SECTION 1: SYSTEM
CHAPTER 3 - LEVELS ARE LEVERS
The deepest levels of a system have the greatest influence on its functions.
Look outside your window at a tree or a plant. Its leaves reach up to the sky, but below the surface its roots reach deep through layers of soil for nutrients and support. For many trees, their roots grow out two to four times wider than the visible crown above. These layers of soil through which these roots extend represent a system.
Every system has five “levels”, with each deeper level having more influence than the one above it: What, How, Where, Who, and Why.
Understanding System Levels
Think of the problem you want to fix as a system:
-
What are the outputs of the system and the parameters set to constrain it?
-
How do interactions, feedback loops and delays function?
-
Where and when does information flow in the system in order for it to operate?
-
Who holds power to set the rules and structures of the system?
-
Why does the system exist, what values and goals does it seek to uphold?
Each level of soil can also be narrow or wide. A tree with narrow roots or weak foundations at its Why level could be easy to change.
A campaign, program, or project can be more effective by targeting multiple levels, and most effective by targeting the deepest level. However, it is okay to focus on a shallower level if that is what your resources allow
Addressing Oppressions upheld by Systems
Many systems have oppressions that interconnect across different levels. As you explore the system, you may find that some stakeholders experience multiple and overlapping oppressions. Investigate these connections to discover useful places for collaboration and focus your campaigning efforts. You can read more about how to do this in Chapter 7: Solidarity is a verb
Sources: 1 Archimedes quote - Source via Wikipedia: This variant derives from an earlier source than Pappus: The Library of History of Diodorus Siculus, Fragments of Book XXVI, as translated by F. R. Walton, in Loeb Classical Library (1957) Vol. XI. In Doric Greek this may have originally been Πᾷ βῶ, καὶ χαριστίωνι τὰν γᾶν κινήσω πᾶσαν [Pā bō, kai kharistiōni tan gān kinēsō [variant kinasō] pāsan].
Chipko, a grassroots movement in the 1970s and 1980s in Uttarakhand, India, began as a local struggle against deforestation by outside contractors. It was initiated by local villagers, primarily led by Chandi Prasad Bhatt and Sunderlal Bahuguna. The movement aimed to address local economic needs and environmental degradation by stopping tree felling and advocating for local control over forest resources.
The key tasks of Chipko were to:
-
Prevent Deforestation: Stop commercial logging by outside contractors.
-
Empower Local Communities: Advocate for local control over forest resources and promote local economic development.
-
Raise Awareness: Highlight the environmental and social impacts of deforestation on both national and international stages.
The movement did this through:
-
Local Mobilization: Villagers, led by Bhatt and Bahuguna, engaged in direct action by physically hugging trees to prevent them from being cut down. This method first gained prominence in Mandal in 1973 and continued across the region.
-
Political Advocacy: Chipko sought policy changes through local protests and direct appeals to the government, which led to temporary bans on commercial logging and the formation of the Van Nigam to manage forests.
-
Connecting local needs and struggles: The movement generated a new and sustained dialogue between the Chipko workers (originally', men) and the victims of the environmental disasters in the hill areas of Garhwal (mainly women). The message of the Chipko workers connected with their own struggles in managing food and safety needs in the face of recurring floods. Women’s support for the movement strengthened it exponentially, and leveraged their engagement and leadership in public spaces.
-
International and National Impact: The movement gained global attention, contributing to the enactment of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 and the establishment of India’s Ministry of Environment. It also inspired global environmental and eco-feminist movements.
The movement had local impact:
-
Short-Term Successes: Chipko effectively halted deforestation in some areas and led to temporary bans on logging. It achieved significant local mobilization and demonstrated the power of grassroots activism.
-
Economic and Social Discontent: Despite its successes, the movement did not fully address the economic needs of local communities. The creation of the Van Nigam and conservation areas restricted local access to forest resources, leading to dissatisfaction. Villagers felt their subsistence needs were ignored, and their traditional rights to forest resources were not fully restored.
The movement also had national and international impact:
-
Legislative Changes: Chipko played a role in shaping national policy, including the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. It raised environmental issues on a global scale.
-
Global Recognition: The movement was celebrated internationally and influenced global environmentalism and eco-feminism. It challenged the notion that the poor are indifferent to environmental issues.
