The Web Of Democracy
New Internationalist 360 September 2003
Reinventing power / NETWORKS
Over the past 50 years, systems thinkers have become increasingly influential in every field of human endeavour – from astronomy to agriculture, from economics to health, from crime prevention to traffic circulation. The practical benefits of systems thinking in these fields have been immense, yet little use has been made of it in tackling the social and political problems that we face.
If systems are separated into their component parts they cannot perform the functions of which they are capable when put together in the right combination: a pile of bicycle parts cannot be ridden until assembled in the correct way; an amputated arm cannot throw a ball. A tree here, some ants over there and a pile of leaves do not provide an environment in which an ecosystem can be sustained. A rideable bike, ecosystems and ball throwing are ‘emergent properties’ of different kinds of systems. This is the single most important concept in systems sciences because it requires us to think in terms of whole systems and their relationships, not just their parts.
Like living systems, purposeful human systems are also self-organizing. The more complex these systems become, the more they self-organize and arrive at their own form of order – though the form of order they arrive at may or may not be helpful in achieving the system’s purpose. Think of how any complex organization you have been involved with – a local council, a hospital or a school – seems to defy all attempts to impose tight control upon it.
The ability of living systems and purposeful human systems to self-organize enables them to adapt to changes in their environment without losing their integrity. An ongoing enterprise is still ‘the firm’ after all the original staff have left and it no longer makes what it used to make. If you looked at its parts, they would all be different; but the system as a whole has retained its identity.
In contrast, engineered systems have predictable outcomes, because all their components can be precisely designed and controlled. Most of our political, administrative, business and NGO leaders assume that purposeful human systems should be as predictable as engineered systems. But it is only as they become both increasingly complex and increasingly self-organizing that purposeful human systems and their component parts also achieve an ordered state, which arises as an emergent property of the system as a whole. As Margaret Wheatley, the American leadership and systems thinker, says: ‘You can’t look at something like self-organization or complex adaptive systems in science, no matter what unit you’re looking [at] – plants, molecules, chemicals – without realizing that this is a kind of democratic process. Everybody is involved locally and out of that comes a more global system.’
Thus, if we can think of ‘democracy’ as meaning a system through which members of communities organize themselves, rather than a system for controlling them, our democratic systems would be getting closer to being complex, adaptive and self-organizing.
For as societies become ever more complex, their leaders have less and less control over the internal and external complexities they face. There is simply too much information for a small group of decision-makers, with limited skills, knowledge and time, to process in order to make confident decisions – no matter how powerful their computers or how vast their resources. Thus information processing and decision-making power should be devolved as widely as possible. The leaders and the subsystems can then take actions which aid the viability of the system as a whole.
Take a soccer game, for example. Suppose there are 11 equally talented players on each side but the players in one team can only do exactly what the captain tells them to do. Obviously, their opponents would run rings round them because, within certain fairly loose rules and shared understandings, they would play as a ‘complex, adaptive, self-organizing system’. By being ‘self-organizing’, the winning team would be able to generate more variety than the team that could only do what their captain told them.
It is this failure to understand the need for soft-systems approaches to what systems thinkers call ‘wicked’ problems that leads to the incompetence of governments in dealing with almost all of the issues on their agenda.
According to systems thinker Professor Horst Rittel, almost all the major problems that confront our societies can be classified as ‘wicked’: they are problems that arise from non-linear systems’ complexities, as opposed to ‘tame’ problems, which arise from linear system faults. The main features of ‘wicked’ problems are:
We live in a world full of ‘wicked’ problems: homelessness, drug dealing, terrorism, racism, overfishing, global warming and so on.
‘Tame’ problems, on the other hand, have definable outcomes and can be objectively solved. Even putting a human being on the moon is a ‘tame’ problem: it is difficult and hugely expensive but if you throw enough time, skills and resources at it you can do it; and you know when you have done it.
‘Tame’ and ‘wicked’ problems call for totally different approaches. With ‘tame’ problems there are recognized techniques and solutions. The standard approach is to divide the problem into manageable sub-problems and deal with them in a logical, linear sequence. Each of these will often call for different kinds of technical expertise. Once all the sub-problems have been solved, the solution to the whole problem is complete. The process is linear. The fatal error is to use linear processes to try to solve ‘wicked’ problems. Because ‘wicked’ problems can never be finally ‘solved’ in the way that ‘tame’ problems can, soft-systems concepts and methodologies are essential if we are to get to grips with them.
The soft-systems approach to ‘wicked’ problems arising in complex human systems requires the people involved in the problem situation to be actively involved in a constant cycle of thinking, acting and learning together. They need to understand each other’s perspectives; to do what they can to make things better and then to evaluate how successful they have been before starting the process all over again. This is a participatory, whole-systems approach to ordering our societies.
The whole business of soft-systems thinking is directed to the question of change within the chosen system. The more we understand about systems, the better we will be at learning how to create the democracies that will enable our societies to become more just and sustainable. Systems thinking has been successfully applied in many fields; it is now high time that this approach was applied to government and politics.
These soft-systems concepts can be used to reconfigure any complex human system from a school or a hospital to a government department, from a neighbourhood to a city to a whole nation. They provide the practical frameworks through which the citizens engaged in participatory change processes keep in close touch with the realities of the system that they are trying to improve. They build the knowledge and skills needed for citizens to work creatively on their ‘wicked’ problems while observing the shared purposes and principles of the system as a whole. And in doing so citizens and their liberating leaders gain in knowledge, competence and mutual trust. Thus equipped, they are able to tackle ever more complex and difficult ‘wicked’ problems in their society.
The idea that government could become a learning experience for all concerned is wholly foreign to command-and-control leaders. But the application of these concepts to the political field could transform the way democracy and government work.
Diversity, flexibility and subsidiarity will be the inevitable result of addressing ‘wicked’ problems with a soft-systems approach. Network government will encourage creativity and freedom in the design of all economic systems, in industry and agriculture as well as finance. What we are predicting here is the gradual emergence of a very different world. But it is not one that can be specified or ‘imagineered’. In systems terms, imagineering is inevitably a linear process and as such cannot take account of the complex adaptive nature of human societies.
© Copyright 2003 New Internationalist
Publications Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article is from
the September 2003 issue
of New Internationalist.
- Discover unique global perspectives
- Support cutting-edge independent media
- Magazine delivered to your door or inbox
- Digital archive of over 500 issues
- Fund in-depth, high quality journalism