Change, but How?

People often believe that to change a system you have to be a part of it. There definition of change even includes replacing the entire system with its foundations with a new one as well. Well the fact of the matter is, you can improve or correct a system likewise, however if its replacement with a new one is the objective then it isn't possible if you are a part of it yourself. Why not? Because it’s like demolishing a building and erecting a new one, how can you do it if you are inside it? You can for sure reconstruct a part of it if you want to, but of course replacing it with another structure requires a person to exit and start new.

How this would be valid for Pakistan, as its existing system really needs an overhaul, because of massive flaws and loopholes, which exists. Let it be the political system, economics & financial system, law enforcement system etc.? At present many stakeholders are advocating the idea that to change the system you have to be a part of it, and for this people like Imran Khan and his party PTI, and of course JUI and JI etc., seems to be on the same plane. On a very different plane Mufti Taqi Usmani has been making an effort to save people from Riba, and to do that he indeed made lots of efforts and to bring an alternative system of Islamic Banking, in a similar fashion.

There can be three scenarios here:

1.       The Foundation of the system is OK, and we need to improve on the structure
2.       The Foundation of the system is not OK, but to stop it from doing some bad things we need to participate in it
3.       The Foundation of the system is not OK, and redesigning of the entire structure with its new foundation is necessary.

Now the important question is ‘do the change activists understand the root of the problem?’ Is it in the foundation or in the structure erected over the foundation? Have they studied in detail about foundations, which are in fact some axiomatic assumptions about ideals, values, virtues, concept of just or unjust, a set of ontological, cosmological and teleological presumptions etc...

Are they even qualified to do the necessary analysis required? In most cases they are not, in fact this is something to be done by qualified intellectuals and scholars, who rather spend their life’s doing so. But how to know what kind of qualification is necessary for this task? To answer this, it is necessary that we look into history again to understand the depth of the problem. A person who is well versed with history and its genealogical content is qualified in our view for that matter. 

Looking back 400 hundred years, we had Mughals ruling in this part of the world (they had their own problems of course). Then Colonizers which includes Britishers, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish, begin to build up their influence here. They came in as traders, but not all of them were able to sustain their adventures abroad. The Britishers took the lead, by virtue of their institutional framework and industrious attitude, they eventually become the new rulers. This unique institutional framework to rule, regulate their subjects was designed specifically to give the Aristocrats a helping hand to subdue the general public. According to Niall Ferguson, British prized and supported the local feudal who agreed to support them. Britishers brought (and bought) their local supporters in the pavilions of power to rule the local lowlives.

It is important to note here that the Britishers considered the locals as uncivilized and primitive. This is proven by the statements of Lord Macaulay who considered a single library in England to be of contain more knowledge as compare to what was available in the entire sub-continent, and that a class among the locals needs to be raised who looks like Indians, however their mindset, dialects, worldview is the same as that of Britishers, so that they may help the colonizers rule the locals (see Lord Macaulay's Minutes of Education). For further details check Edward Said's 'Culture & Imperialism'

The Britishers when left the subcontinent, they left behind their institutions and the group of loyal feudal to be in the ruling positions. Maybe they wanted to rule their colonies later on through proxies... 

So we had two problems: (1) An institutional framework or a system which Britishers designed to rule, keep subdue and oppressed the general public who they considered to be lowlives or lesser humans, and it was not designed to deliver justice to all and maintain a stable society, but to serve and benefit the elite... (2) Wrong people dominating the system, the feudal class, who views the general public not so differently...

It is generally believed that by replacing the wrong people with the good ones is necessary to correct the system. This is not incorrect; however framework or the structure of rules, accountabilities and incentives (direct and indirect) has to be conducive enough to facilitate the right people to work to deliver. It is easy to explain this with an example of tractor, to be used for the transportation of patients to hospital in case of emergency. If there are a lot of patients and we need to make lots of quick round trips to a hospital to save them, then no matter how good intentioned the driver maybe, he is constrained by the nature of structure he has.

In this example, it is easy to visualize, however in case of a parliamentary democratic system of governance, or the kind of judicial system we have in place, or the type of financial and economic system in working, it is not so easy to visualize. Hence the need of intellectuals, scholars etc.

To cut the long story short, if we need to redesign a system which was initially designed to serve the elite, into a system which delivers speedy and effective justice, and maintain a stable society, if yes then we are talking about a complete U-turn.

It is at this very moment the need of relevant experts, intellectuals, and scholars is needed, who has the insight and ability to holistically visualize how the hierarchy, nature of incentives, accountabilities over a set of responsibilities, which has been ascribed to a individuals, departments, institutions working together in interdependently at micro and macro level; so that their cumulative impact on the society is visualized beforehand the very implementation. And what changes would be made in the existing systems to bring this U-turn.

Commonsense tells us, we would need to replace and rebuild the system, with new people who have not been corrupted by existing ones.

But of course the activists need a quick fix, something which brings them to results quickly etc. Therefore if this activist-mindset predominates the change seekers, then they are least likely to go through the thorough analysis which is necessary before making the right kind of choices regarding where to go and how to reach there. What is rather required that the activist mindset remains subservient to the insightful, scholarly, visionary mindset. For details please read previous post on this blog 'Recipe of Change: Some Lessons from History’

In this post, the purpose was not to answer the question whether we need to enter the system to change it or erect a new one? Rather the purpose was to explain the process through which the answer could be reached; also it was to argue that there are different ways of bringing the change, i.e. by entering into the system, or creating a new system altogether. And depending upon the nature of change which is necessary a choice has to be made by the learned, scholarly, visionary ones, and the activist lot, needs to listen to them.

Author is an academic researcher, author, blogger, social entrepreneur, activist, mentor and tweets @javaidomar