We can see that the Chipko movement helped to make changes at the five levels of the system, however it faced several challenges leading to mixed local and political impact:
-
What level:
-
Chipko’s direct actions, such as tree-hugging protests, were significant events that attracted immediate attention and had short-term effects on deforestation.
-
-
How level (infrastructure, loops and delays):
-
The movement highlighted recurring conflicts between local needs and external economic interests, emphasizing the tension between conservation and economic development.
-
The movement slowed down the company’s deforestation.
-
-
Where level:
-
Critical Influence: Media coverage significantly shaped the perception of Chipko. It amplified the movement’s global profile but often misrepresented the local realities and conflicts. One Chipko activist noted that media reports relied on hearsay and did not engage with villagers directly, contributing to the movement’s eventual shortcomings.
-
Rift Between Leaders: According to Pratap Shikhar, media reports exacerbated tensions between Bhatt and Bahuguna, creating a rift that hindered the movement's cohesion and effectiveness.
-
-
Who level:
-
Exposure: Chipko exposed structural issues in forest management, including the preference for outside contractors and the inadequacies of local control mechanisms.
-
Rules: Although policies like the Forest Conservation Act were implemented, they did not fully address local community needs.
-
Political party disinterest: The national CPI and other political parties did not fully support the movement, leading to a situation where Chipko’s radical potential for self-governance and resource management was undermined.
-
Within the movement itself: Factions split off within the movement, one leaning towards grassroots organizing and the other leaning towards media and PR-led approach. Arguably the movement missed opportunities for political organizing and electoral engagement, which could have strengthened its influence.
-
-
Why level:
-
The movement shifted perceptions of forests from mere resources to essential elements of local livelihoods and environmental health.
-
However, as Chipko gained international recognition, the focus shifted towards global environmental concerns, overshadowing local economic and social goals.
-
Chipko achieved significant milestones in raising awareness and influencing policy but faced limitations in meeting its local objectives. The movement’s transformation into a global environmental cause overshadowed its original focus on local economic needs and resource management. The media’s role in amplifying the movement internationally, while crucial, also contributed to misunderstandings and internal conflicts. Politically, Chipko failed to harness its full potential for systemic change, leading to missed opportunities for broader influence.
While Chipko inspired global environmental movements and highlighted the intersection of poverty and environmental issues, its local impact has been mixed. Many original activists and villagers feel disillusioned, as the movement’s promises of local empowerment and economic benefit were not fully realized. The contrast between Chipko’s initial goals and its outcomes illustrates the complex dynamics of grassroots activism, media influence, and political engagement.
Read more: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/environment/chipko-an-unfinished-mission-30883
Numbers
People focus a lot on the numbers that track or limit systems. These numbers include tax rates, interest rates, employment rates, minimum wage rates, GDP growth rates, deforestation rates, population rates, air pollution rates, and the rates of fossil versus renewable energy. Media and political debates often center around these numbers.
Many campaigns aim to change these numbers, like ending fossil fuel subsidies or raising the minimum wage. These parameters are easy to understand and change, and people tend to care about them.
However, changing these numbers often has the weakest effect on systems. They don't usually change individual or system behavior unless they reach a limit that affects a deeper level of the system. In the short term, changing these numbers can be important. But in the long term, systems tend to return to their original state, keeping the same inequalities.
Campaigns focused on these numbers can be valuable if they are the most realistic option given available resources, relationships, and time. They can also help organizing*, build power and increase movement participation through collective action. But as a long-term goal, changing numbers alone rarely leads to lasting, fair systems change.
Hardware
The physical parts of a system—stocks, flows, and buffers—are more impactful. These include the infrastructure, elements, and connections within a system. They can greatly affect what a system looks like and does, but are harder to change quickly.
A "What-level" campaign to improve air pollution and reduce traffic might call for stock-and-flow infrastructure to improve, like road and rail locations, electrical grids, and building designs.
A "What-level" campaign to tackle drought might focus on the buffers that stabilize the system, by demanding that drinking water set aside for businesses be redistributed, or by calling for state emergency funds to be reallocated.
Changing the physical infrastructure of systems is easier before they are built. Proactive efforts to influence planning and zoning are challenging but more feasible than trying to change systems once they are established.
