Reforming Institutions: A Path Towards Renewed Trust and Leadership

We often look at the state of our public institutions—from the ugliness of modern buildings to the hollowing out of our political parties—and wonder where the good leaders have gone. But what if the problem isn’t the people? What if we have built systems that actively punish virtue and reward careerism? It is time we looked at the invisible mechanics driving our decline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9OApK-7UV8

The Loss of Intrinsic Value

Let me offer you a fairly big claim: I think the notion of intrinsic value has dropped out of our civilisation.

Somewhere between the Renaissance and modern times, we established Newtonian systems that view satisfactory outcomes as mere equilibrium between forces. We believe the competitive market gives us what we want, so we don’t need virtuous merchants. We think electoral competition leads to good government, so we don’t need virtuous politicians.

We instinctively believe that if we set up a competition, the best will rise to the top. I am not saying competition is bad. However, I am suggesting that we might be the first civilisation without a sense of intrinsic merit or beauty at the centre of our public life.

You can see this in our physical world. If you visit the railway station in Queanbeyan, you will find a small, modest building that reflects its history as a small country town. Built in the 1880s, it is a picture of loveliness. The legislative buildings in Melbourne, also constructed in the 1880s, are sublime. It is hard to find a major public building built before World War I that isn't beautiful.

Now, compare that to today. We have prioritised utility above all else. We turned functionalism into an ideology, brought in property developers to minimise costs, and allowed the sense of craft to wither. We created a world where the best does not always thrive; often, the mediocre flourishes because it scales better.

Gresham’s Law and the Bureaucratic Game

This decay isn't just aesthetic; it is institutional. It is driven by a cultural version of Gresham’s Law.

In economics, Gresham’s Law states that "bad money drives out good." If you have a pile of coins, some pure silver and some debased, you will keep the good ones and spend the bad ones. Eventually, only the bad money remains in circulation.

The same phenomenon occurs in large organisations when you introduce the wrong metrics. Rory Stewart shared a story with me about his father, an intelligence officer. He observed a shift when management consultants entered the British intelligence services. They decided to reward intelligence products based on readership. If a junior civil servant read your report, you received one point. If the Minister read it, you received three points.

The incentive shifted towards producing an enormous quantity of reports, sensationalising them to grab the Minister’s attention. We witnessed the catastrophic result of this during the Iraq War. When a report came in from an unreliable agent suggesting Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the system didn’t ask, "Is this true?" Instead, it screamed, "The Minister will read this!"

They released it. They got the points. As Rory explained, “It turned out to be complete bullshit.” But the system was designed to produce that bullshit, just as surely as a factory is designed to produce cars.

From Taylorism to Toyota: Where Intelligence Lives

So, how do we reverse this? How do we build systems that honour truth and craft rather than gaming the metrics?

We can look at the evolution of manufacturing for clues. We started with Taylorism, which focused on time and motion studies. The "knowledge folks" sat above the workers on the assembly line, measuring them to minimise costs.

The Japanese transcended this with the Toyota Production System. They realised that the workers on the line were the main source of human intelligence. They empowered them to stop the line, suggest improvements, and take ownership of the product's quality.

This represents a socio-technical shift. It acknowledges that you cannot merely have a "brain" at the top directing the "hands" at the bottom. That approach leads to mediocrity, whether in a car factory or a government department.

A Venetian Solution for Modern Democracy

If we want to fix our democracy, we must stop relying on the "red in tooth and claw" competition of election campaigns, which have become machines for disinformation and polarisation. We need to explore mechanisms where competition does not undermine every other value in the system. We need systems that appeal to and harness citizens’ intrinsic merit and their desire to do the right thing.

The Republic of Venice successfully employed a system for choosing leaders for 500 years. They used:

• Sortition: Random selection of electors.

• Seclusion: Keeping them away from bribes and threats (similar to a Papal conclave).

• Secret Ballot: Allowing them to vote their conscience.

  
  

This system eliminated the gaming and careerism that currently plague modern politics and bureaucracy.

I am not suggesting we overthrow our current system. Instead, I propose we enrich it. We are at a Magna Carta moment. In 1215, we injected the "life world" of the community into the judicial branch via the jury system. We must now do the same for the legislative and executive branches.

We could establish citizens' assemblies to audit electoral funding and the salaries of our elected politicians. We could have them draw electoral boundaries, as successfully done in Michigan. We could inject a new DNA into our institutions based on the collective judgment of our peers, not just winning a PR and popularity race.

When people observe this working—ordinary citizens making sensible decisions without the performative circus of party politics—they will have a "When Harry Met Sally" reaction. They will point to that functional, truthful system and say: "I'll have what she's having."

It is not about destroying the old structures. It is about saving them from their own advanced state of decay.

The Path Forward

As we reflect on these ideas, we must consider how we can implement them in our own contexts. What steps can we take to foster a culture that values intrinsic merit? How can we create systems that empower citizens rather than diminish them?

Engaging in this conversation is vital. We must challenge the status quo and advocate for reforms that prioritise integrity and accountability. By doing so, we can rebuild trust in our institutions and create a brighter future for all.

In conclusion, let us not shy away from the challenge ahead. Instead, let us embrace it with open hearts and minds. Together, we can shape a better future through new approaches to leadership and governance.