Making the connection, dictatorial regimes and periods where basic rights have been infringed have reminded us of how much value we value freedom, autonomy, respect for the other and our independent pursuit of happiness. But is there even a healthy normal, an ideal point where we could optimize this like a mathematical model, and get to saying this is the most harmonious system of all? I believe a non-perfect system albeit gives us room to think, form opinions and grow and recognize the right values given that the imperfections are small, minor and healthy. But I do not believe an efficient sustainable model is indeed possible across the ages. Well, sorry to let you down with my rhetoric because one piece of the answer depends on you, but I can answer for myself.
Change indeed can be an inside act, literally. As human beings, we constantly think about our opinions, values, thoughts themselves, fears and keep mulling over positions and asking questions that help us grow, one way or the other. At least some of us do. I have noticed personally that a breakthrough of any form is causal with different periods of introspection and comes organically over a period of time. Funnily enough, things I do over that period might not be in line with my reflection at the end. And I guess, it would be this way for some people, with varied durations of time. My mind thinks freely and of its own accord and culls ignorant perceptions, recognizes things of value and makes connections. But wouldn’t there be someone across the ages that thought like me, lived through the same kind of era and processed to internalize views based on experiences in the world around them. Some intellectuals would even call it a chicken and egg problem. With the bias of an existentialist, I would argue that it is for us to find something meaningful by reflecting but that doesn’t make my sense of meaning absolutely original, though it would be uniquely through my lens of the world as I see it. At the end of the day, I guess my answer would be that objectively change is both an inside act and an artifact of time, because it would be something that happens for new and different reasons which are mostly better, but has the good familiarity of meeting a long lost old friend. But the minute we forget the impact we can make, or take on illusions of grandeur and overestimate it, we do a disservice towards ourselves and plunge ourselves closer to the darkest timeline. Feel free to make your own meaning though, for there can be more than one true opinion and versions of right, and if it matters I fully trust that your words and actions can change the world given they are backed by your idea of right.