Campaigns that target the What level, via the Numbers or Hardware of a system, can be effective, but will create the shortest-lasting changes and will not change the wider system in the long-term.
Sources:
-
For more analysis on leverage points and the basis from which these five levels are drawn, see ‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System” by Donella Meadows.
-
*Organizing for Social Change: Midwest Academy : Manual for Activists: A Manual for Activists
In 2018, Kadoma municipality authorities in Zimbabwe had been neglecting their responsibility to repair local roads filled with potholes. Anyone moving around or transporting goods through Kadoma had to risk injury to do so.
A youth organization called Vision Africa organized an intervention at the What level to get the local authorities’ attention and force them to act. The youth planted banana trees in potholes all around the streets of Kadoma:
-
Stocks and Flows: Banana trees grow quickly, are tough and notoriously hard to pull out once they have grown a certain height. Once the trees were noticed, the authorities had to act quickly or they would become a bigger problem for transport routes.
-
Buffer System: The local authorities had to increase the funds available as a buffer to fix the roads so the system improved.
Locals began to share images via Twitter of the banana trees popping up over Kadoma and this became a source of national embarrassment for the local authorities, who acted quickly to fix the roads.
The Zimbabwe Republic Police’s Internal Security Intelligence arrested and questioned Vision Africa leaders but then released them.
Read more:
https://www.tactics4change.org/case-studies/potholes-to-garden-beds/
If our raft breaks as we traverse a river, it’s no good if we have new materials but don’t know how to fix the raft.
Changing how a system works is more effective than trying to change what it is made of.
Delays
We need to camp for the night and fix the raft, but there are signs of a storm coming. How do we make the best use of the time we have?
Should we camp close to the river and risk a flood? Or should we camp farther away and make ourselves return for water? Delays happen everywhere and are hard to control but important to consider.
For example, a water shortage for farms now may impact food availability and prices in a few months time. A sudden increase or decrease in birth rates now will impact the need for local teachers and schools in the years ahead. A treehouse designed for young children might not be stable for their grandchildren looking up at a much larger tree. Using email instead of a fax machine is great until the internet goes down during an emergency. Delays add complexity to systems. A “How-level” campaign must prepare for various scenarios and delays across the short-, medium- and long-term.
Feedback loops
A system survives through the strength of its correcting (negative) and reinforcing (positive) feedback loops. These loops usually involve some length of delay between an event occurring and the associated response. Reinforcing (positive) loops are more powerful than balancing (negative) loops.
Balancing (negative) loop:
-
Counteracts changes to keep a system stable.
-
When it works: A thermostat (complicated system) that keeps a room at the right temperature, or a safety process in a nuclear power plant (complex system).
-
When it does not work: It’s all too easy to underappreciate the value of a feedback loop. Governments and corporations often strip away these mechanisms in order to save money, leading to problems. For instance, when governments weaken regulations it can allow rights violations, market price distortions, erosion of democracy or the spread of misinformation.
-
How to target it in a campaign: A “How-level” campaign could look at introducing or strengthening these safety mechanisms.
Reinforcing (positive) loop:
-
Amplifies changes quickly to keep a system growing.
-
When it works: A snowball gets bigger as it rolls.
-
When it is too strong: It can lead to collapse if unchecked, like species extinction or investment bubbles. The more resources someone has, the more they can gain, leading to power imbalances. The powerful can more easily gain money, better education, access to government, influence over policies to support themselves.
-
How to target it in a campaign: A “How-level” campaign to introduce higher taxes for high earners (reducing the positive loop) is more powerful than just giving support payments to the unemployed (increasing negative loops).
Campaigns that target the How level of a system’s inbuilt Delays and Loops can appear effective, and can make a difference in the short and medium-term to how citizens and the environment live. But they will not change the system or lives for the long-term.
Every year more than 8 million tonnes of plastic end up in the ocean, killing an estimated 100,000 marine mammals.
Just 60 companies are responsible for more than half the world’s plastic pollution. As public awareness of plastic pollution has increased, companies have faced growing pressure to address their environmental impact.
These corporations know they need to respond to environmental concerns and maintain their profitability while managing public perception and the regulatory pressures upon them regarding plastic pollution.
