We can’t lead anyone further than we have been ourselves.

For some time already, we are living in a world of extremes, a world that doesn’t seem to agree on a common ground or common values. A world in which almost everyone struggles to impose their own worldview or their own opinion about what is true and what is real: “I have my opinion and this is the only truth there is” or “my reality is better than yours”. The problem with this situation is that the world is actually not so simple, there are no easy solutions and finding a compromise is the path. This idea comes from the fact that each person sees a limited part of the truth and holds a partial view of reality, and the best way forward is to compose with a mosaic created by everyone’s truths and everyone’s perceptions. It is childish to believe that there is, somewhere or somehow, a simple and miraculous solution that hasn’t been found yet and there is only one elusive key to solve the world’s problems.

I know, it is disappointing; you expected me to tell you that I have a solution and, quite the contrary, I’m talking about complexity and compromise instead. It is also disappointing to leave childhood behind…

The recent trend in politics – a subject that should not be so important in our lives, but which unfortunately shapes our reality – is the ideological polarization (extreme left and extreme right, for instance, instead of center-left and center-right) but also the constant triggering of an old game: “the outcasts” versus “the establishment”. This game appears in various shapes, often in the form of the reformist Left challenging the traditional establishment of the Right, but also in the form of the populist, anti-establishment parties challenging a rigid, bureaucratic elite that refuses to cede power. Variations on the same theme can be seen by the vigilant eye, such as the geriatric elite in the United States struggling to keep in power a bunch of granddads and grandmas, sending an implicit signal that there aren’t any younger politicians (corrupted) competent enough, or the atrophic elite in the European Union, imposing unelected leadership through negotiation and compromise, creating alliances that bring to power the same worn-out puppet politicians who appear to do nothing. In front of such political constellations, revolt and disobedience seem to be the logical and moral duty.

Yet, as I said in the introduction, one should not succumb to the facility of an easy solution.

Let’s suppose the reformist party or personality wins the election and comes to power. This has already happened in history, including in the recent history, and we know that this ends badly: the reformer inevitably fails. But why?

The moment you are done with celebrating your victory, the day after, you will have to face the responsibility to lead and rule the country. You had good ideas, you sold them well to the electorate, but now you need to put them into practice. You have gathered support criticizing the old elite but now people expect something from you and they expect it in the most concrete form you can possibly provide. They want to have a better life and you must deliver. And you must do this fast.

Okay, you put in jail everyone belonging to the old elite but you will rapidly realize that you have two problems: 1. the old clique is like an octopus sending tentacles everywhere and a lot of people (the so-called political clients) are accomplices with the previous leadership and 2. you don’t have enough trained people so as to fill in the bureaucratic positions, because in a country you need an administrative apparatus so as to make things work.

Yep… you didn’t think about that; you thought that leading a country is easy.

“Lone-wolves” do not realize that they cannot change “The System” by and through themselves alone; they need to make compromises and they need a sizeable group around them (a team) so as to efficiently lead, and a lot of people already prepared to manage the key administrative positions. The “horror” of the lone-wolves is to discover that they both need the bureaucrats and the “System”, since they can’t be everywhere at the same time and they aren’t all-knowing and able to decide in every field of activity. The independent (politically non-aligned) specialists are rare and, more often, they are already part of the said System. They are paid by the System, they serve and maintain the System and its functioning. And this gives birth to a moral dilemma: cooperate with the ancient regime?!?

Changing a malfunctioning system cannot be done by breaking it into pieces or by firing everyone. Or by marching in the streets with banners and flags. You don’t change the political opinion by throwing manure into the walls of the public administration (like the French did) or chaining yourself to public monuments (like the Anglo-Saxons often do). You don’t change the political system by breaking into the official buildings (like they did in the United States). And you don’t change anything by going on strike and paralyzing the transports or the entire economy, sabotaging everyone in the process. Why? Because you destroy those things you will soon need so as to effectively rule.

A better solution? A wiser solution?

An alternative solution is more difficult to apply (and accept) and requires stuff belonging to the adult mental attitude: making connections, creating loyalties, building trust, growing younger leaders, accepting that compromise is necessary and essential. It also involves a lot of (wasted) time and a lot of patience. It involves being part of the repudiated old System, resisting the temptation of power, superiority and selfishness (if you can, most people can’t) and gradually steering everything towards a better destination. It also requires the acknowledgment that you will likely see little change during your lifetime. But little change is more than the absence of change.

Nothing – absolutely nothing – is achieved protesting or rebelling against a system – no matter what this system is. If the elites don’t want change, change won’t happen. Throughout history, millions have protested and went against the elite of those times and got absolutely nothing. Therefore, the only option is to follow a wise well-known saying: if you can’t beat them, join them!

… 

The meditations above have a deeper root. There are 3 psychological stages in the development of a personality: first it’s the obeying stage, when fear makes the person surrender and try to fit in, then it’s the rebellious or defiant stage, when anger makes the person reject authority, and finally it’s the third, wiser stage, characterized by playfulness (because there is freedom from the oppressive figures and a sense of autonomy inside the system) and speculative thinking (when the person integrates the fact that there is still a lot of power available so as to change things, but not in a confrontational manner, combining the submission of the first stage with the boldness of the second, this time in a nuanced manner). The only problem is that it may take years to get to the third stage…