It is gratifying that so much of the general culture is expressing outrage against police brutality against blacks (yet again – about every 3-4 months, for years) and supporting “reforms." However, it is exceedingly frustrating to realize that all of this good intention is akin to slapping more duct tape on a frustratingly creaky governmental system that is way obsolete and inadequate to manage a 21st-Century society. (Not only in regard to police brutality against blacks, but in way too many other social issues.)
It is illuminating to envision our governance and social relations structures as a 1789 Covered Wagon that is pretty much a broken down wreck which gets "patched" (and sometimes unpatched, later) after a provocative public event. Problems don't get fixed. The system, as it was designed over 200 hundred years ago, is not capable of fixing these kinds of problems.
The demands for law enforcement reform take these forms: unfocused and incoherent fits of rage against an amorphous "system,” requests for modified police techniques, greater oversight of police actions, more cultural training for law enforcement personnel, and (not again!) new electoral candidates. (Guess what? Been there, done that!)
These demands are directed at the thousands of formal governmental bodies, federal funding sources, and thousands of various public "influencers," like the media, Big Business organizations, sports and cultural personalities, and, of course, our political leadership. Nearly everyone seems in agreement that these reforms must be wide-spread nationally, if not universally.
Duct tape for the Covered Wagon!
What are the chances that the separate multi-thousands of federal, state, and local governments are individually even capable of coming up with policy and regulatory schemes which effectively address the protesters’ concerns?
Nearly all high-level personnel in these bodies are non-experts in nearly everything and particularly in complex civil and law enforcement matters. Most have limited resources – time, knowledge, funding, etc. – and can't act effectively on much of anything new and significant. Many have limited perspectives confined by parochialism, partisanship, personal agendas, traditions, and explicit racism. Leadership capable of significantly overcoming the obsolescence and limitations of 18th-Century governance principles is nearly nonexistent in any organization, public or private. (Not even an army of Mr. Smith's and MLK's could overcome the structural limitations of our governance and social relations systems.)
And, why would anyone think that the object of these suggested reforms – law-enforcement personnel – will welcome the imposition of new policy and regulations when they are not, for the most part, even in the mix of reform policymaking? It is human nature for them to resist change from the outside, especially when they are feeling victimized and demonized by a part of society that they think is unfair to them. They have a culture of insularity against the civil world, especially of minority cultures. And, they have strong unions which will be legally obligated to defend them (despite misgivings, in some instances.)
Even if these reforms can be forced upon law enforcement, what structures and processes are there to enforce any policy or regulation which covers any of this? Almost none. Regulation can have unintended (or even built-in) loopholes, can be ignored, or inadequately supervised, and, of course, not everyone wants to obey even the clearest laws, especially when they get to enforce them themselves.
Furthermore, and perhaps most significantly in contemporary America, what about the approximate one half of the American populace – due to the extremely powerful cultural forces of Red and Blue – which will vehemently oppose these reform efforts merely as a matter of cultural identity and psychological satisfaction? (More on the soul-crushing Red and Blue problem in an upcoming blog post.)
Effective policy and regulation requires a modernized sense of American culture and a new set of public values. That set includes a sense of common good and fairness, trustworthiness in government and private institutions, political professionalism, rational consideration of all aspects of public issues (with an emphasis on respect for reason and science), and appreciation for the multiple perspectives which pertain to any and all complex public issues (implying inclusivity.)
None of these elements are integral to our 18th-Century principles of governance. In fact, they are the opposite of how we govern ourselves and relate socially. Our principles emphasize individualism, interest-based perspectives, competition, and force of will. Few of our leaders are experts in anything except in the craft of getting elected. Quality governance and social relations requires elements of knowledge and organizational competence. (What other social organization accepts leadership based only on minimal age requirements and ability to get elected?) This situation is the opposite of Smart.
Selfishness, ego-based action, and oppositional politics are more the American way than Smart governance.
Forget the Duct Tape!
Not only will it not work, but the failure again of these kinds of efforts will just increase the frustration and fatalism which pervades our society now.
Here's what is absolutely necessary to address this issue (and many similar others in our society): A new way of seeing and thinking about governance and social relations based on 21st-Century principles, structures, and processes. The 18th-Century ones we now struggle with lack a sense of common interest and fairness, a collective "Brain," trusted institutions, professionalism in governance and policymaking, sufficient respect for reason and science, and inclusivity.
All of this is explained in the The Action Manual (www.theactionmanual.com) a new paradigm of governance and social relations emphasizing a Smart process of problem-solving.
Here, specifically, is a Smart process of addressing the Black Lives Matter issue:
1. We form a national-level problem-solving body charged specifically with fixing the police-black culture issue. (Perhaps we can call it the Police-Civil Relations Commission.) We populate it with members representing all of the stakeholders in this issue – citizens of all races and classes, governments, law enforcement, Red and Blue, and relevant others. The commission will include a large set of experts of all relevant kinds – law-enforcement, sociologists, organizational theorists, and public intellectuals to provide the scientific and technical knowledge and guidance for the commission’s outcomes in both policymaking and implementation.
All of the participants in the commission will be sincerely committed to the essence of the problem. They will not be traditional representatives in the sense of asserting group interests. Instead, they will provide group perspectives only while maintaining a common good/common fairness attitude. They will be addressing the common good of Americans as a whole. (Finding enough of these folks will not be too hard.)
2. These participants will work together in a “Grand Reconciliation" format (sort of like a high-level mediation) where everyone articulates the views and interests of all stakeholders, common grounds are clarified, and remedies proposed and argued in a purposeful way with an explicit intention of coming up with a consensus program.
3. An accountable “Czar” of sorts, or committee chair, will guide the participants to a consensus, or as close as can be made. That consensus will include implementation proposals, as well.
4. Funding for this effort can come from governments, large organizations, and public-minded individuals and philanthropists.
5. Upon conclusion of the process, the participants and donors will be acknowledged as Public Heroes and treated as such.
6. This problem-solving process can serve as a template for the next issue to be addressed. And the next after that.
7. In time, the entire system of governance and social relations could be remade into a Smart 21st-Century America.
Write a comment