THE
INEVITABLE FAILURE OF INSTITUTIONAL REFORM
In the Social Progress
and Evolution article I discuss why it is impossible to understand yourself,
or other people, completely. This also pertains to institutions. Institutions,
including the government, the military, religions, schools, corporations,
and the media, all do not accurately perceive themselves. Because of this,
they also tend to think that they do not need to change, nor that they are
ever wrong, or too large or powerful.
It is not only the obvious or usual subjects that have this failing. For example,
in the run-up to the Iraq war activists protested that media coverage was
biased, that it was pro-war. But the media, even the so-called liberal media,
said no, they were not pro-war.
It was only much later that the New York Times and the Washington Post publicly
admitted that they did not properly investigate the governments claims,
about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, its links to Osama bin
Laden and al-Qaeda, etc.
The failure of institutional self-comprehension also leads to other inconsistencies.
For example, the government maintains strict secrecy about itself, in the
national interest, but we are told that we must reveal everything
about ourselves as individuals, including even our movements (through the
greatly increased use of public surveillance cameras). Further, the government
believes it has the right to lie to us, even in some cases that it is obliged
to do so, but we must always tell the truth.
Reform is the view that the system is self-correcting, that change can be
accomplished from within. It is also expressed as the idea that the institutions
can police themselves, which is incorrect. Not even the police can police
themselves.
As another example, the need for campaign funding reform is recognized as
a critical issue in the United States. Special interests fund candidates,
and then demand a quid pro quo once the officials are elected and assume power.
The passage of the McCain-Feingold bill was an attempt at reform, but it failed.
The ranks of lobbyists in Washington, particularly corporate lobbyists, and
the money that they have available, have skyrocketed. The government has been
corrupted, and because of this democracy in the United States has degraded
to the point where the nation is well on its way to becoming a banana
republic.
The solution to this is not reform, one more law to attempt to correct the
problem, and which will once again easily be circumvented. The alternative
to reform is fundamental structural change. In this case, the entire electoral
funding system must be changed. The U.S. needs a complete break from its current
corrupt structure. It should implement publicly funded elections together
with a ban on all privately sponsored election advertising. Only this way
will transparency be regained, and the option of candidacy be extended beyond
the wealthy.
The problem with reform is that the tactic will not work if the subject is
inherently dictatorial. Dictatorship as a system is too strong. You need great
pressure to defeat a dictatorship, to disrupt its equilibrium and underlying
power structures. Reform can never generate this type or amount of pressure.
(Even worse, reformists are afraid to try. They never back strong, dramatic
measures; the measures that in many cases must be used if change is to be
achieved.)
Of course, many people will respond that the United States Government is not
a dictatorship. While overall this may be true elections are held
the government has many subsystems, e.g., the D.C. political subculture, that
are inherently undemocratic. People are attempting to buy access, and favorable
policy and regulations, and they are succeeding.
Most institutional systems, not only the government, are dictatorial. A small
clique at the top has power and makes all the decisions. This holds with corporations
(the CEO and Board of Directors), the media (which are corporations), and
even religions and schools. Participation in the decision-making process does
not extend to all of the institutions members, much less the various
publics that its behavior affects.
Because of this, activist groups that strive for reform, that try to work
on the inside, inevitably fail. (I could name many, many groups, including
most of the largest.) For example, for the government, the reason for this
is that they are easily outspent by corporate lobbyists. No matter how good
their arguments, they are ignored in favor of the positions of the corporations.
As to influencing the corporations directly, or the other institutions, barring
the imposition of a widespread boycott, or the effective use of other tactics,
this too will fail.
What this means is that all the effort and money expended by such activist
groups has been wasted. They would be better off redirecting their resources
to more aggressive campaigns. They should limit trying to make their case
on the inside, and instead adopt an adversarial position and work to create
the greatest external pressure possible.
(Note: I am not saying that activists should suspend all efforts at government
lobbying, which tactic is described and recommended in the activism guide.
Rather, I am saying that this approach has inherently limited effectiveness.
It must be backed up by other, stronger measures: boycotts, protests, etc.,
which should form the core of the campaign and receive the bulk of the funding
and effort.)