It is more expensive for these companies to change their systems and processes by using fewer plastics or investing in plastic reuse. It is cheaper to increase marketing campaigns to promote existing processes and increase sales and brand awareness.
These companies use delays and feedback loops at the How level of global systems:
-
Create delay: They promote or expand existing recycling initiatives. This is less costly than shifting to reusable alternatives.
-
Strengthen a negative loop: They establish new partnerships to promote existing recycling initiatives through traditional and digital media marketing campaigns. Customers believe the companies are committed to sustainability and buy more of their products.
-
Create delay: They advocate for recycling initiatives rather than more sustainable practices at international forums like the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution. This causes delays for the Committee to agree to and implement more environmentally-friendly alternatives.
-
Strengthen negative loop across systems: Governments, influenced by these narratives, also prioritize recycling over reduction, reinforcing this approach.
By prioritizing recycling, these companies can continue their high levels of plastic production under the guise of sustainability, thereby increasing their profits and market share without making substantial changes to their practices. This approach locks in the problem of plastic pollution, rather than addressing its root causes.
Read more: https://earth.org/inc-4-provides-limited-progress-towards-a-global-plastics-treaty
What we do not know can hurt us. If no one shares a map of the river we are traversing, how do we know which are the areas to avoid?
Access & Distribution
Even when a country has independent media, not everyone can access it. Digital media needs an internet connection. Newspapers do not reach remote areas quickly. Social media can be monitored or banned. Even if information is available, it needs to reach the right people through the most available channels. Some people avoid phone calls or emails but cannot avoid advertising.
Winning a campaign does not mean the message will reach everyone. Those in power can control where and when information flows, keeping the public in the dark. They can distract people, use loopholes, or introduce new laws to counter the original change. If there is no way to verify or measure changes, like an increased tax on the rich, we will not know if it really happened. If we cannot communicate policy changes, they might be delayed until after elections.
A "Where-level" campaign could partner with local media and investigative journalists to expose crimes by elites, informing remote populations so they can take action.
Transparency & Accountability
Creating infrastructure to highlight important information - for transparency and accountability - builds trust and encourages collective action. Transparency International’s Corruption Index and Amnesty International’s human rights rankings are powerful because governments care about their image. Big companies like Coca-Cola and Nestle wanted to rank well in Oxfam’s Behind the Brands campaign (2012-2017) to maintain a good reputation. Greenpeace’s campaigns against brands on social media, outside shops, and by pressuring partners, do impact companies’ reputations and hence popularity.
All societies benefit from strong accountability mechanisms. For example, being able to vote out a local politician can push those with greater power to change. However, this is often not the case. A team in India built the website ipaidabribe.com which was used over a thousand times to highlight corruption, but this did not lead to a general crackdown on corruption. Community education done by the same team, however, did result in an increase of students willing to refuse to pay a bribe, from 23% to 47% being more opposed to paying bribes.**
A “Where-level” campaign to get a government to publish its budgets allows the public and other institutions worldwide to hold it to account.
Campaigns that change Where information is Distributed, Accessed and even better, increase Transparency and Accountability, can have long-term positive impacts on the systems that govern our lives. However, people at an even deeper level of the system decide the conditions for information processes to work within.
** Source: I paid a bribe: Participatory website to combat corruption in India, https://participedia.net/case/5579
During the Tunisian revolution of 2010-2011, mass protests spread across the country, prompting the government to tighten its control over information. In late December 2010, the towns of Thala and Kasserine, located near the Algerian border, faced severe repression as protests erupted.
Tunisian authorities knew the power of media. The police blocked roads, isolated the towns, and violently suppressed the demonstrations to prevent any information from leaking out.
Despite the government’s efforts to suppress information, local residents and activists needed to find a way to document and share evidence of police brutality. With poor internet access and few smartphones available, they faced the challenge of getting their footage to the outside world. The activists took four steps:
-
Access: Residents used mobile phones and pocket cameras to capture footage of the violence.
-
Distribution: Activists then transferred this footage to memory cards and ingeniously concealed the cards inside sneakers. These sneakers were thrown over the border into Algeria, where the memory cards were transported to Tunis.
-
Transparency: In Tunis, activists uploaded the videos online, which eventually reached Al Jazeera’s news desks.
