It was during a coffee moment among friends that a question was popped: “Why is it seemingly inevitable to find that groups of good people who, cups of coffee in hand, associated with each other around good ideas, tend to, after a while, become the breeding ground for systemic corruption, nepotism, power struggles etc?”

From within the depths of our coffee mugs, some musings were brewed; herewith the tale:

Groupings of people harness their forces together based on various criteria, but it is often some blend between two fundamental questions. 

First, do we make decisions based on a pragmatic, i.e. predictive, problem-solving and practical basis, or on a normative, i.e. value-driven and rational basis? Second, do we associate with groupings that have formalised their ideas, or with those that allow for an open, free or unconstrained flow of ideas?

Pending the outcome of these two questions, allowing for a multitude of blends, a person or society can be described as either one of four typical archetypes.

First, there are the anarchists. Those are people and/or a grouping of people within society that is best described by the phrase individualistic opportunists. They tend to be driven by reality-based trends and fashions, and recently they are heavily influenced by social media and the celebrity driven cult. Their thoughts and actions cannot be contained or retained by formal (sic: authoritarian) structures. While not exclusively and universally the case, the free-spirited digital natives of Generation Z, those born since the mid-90s, can often be associated with this grouping.

Second, there are the criticists. They comprise those who flourish in an open, free-thinking environment, but are value or principle driven according to a set of norms or standards. These people are often associated with free-floating movements that are seemingly without leader or structure, but where people are bound together around a unifying value system. Academics occasionally find themselves huddled together in this space.

Third, there are the realists. They organise themselves in formal groupings, such as clubs, associations or societies, and are passionately seeking practical solutions for real-life problems. They are cause-driven and whatever method to accomplish a set goal will do, and in an organised manner. This grouping can thus be defined as institutional opportunists and both civil society and various networks of consultants tend to conglomerate in this corner.

Finally, there are the dogmatists. These are groupings of people who formalised their relationship based on a set of values, norms or ideologies. They are thus best described by the phrase institutionalised ideologists. Herein the norm becomes the justification for the existence of the formal, institutionalised relationship, and the institutionalised relationship becomes the guardian of the ideology. Political parties and organised religious organisations often find themselves herein. 

Dogmatists’ origin could either have been a movement, i.e. a loose network of people who decided to formalise the relationships based on a set of values, or a reality and cause-driven club or society which, over time, adapted a set of values or norms to influence decision-making and guide future action. Whether the former or the latter, both origins have their merits – good people who associated with each other around good ideas.

Categorisation of groupings of people according to the way in which decisions are made (pragmatic or normative) and in which they organise themselves (by means of formal structures or in an open society). Source: writers analysis.

Entrenched in circularity, where doctrine upholds the institution and the institution protects the doctrine, is, however, where mental blindness and deafness is cultivated. It corrupts the mind, depriving it of innovation and adaptation while the institution becomes an authority unto itself. 

Good people with institutional and ideological blinkers become ignorant to obvious flaws and thus arise the breeding grounds for the power-hungry where power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

Within the context where only the party can change the party, the party wall becomes unbreachable from the outside while doctrine cast in stone (blindly) governs the inside. With leadership entrenched in and protected by such an iron-clad context, opportunities abound for covert actions often associated with systemic corruption, nepotism and other evils.

South Africa, as is the case in many other countries, has become captured by the dogmatists. 

While there can be no problem with the formation of organisations, and/or to be norm or value driven, it is when the combination of these two interacts, leading to insider and outsider groupings to the detriment of those on the outside, when danger lurks around the corner. In short, within the political landscape, neither the ANC nor the DA nor any other political party is the enemy or the problem per se, but a system where (even good) ideas are institutionalised and entrenched in dogma. This provides ample opportunity for wickedness to abound.

Replace the one party with any other and the perpetuation of the same will occur. The same can be said of almost all other similarly organised terrains. While this might offer some, albeit partial, explanation as to the stated question above, it does not solve much, but knowing where the menace hides helps to formulate solutions.  

What we require is Dogxit, a release from the bondage of dogmatists as defined herein.

While Dogxit could consequentially lead to the unbundling or destruction of age-old institutions and organisations in some instances, it is not the principal meaning or intent thereof. It primarily refers to the release of the undue stranglehold and impact dogmatists have on the lives of others. 

Dogmatists will not lead the way in Dogxit. As a matter of fact, they will fight it hammer and tongs to protect and uphold the status quo as it offers them the very basis of their dominance.

It is thus left to the outsiders to keep poking holes at the irrationality of the dogmatists’ circular thinking, while exposing the evils of their covert operations. 

In the meantime, the outsiders must form functional relationships in which free-thinking value-driven, yet practical local solutions thrive – combining the strength of the remaining three archetypes. DM