Change for its own sake- The Malaysian Insider
October 20, 2010 - As reported recently, the UMNO general assembly is going to see a call for holistic change and an attempt to define a new political and economic model, moving away from the old developmental model. Change has long been the linguistic symbol of the opposition and its power is clearly being acknowledged by the ruling party in its attempt to appropriate the idea of change to itself.
On the face of it, it seems ironical that the establishment is rooting for change when it has had a long monopoly on setting the economic and political agenda by controlling the levers of government. But change in this context can be construed as a tacit admission that the status quo of ‘we know best’ does not have any appeal with the electorate today. Therefore, this may be the precursor to preparing the grassroots for a radical move towards a more nimble, flexible organisation that is not afraid to challenge received wisdom from the past.
While it remains to be seen whether this transition is meaningful or purely symbolic, what is intriguing is why the mantra of change has become so important in determining the fortunes of both coalitions. Why are we so enamoured of change in a way that we never were? Is nothing of our past worth keeping? After all, it is not even clear as to what this change really means in concrete terms, from either side beyond either changing the way the government works or changing the government period.
As a society we are as wedded to tradition as we are to modernity but the balance between the two is shifting. We spend increasing amounts of time interacting with the modern world compared to our relatives. Time is today the single most valuable commodity we possess and there are multiple, often conflicting demands on it. The rise of information technology not only provides us access to real time information, it demands we process it and act on it-fast. Instant access to news provides the illusion that great changes are afoot, and either we keep abreast or we get left behind, in every sense of the term.
Bombarded with an incessant barrage of information, our attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. Thanks to the compression epitomised by the sound byte, we are practically incapable of appreciating stasis, or taking the time to smell the roses. Depth of thought and reasoning are the first casualty of the technology invasion. Actions, reactions, change-all have to happen faster and faster for them to have any impact at all. Today, action delayed is akin to no action at all. What are we more offended by- the weakness of action against racist civil servants, or the delay in taking any visible action at all? It is entirely likely that if the person concerned was suspended immediately, and then reinstated after a suitable period, there would have been no crisis at all.
Change is such a powerful idea today precisely because it seems to be the basis on which the world operates. Actually, it does not matter in the least if the change is real-it just needs to be visible, and it needs to be quick. How much has really changed since Obama’s ‘yes we can’? But at that moment, it was the promise of real change that galvanised the electorate.
This paradox between demanding change and then actually being indifferent to the substance of it is the basis of modern public relations. Practitioners the world over understand the power of the ‘makeover’. Substantial change is not required, the illusion of change is. Indeed in this cynical view, you lose your audience when you show too much depth. Ideally change should appear radical but should actually be bite sized and easily demonstrated and consumed.
So, to both sides of the divide, look fresher than the other side, appear more decisive, more spontaneous and talk the language of change (notice the sudden barrage of fancy management acronyms in the current political discourse). Above all, be brief because nobody has the time- and you may have to change nothing much else at all.
What the heck changed after the last brouhaha over killer buses on expressways anyway?
On the face of it, it seems ironical that the establishment is rooting for change when it has had a long monopoly on setting the economic and political agenda by controlling the levers of government. But change in this context can be construed as a tacit admission that the status quo of ‘we know best’ does not have any appeal with the electorate today. Therefore, this may be the precursor to preparing the grassroots for a radical move towards a more nimble, flexible organisation that is not afraid to challenge received wisdom from the past.
While it remains to be seen whether this transition is meaningful or purely symbolic, what is intriguing is why the mantra of change has become so important in determining the fortunes of both coalitions. Why are we so enamoured of change in a way that we never were? Is nothing of our past worth keeping? After all, it is not even clear as to what this change really means in concrete terms, from either side beyond either changing the way the government works or changing the government period.
As a society we are as wedded to tradition as we are to modernity but the balance between the two is shifting. We spend increasing amounts of time interacting with the modern world compared to our relatives. Time is today the single most valuable commodity we possess and there are multiple, often conflicting demands on it. The rise of information technology not only provides us access to real time information, it demands we process it and act on it-fast. Instant access to news provides the illusion that great changes are afoot, and either we keep abreast or we get left behind, in every sense of the term.
Bombarded with an incessant barrage of information, our attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. Thanks to the compression epitomised by the sound byte, we are practically incapable of appreciating stasis, or taking the time to smell the roses. Depth of thought and reasoning are the first casualty of the technology invasion. Actions, reactions, change-all have to happen faster and faster for them to have any impact at all. Today, action delayed is akin to no action at all. What are we more offended by- the weakness of action against racist civil servants, or the delay in taking any visible action at all? It is entirely likely that if the person concerned was suspended immediately, and then reinstated after a suitable period, there would have been no crisis at all.
Change is such a powerful idea today precisely because it seems to be the basis on which the world operates. Actually, it does not matter in the least if the change is real-it just needs to be visible, and it needs to be quick. How much has really changed since Obama’s ‘yes we can’? But at that moment, it was the promise of real change that galvanised the electorate.
This paradox between demanding change and then actually being indifferent to the substance of it is the basis of modern public relations. Practitioners the world over understand the power of the ‘makeover’. Substantial change is not required, the illusion of change is. Indeed in this cynical view, you lose your audience when you show too much depth. Ideally change should appear radical but should actually be bite sized and easily demonstrated and consumed.
So, to both sides of the divide, look fresher than the other side, appear more decisive, more spontaneous and talk the language of change (notice the sudden barrage of fancy management acronyms in the current political discourse). Above all, be brief because nobody has the time- and you may have to change nothing much else at all.
What the heck changed after the last brouhaha over killer buses on expressways anyway?
Comments
Post a Comment