-
Accountability: The shocking footage turned what could have been a local tragedy into national news, startling Tunisians across the country and setting the stage for a widespread uprising.
This case illustrates how residents and activists effectively created hybrid networks of information, combining human and non-human elements to bypass government control and make critical information accessible.
Read more:
Lim, M. (2013). Framing Bouazizi:‘White lies’, hybrid network, and collective/connective action in the 2010–11
Tunisian uprising. Journalism, 14(7), 921-941.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1464884913478359
In 1992 the Nigerian government established the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) to address theft, unrest, and other serious crimes in Nigeria. However, members of this unit were accused of abusing their power and committing crimes such as rape, unjust murders, extortion, and oppression of citizens. Due to these accusations, an ENDSARS movement began in 2017, demanding change. The SARS faced multiple bans, being officially banned four times between 2017 and 2020. Despite these bans, SARS continued its operations.
Activists knew that new tactics were required, so used social media to escalate:
-
Access, Distribution & Transparency: In 2020, a video surfaced online showing a SARS officer shooting a young man at a hotel in Lagos, taking his car, and driving away.
-
Demands for Accountability: This video ignited outrage among Nigerians, who demanded the permanent disbandment of SARS and an end to police brutality and human rights violations by law enforcement agencies.
-
#ENDSARS movement resurgence: A series of online / physical nationwide protests.
-
Huge awareness: The hashtag #ENDSARS trended with over 28 million tweets and received international solidarity.
-
Movement crowdfunding: The feminist group, Feminist Coalition (FemCo) used apps like twitter (X) and WhatsApp to crowdfund for the movement to organize more protests and continue its work. Nigerians at home and abroad donated to the cause.
Activists shared protest locations quickly Where they could have the most influence on the system. They began protests on the 8 of October 2020 in two major ways:
-
Spontaneous Gatherings: Non-typical activists led protests by meeting at locations and calling others to join through WhatsApp or Twitter to make them aware of their location, which with a fast turnaround, resulted in protest marches or the shutdown of major roads (the How level of the system).
-
Pre-Planned Protests: Activists identified and shared specific locations via Twitter (X) for planned protests. An example is the Lekki Toll Gate protest, which garnered the attention of the Lagos State Governor, who addressed the protesters.
Despite being largely decentralized, Nigerian youths united around five key demands:
-
Immediate release of all arrested protesters;
-
Psychological evaluation and retraining of disbanded SARS officers before redeployment;
-
Compensation for all victims of police brutality;
-
Investigation and prosecution of errant police officers;
-
and Increased police salaries.
The #ENDSARS movement achieved partial success:
-
The Lagos State government compensated some victims of police brutality.
-
The government disbanded the SARS unit on 11 October 2020, a few days after the protests started. However, a lot of Nigerians were skeptical, and rightfully so, as similar disbandments were done in the past which seemed just like empty promises.
On the 5th of June, 2021, the Nigerian government banned the use of Twitter in the country due to claims that the platform was used for “subversive purposes and criminal activities.” The government then lifted the ban on January 13, 2022.
Although achieving minimal to little success, the ENDSARS movement highlighted the power of social media as a tool for solidarity, strength, and planning. It also highlighted the importance of every human's right to access information and connect with others in the fight for justice and human rights.
The 20th of October still serves as a reminder to all Nigerians of all who died unjustly fighting for their rights to freedom and against all forms of oppression.
Read more:
https://qz.com/africa/1916319/how-nigerians-use-social-media-to-organize-endsars-protests
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54531449
Who decides we need to rebuild a raft to go down the river, when there’s a store selling dinghies just a mile away?
Rules and Rulemakers
The people or groups who set rules have a lot of power. This can include governments, company directors, religious leaders, or even natural forces. Rules can be boundaries, laws, contracts, or social expectations. For example, the rules that allow corporations to fund election campaigns let those corporations influence political decisions.
A “Who-level” campaign could focus on changing the rules that are made by governments and corporations, but it can be expensive to access those spaces. At the UN climate conference COP28, there were 2,400 corporate lobbyists, more than the delegates from the ten countries most vulnerable to climate change combined.
