The inevitability of gradualism

It can be quite depressing sometimes, looking at the world and thinking how much needs to change. All those wrong turns we’ve taken as a society valuing the wrong things for the wrong reasons (we’re pretty much the first generation, for instance, who don’t see our principal role as that of passing on the lessons of the past; but we are the first to see elderly parents as an encumbrance best out-sourced to “care” homes). Such societal wrongs seem to provoke three reactions: the ostrich-like ignoring of the reality; the shrug of the shoulder, what-can-one-do acceptance of the status quo; and the radical, up-with-this-I-will-not-put of the change agent.  It was, of course, Marx who said that: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world…the point is to change it". However, despite my rather iconoclastic thinking, I’ve never been much of a sans culottes revolutionary. In fact, I’ve always been rather suspicious of the action-orientated eager beavers rushing overhead frantically making things happen. 

For me, change is always more effective when it comes from within; and, to that end, I prefer to influence it and let it happen in its own good time. Change rarely works when it’s forced on either an individual or an organisation.  Real change occurs when the person is themselves the agent rather than the object.  And the gestation period for that moment of self-realisation differs by person, organisation and issue.  The natural process of change can be helped by thinkers, and coaches. By providing a questioning environment they in effect give permission for people to think and feel differently and to realise that there is no rule book which states that life had to turn out this way.

Perhaps it’s just me, but I’m beginning to sense that more and more people are beginning to question why things are the way they are and how, perhaps, they can start to change.  Two things recently helped to reinforce my view.  The first was a marvellous personal event, that of my daughter’s graduation.  She was one of nearly 200 young people receiving her BSc in psychology (at the same ceremony there were also around 25 MSc graduates and half a dozen PhDs.).  It occurred to me that the huge explosion in the popularity of this subject can only be a good thing for society.  Equipping a whole generation of future leaders with the knowledge, interest and scientific understanding of how people think and behave the way they do must be a positive development.  Using evidence-based research to consider the effect of both nature and nurture on human behaviour will help us better understand how we can positively impact the society we live in.

The second event was reading a blog. http://blog.wcgworld.com The author (a communications thought leader and himself a PhD Experimental Psychologist) wrote about an MBA class lecture he gave on reputation.  What was interesting was less the content of the lecture and more the way he described how these future business leaders addressed their group exercise.  Faced with three major corporate issues, the class responded by seeing the solution as being proactive transparency and stakeholder engagement.

Bit by bit we are seeing people question action-orientated leadership, management by results, and a sole focus on shareholder value.  Slowly but surely, we are seeing a more mindful approach creep into business, including a growing move towards long-term thinking and environmental sustainability.  We need to nurture these thoughts and allow people to feel comfortable challenging current social norms. For instance, rather than accepting that the political debate must be dominated by the demand for growth we recognise that true happiness is rarely found in mindless acquisition. 

I believe that the current zeitgeist has entered the first stage of change, that of questioning.  Let’s pause and celebrate, but recognise the inevitability of gradualism.

Time to change our politics

For the past few weeks I ought to have been living in the past. I’ve been reading two excellent books: Jesse Norman’s book on Edmund Burke and Antonia Fraser’s Perilous Question, which deals with the 1832 Reform Act.  Both are great reads; however, both curiously feel as if they are dealing not with historical events but rather describing current affairs.  Both deal with broken systems of parliamentary representation, governments out of touch with the moods and needs of the people, embryonic and dysfunctional parties, strong and weak leaders, and desires for change pitted against obstinacy and intransigence.  Plus ca change, eh!

Fast forward to today and the argument is over the funding of political parties.  This, as is often the case, looks at the problem from the wrong end presupposing, as it does, that we need parties.   Some say that the ideological differences between right and left are greater than ever.  They may be at the macro level of big versus small government, but faced with the manifesto commitments of the political parties few electors could, in a blind test, place the right policy with the right party.

Issues today are also far more complex, inter-related, nuanced and global than ever before.  And yet we continue to try and force them into the constraints of the old two party political system.  As Private Willis, guarding the House of Commons in Gilbert & Sullivan’s 1882 operetta Iolanthe, sang it:

“I often find it comical, how nature always does contrive

That ev’ry boy and ev’ry gal that’s born into the world alive

Is either a little Liberal or else a little Conservative”.

And then there’s the ping-pong, he said, she said adversarial nature of the debates in the House of Commons cockpit made worse by MPs having to tow the party line. Quoting W.S.Gilbert again, this time in the words of Sir Joseph Porter in HMS Pinafore:

“I always voted at my party’s call

And never thought of thinking for myself at all.”

Sometimes there are free votes, so called as they allow MPs to use their conscience liberated from the dictats of their party whips (although why on earth the Hunting Bill was felt to be a conscience issue no-one seems quite sure).  Then there are referendums on issues too important to be left to our usual legislators. We’ve had two in this country, the first on the original decision to join the EU and the second the ill-judged and ill-timed referendum on PR.  However, such plebiscites do beg the question of what are our politicians for if not to decide, on our behalf, on great matters.  Or if we are to have referendums, why not on other issues, such as the perennial question of the death penalty; or indeed, on issues such as the UK’s membership of the UN or NATO, both of which affect our sovereignty as much as Europe.

People are beginning to question the efficacy of the political system. Many agree that it does need to be modernised.  It is becoming recognised that for many people it is simply irrelevant, and the reality is that the vast majority outside the political bubble have disenfranchised themselves from party politics.  Some want to start the reformation by having open primaries for electing candidates.  It is a good idea but, again, it starts in the wrong place.  We need to properly understand where the decision-making process is best served.  Few, if any, can name their MP (or, indeed, accurately identify senior politicians) and yet the solemn myth of the link between MP and their constituency perpetuates. And much of the work they do in their constituency surgeries involves either trying to solve problems caused by local government and other agencies, or in being the counsellor of last resort.  At the other end of the scale, even Lloyd George would be amazed that reforming the House of Lords remains a work in progress.

So where does one start?  Part of the problem is that the debate is taking place within the confines of the existing system.  Of course change can only come from within, but it requires great maturity to be able to see beyond one’s own position.  The question is not how can we reform the current political process, but what is it actually for and, given what we know and the realities of how we now live, how can we make it as engaging as possible for all citizens to be able to contribute.

But then for some change is always difficult. The Duke of Wellington was reported to have “…never read or heard of any measure up to the present moment which could in any degree satisfy his mind that the state of representation could be improved or rendered more satisfactory to the country at large.” Plus ca change, plus c’est la même chose.