| THE INTEGRITY PAPERS | Genre Group - Buchanan | ceptualinstitute.com |
COMER Columns
Articles published in "Economic Reform"
the Journal of the 'Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform'COMER Column #3 Vol. 12, No. 11 November 2000.
A Systems View of Power
As Lord Acton famously stated: "Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Why is this so often the case? Power implies an ability to get desired results. What are the seeds of corruption in this?
Much has been written about power from every conceivable angle. An advantage of a systems approach is its attention to essential features in a framework that is transparent and aids clear comparisons. Of course empirical studies based upon observed practices, which may be more arbitrary, have their uses (cf. Machiavelli).
A system is best defined by its objectives and results. A systems approach to power will look for those key factors which produce desired effects. Values and powers exist in a social matrix, conditioned by individual interests and beliefs. Power will depend on many factors which cannot easily be changed. Yet where the sources and principles of power are clearly understood its effects may sometimes be influenced.
In cybernetic terms, the power of a manager, or any effective governing system, to produce intended effects must be adequate to the complexities or full variety of conditions to be managed. Moreover the feedback links necessary to guide behaviours and correct errors must be in place. Legitimate power depends upon structures which are adequate in these respects at least. Arbitrary power is nourished where the objectives are confused, misinformation abounds and results are not subject to any accounting. Waste and corruption are then almost inevitable.
Effective and efficient systems are organised at many levels, but must be integrated in terms of values (e.g. security and freedom) which provide conditions essential for survival and adaptation. Power cannot be maintained by systems (or subsystems) that are closed to possibilities for reorganisation, for then entropic decay will prevail.
Political rationality has traditionally been conceived in much simpler terms than these. Politicians tend to be preoccupied by concrete problems related to the next election, with less attention to methods and process. For example, a politician or manager is usually content to consider proposals or items of new information by asking: How can I use this? Is this an opportunity to meet my responsibilities, and to maintain my position and/or power? Such questions seldom address issues or ideas which do not fit within that framework. Such methods, in effect, exclude any real complexities by denying their relevance or even their reality.
Centuries of human experience have led to some political wisdom. We have learned that, while censorship and deception may be used to maintain power in a benighted society for a time, the search for values of truth and freedom wins out in the longer run. Such lessons of history will not be replaced, but may be refined and deepened, by more adequate and inclusive
concepts of social responsibility.
The concept of a system implies the organisation of elements to perform functions or achieve purposes, as guided by information, evaluation and feedback - and a kind of metalanguage in which to talk about such systems. Cybernetics and system sciences provide for approaches to organisation that are open, and operate on the basis of transparency and accountability. An approach which lacks these capabilities leads to intractable problems - without the information or structures required to recognise or understand them.
Unless it is possible to articulate the assumptions and context within which particular systems function, i.e. to reason from a more comprehensive or "metasystem"(1) perspective, there can be no adequate overview. This is a key logical and practical point. Some questions cannot be even conceived, much less decided, without enlarging the frame of reference. A society in which all manner of special interests compete for attention and economic support requires a level of logic and discourse on which common interests can be taken into account, and integrating values may be proposed.
As Forrester (2) found in his studies of system dynamics at urban and world levels, complex systems often respond to human interventions in ways that are counter-intuitive. In situations where important societal values are in conflict, such conflicts may be internalised by individuals, with effects which may be damaging to normal processes of thought and feeling. Major contradictions implanted by the social milieu, along with attempts at thought control, sow seeds of mental illness and crime. Complex effects of this kind are often not intuitively evident, and many of us learn to tune them out. While uncertainty and variety may be facts of life, some disorders may be pathological. Systems methods, pointing to metasystem levels where such conflicts can be articulated, may be needed to describe and deal with such multidimensional conflicts.
An open society requires a structure of communications adequate to its challenges, a structure which reflects the complexity of the conditions being encountered and the need for adaptation to uncertainties, without imposing preconceptions on what may be relevant. Such a structure requires conscious design, and a "raising of consciousness" by citizen participants. Mere freedom of expression may amount to censorship by noise, and is not enough. Channels can be blocked as easily by overloading them as by cutting them off. An appropriate selectivity based on relevance and needs is needed.
Science has made progress in being grounded on the appeal to experience and to interpretations open to discussion and criticism by all who undertake the relevant observations. Social affairs will make more progress as we learn to advance value criteria and purposes explicitly and to prize those values which reflect the grounds of human nature and requirements of life. To criticise such methods unthinkingly as elitist is to stay in bondage to traditional ideas.
In summary it may be said that, from a systems perspective, actions based upon impulse and/or arbitrary aims may pretend to power (pretence being a device of would-be power) but need not be accepted, and certainly do not constitute the exercise of power in systems terms, i.e. with effectiveness and continuity. To the extent that power is real and endures, it must maintain and enhance the energies and organisation that support it, and take on needed adaptive changes. Power that is responsible in this sense will not be elitist, arbitrary or corrupting.
Particularly in states undergoing turmoil, policies based merely upon the accommodation of interest groups with inherited and divergent ambitions may be disastrous. Effective power in the long run depends upon defining and meeting societal needs and objectives, and recruiting the necessary expertise and resource support. In this respect, the power of financiers to corner money as a commodity, when it must function as a societal resource, needs more public debate. Without monetary reform many other reforms are starved for resources. In view of all the externalities and complexities it is likely that most of the financial Masters of the Universe "know not what they do". So the task is one of education, of ourselves and of everyone who has a vote.
Most leaders know that they need all the help they can get, but are also unlikely to accept ideas they find disruptive of their systems of thought and responsibilities. So to assume a stance which shares goals ("we are all in this together") may be vital in attempting to open a creative dialogue.
References
(1) Note: A "metasystem" goes beyond the level of the particular system(s) to provide for ways to talk about
language and models (a "metalanguage"), to better understand the lower level system(s). This perspective
may be required to resolve some otherwise contradictory or undecidable questions.
(2) Jay W. Forrester, World Dynamics, Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Mass.,1971