The ability to self-organize
It is not enough just to influence “the rules” to change a system. A successful system can adapt and change any part of itself at the Where, How or What levels in order to survive. This uses raw materials (like DNA components in nature), variety (flexible approaches) and a selection process (prioritization).
A "Who-level" campaign needs to understand which rule-setters can adapt and what they need to make changes. This includes knowing what evidence (raw materials) they need, how flexible they are (adaptability and vision) and what they value (like votes, reputation or profit). Then, we can plan how to activate them to support our goals.
Campaigns that focus on the Who level by targeting the Rules, the Rulemakers and their Ability to self-organize can create long-term systemic change. But there is one layer deeper that campaigns can go to have truly lasting change.
In 1972, the Cree community in northern Quebec discovered that their land was threatened by a massive hydroelectric project planned by the Quebec government, which would submerge their villages and disrupt their way of life.
The Cree community set out to prevent the construction of the dams and protect the Cree lands and way of life.
-
Targeting the rules of the system:
-
Legal Campaign: The Cree organized a legal campaign and won an initial injunction against the project. Although this was overturned, it highlighted their legal rights.
-
Negotiations and Agreements: After legal setbacks, the Cree negotiated the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA), which promised health, education, and protection of their resources in exchange for allowing the first dam's construction.
-
-
Changing leadership and targeting new rulemakers:
-
Formation of the Grand Council: Eight Cree communities formed the Grand Council to lead the campaign, shifting leadership to younger, dynamic members.
-
-
Making the dangers mainstream: High-profile activities to raise awareness
-
Nonviolent direct action: The Grand Council used protests and built a symbolic boat that they then paddled to New York City, gaining significant media coverage and political support.
-
Partnerships: The Cree partnered with environmental groups and ran educational campaigns.
-
Educational and media campaigns: were used to raise awareness in Canada and the U.S., highlighting the environmental and social impacts of the dams.
-
-
Leveraging powerful relationships: Cities and Hydro-Quebec
-
After paddling to New York City, the Cree successfully negotiated with its Mayor to reject the electricity from the Hydro-Quebec project. Once New York agreed, the Cree were able to persuade others too, forcing the company to stop the second phase of the project.
-
By applying pressure through legal means and direct action, the Cree changed the rules of the system and used their power to protect their land and influence future projects on their terms:
-
The Cree's innovative campaign and strategic use of legal and direct action methods led to the indefinite postponement of the second phase of the James Bay project in 1994.
-
The Cree were able to negotiate better terms for any future projects, ensuring their land and rights were protected and that they had a say in development decisions.
Note: For more insight into how the Cree allowed their movement to evolve, leadership to transition and find campaign success, see Chapter 25: Endings are Beginnings.
Read more:
The Cree Nation of Waskaganish: The James Bay Project https://waskaganish.ca/the-james-bay-project/
Non Violent Direct Action database: https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/cree-first-nations-stop-second-phase-james-bay-hydroelectric-project-1989-1994
The Link Newspaper: The Hydroelectric Crises - The Fight to Live in the North, https://thelinknewspaper.ca/article/the-hydroelectric-crises-the-fight-to-live-in-the-north
“Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.” - Archimedes
concept: systems, levels & levers
story: the chipko movement, india
what how where who why
What are the outputs of the system and the parameters constraining it?
WHAT
story: planting banana trees to
shame authorities into
action, zimbabwe
How does the system function through interactions, feedback loops and delays?
HOW
“A system just can’t respond to short-term changes when it has long-term delays.” - Donella Meadows
story: greenwash allows global
plastic pollution to
increase worldwide
Where and when is information flowing, and to whom?
WHERE
“If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” - Malcolm X
story: violence during the
tunsian revolution
2010-2011
story: endsars movement &
the fight to end police
brutality, nigeria
Who holds power to set the rules and structures of the system?
WHO
“If you want to understand the deepest malfunctions of systems, pay attention to the rules, and to who has power over them. That’s why my system intuition was sending off alarm bells while the new world trade system was explained to me. It is a system with rules designed by corporations, run by corporations, for the benefit of corporations. Its rules exclude almost any feedback from any other sector of society. Most of its meetings are closed even to the press (no information flow, no feedback). It forces nations into positive loops “racing to the bottom,” competing with each other to weaken environmental and social safeguards in order to attract investment and trade. It is a recipe for unleashing “success to the successful” loops, until they generate enormous accumulations of power and huge centralized planning systems that will destroy themselves, just as the Soviet Union destroyed itself, and for similar systemic reasons.” - Meadows, Leverage Points, 1999
story: cree campaign against
hydro electric project,
usa
_edited_edited.png)
Why does the system exist, what values and goals does it seek to uphold?
