Behind the façade of uniformity in every government bureaucracy or organization, you will find real people with a wide spectrum of reasons for maintaining rank within the hierarchy. Often these reasons have more to do with basic human survival, the desire to have work and status, rather than based on ideological affinities and shared values.
A deeper understanding of what motivates people to do what they are doing to maintain a façade of uniformity, especially in the context of a government, enables reflective discourse for social change. This does not mean that people in the workforce are aware of supporting the status quo or a condition of uniformity. For instance, it was a matter of colonial policy to choose and organize the military based on sectarianism and ethnicity. Similarly, colonial governments offered substantial benefits to those who cooperated with them in dominating their own people. Colonial policies were introduced with the intention to divide and rule.
Communication is difficult and sometimes impossible in situations of conflict which makes it imperative for leaders to carefully nurture and create opportunities to build relationships with ordinary people. Many times persons in leadership roles are too consumed with the day to day work, especially in conflict torn societies, that limits their ability to reach out to the people they are serving. If the work of government and other organizations was truly people centered, most aspects of their work would shift because it would require the people’s input. All too often differences grow out of misunderstandings which could easily have been prevented by adopting simple measures to strengthen effective communication, consultation and participation.
One constructive shift is to transition from a consultative process to more inclusive processes with an ongoing process of dialogue which involves action and reflection; and a paradigm shift from a monologue to a dialogue. This can be accomplished using various approaches to engage people, giving them the opportunity to participate in different ways. One approach could be using both consultations and public rallying, as they are interrelated, each with significant functions. Public rallying creates space for expressing support of an idea, whereas consultation secures sincere and critical suggestions and opinions on decisions whose outcome has not yet been fully determined. However, the dialogue would be the superglue providing the continuity between these various approaches where people could give their feedback, preferences and lessons learnt.
Engaging active people’s participation and inspired leadership are both essential for social change to come about. Through encouraging and supporting leaders, their political will becomes stronger enabling them to initiate transparent and inclusive processes that ensure full participation. This has the potential to catalyze nonviolent social action and stimulate political imagination, which goes behind the façade of uniformity.