WHY
Why do we cross the river? If it is for fun, we might want to overcome challenges. If it is necessary, it might be to get supplies our community needs.
These reasons come from mindsets or ways of thinking that have conditioned us - like the need to “conquer” our environment. These mindsets shape the reality that we live in. We have created this reality ourselves.
Goals
The goals of a system are fundamental. We can understand them by looking at what a system or person does, not just what they say they do. Goals can include survival, living in harmony, or growth.
American environmental educator and activist, Donella Meadows cites John Kenneth Galbraith’s view that the corporate goal is to engulf and dominate everything. A “Why-level” campaign understands the reason for a system’s actions. Unfortunately there are certain instances where the ‘why’ is fixed and non negotiable - for example, you cannot negotiate with the fungus on the International Space Station. Its only goal is to grow.
Mindsets and Paradigms
Mikhail Gorbachev wanted to evolve the Soviet Union. He was the Who that opened information flows (glasnost) and changed the economic rules (perestroika). Change happened but not in the way he hoped, because previous Soviet leaders had fractious relationships with others whose support his country needed to make his vision work. This led to chaos rather than complexity. He could not stop the collapse of the Soviet Union.
We live in systems grown from myths and stories. Societies have an idea of what’s “fair,” that growth is good, that money has value, that nature is there for us to use. While individuals can change their minds quickly, it takes longer for powerful people to act on those changes. A “Why-level” campaign exposes failures, places changemakers into public and private spaces who speak loudly and frequently, and works with the middle masses to shift public opinion.
It takes courage to recognise that we live in a series of paradigms and step out of those limiting beliefs. Doing so has led people to shake off addiction and even start religions. A “Why-level” campaign believes in the potential and capacity of others to act and believes, as Arundhati Roy put it, that “Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
Campaigns that target the Why level by seeking to change system Goals, Mindsets and Paradigms have a chance to secure real lasting change for everyone in that system. Populist politicians use crises to shape their own narratives and attract the public. If we can shift narratives at times of crisis, we can create sustained impact. It may take decades or hundreds of years to win - but this is the point of most leverage.
By 2016, Colombia had been ravaged by 60 years of a brutal and massive civil armed conflict that included more than 500,000 homicides, 100,000 disappearances, and 8 million people that were forced to leave their homes and territories. But the Colombian government believed in the potential of its people to coexist peacefully. It needed to cultivate a new mindset to enable this. As part of a larger legal, political and judicial framework agreed in the Peace Accord signed in 2016 with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the government established an independent Truth Commission specifically to:
-
Clarify what happened during the decades of conflict and its impacts on all citizens
-
Promote the recognition of:
-
All those affected as citizens.
-
All those individually and collectively, directly and indirectly, responsible.
-
The legacy of violence to be rejected and never repeated.
-
-
Promote coexistence, in creating an environment for peaceful resolution of conflicts as well as tolerance and democracy.
To do this, the Truth Commission set out to change the mindset or paradigm that had taken hold of Colombia: a culture of silence built on a deep-rooted association between truth and fear, punishment and pain.
Based on the four pillars of the transitional justice framework that guided the Peace Accord — truth, justice, reparations and no repetition — the Commission understood that in order to change Colombians’ mindset, Colombians themselves needed to tell the story in its full complexity —not the “official” story, but a multidimensional, nuanced narrative that listened to and integrated multiple voices.
The Truth Commission created a detailed three-year work plan, which included a National Communication Strategy to help all Colombians understand and publicly discuss the complexity of the conflict, allowing them to contribute and lay the foundations to avoid any repetition of what happened. The Strategy supported the Commission's work as well as the public, educational and outreach activities related to publication of the Commission final report, “There is Future if There is Truth”, including a legacy transmedia platform.
The strategy was informed by research commissioned regarding the Colombian cultural mindsets around the truth and the social archetypes associated with it, as well as key insights from the role of communication in Transitional Justice: “the process of humanizing those who have been systematically dehumanized can only happen in the arena in which the dehumanization took place: the public discourse shaped by the media and politics”.*
The Commission took the following steps to reach the Colombian people and build a new paradigm:
-
Narrative shift: Amplify the voices and resilience of survivors and victims to:
-
Show a deeper, more complex picture of the conflict, its scale, and impacts.
-
Show how they were creating a better future in which the conflict would not be repeated.
-
“Propose analytical positions to the country that went beyond the ideological places to which we are accustomed”
-
Emphasize truth, memory, social, and cultural justice, and reparations to help the population move forward.
-
-
Key stakeholders and communities: Target all Colombians but in particular those communities in heavily affected regions, including those who were previously overlooked and were critical to rebuilding relationships such as:
-
Indigenous peoples.
-
Black, Afro-Colombian, Raizal, Palenquero and Rom communities.
-
Campesinos and other rural communities.
-
The Commission also worked specifically with the most trusted people in those communities.
-
-
Trusted messengers and channels: The Commission created cultural partnerships and collaborated with:
-
Artists, art and cultural organizations.
-
Authors and comic book writers.
-
Large-, medium- and small-scale media.
-
Community radio.
-
Digital media and social media channels.
-
-
Values: The Commission upheld the values underpinning its own goals, which it understood were in line with what the Colombian people wanted:
-
Transparency: The Commission maintained a transparent approach, providing extensive information on its website, including legal frameworks, contracts, and open data, which built public trust. This can be seen for example in the work that the Human Rights Data Analysis Group did for the Commission.
-
Recognition: As mentioned above, the Commission worked hard to reach out to all those affected and encourage dialogue. It also included an open dialogue with the public (people could send questions about the conflict, the Truth Commission, and the Peace Accord), and a regular open system to track the implementation of it activities ("rendición de cuentas")
-
Coexistence: Messaging centered around the idea of “never again” (that these events never be repeated) and collective memory, using the resistance and survival experiences of those affected as the foundation for those demands.
-
-
Empowering spaces for participation, interaction and learning:
-
Public events including artistic and cultural activations, exhibitions.
-
Book series, and comic books for children, used in activities across the country.
-
Digital engagement strategy targeted at younger audiences.
-
Outreach via large, medium and small-scale media.
-
Offline dialogues.
-
-
Concise messaging: The Commission centered its work, collaborations, partnerships and messaging around the idea of No Repetition. This came through via:
-
“Evergreen” (atemporal) media products that could be used again and again.
-
Outreach to communities.
-
Local media networks, including community radio.
-
Art and cultural activations.
-
Editorial and media products.
-
Content tailored to different demographics, particularly children and the elderly.
-
A whole editorial collection that explored keywords related to conflict, future, memory, and truth (there is one about Communication), exhibitions, podcasts, comics, plays, and much more.
-
Digital strategy targeting younger audiences.
-
The Truth Commission was arguably successful in meeting its first two objectives. It provided a deeper and public understanding of the nature and complexity of the conflict, allowing citizens and society at large to recognize and reconcile with their roles and shared responsibilities, and ultimately, contribute to setting the basis for a progressive and long-term cultural and social shift around memory, social justice, and recognition.
Source:
*p2, Changing the Narrative - the Role of Communications in Transitional Justice, https://ifit-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Changing-the-Narrative-The-Role-of-Communications-in-Transitional-Justice.pdf
Read more:
Colombia Truth Commission National Communication Strategy: https://archivo.comisiondelaverdad.co/estrategia-nacional-de-comunicaciones
Colombia Truth Commission Legacy Media Platform: https://www.comisiondelaverdad.co/
Institute for Integrated Transitions, Changing the Narrative: The role of Communications in Transitional Justice https://ifit-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Changing-the-Narrative-The-Role-of-Communications-in-Transitional-Justice.pdf
Before the Peace Accord negotiations ended in 2016, President Juan Manuel Santos’ government decided (without any legal obligation to do so) to call a referendum so that the Colombian people could effectively “approve” the process and its final outcome. The government’s hope was the referendum would show that a majority of the public and political system supported the process. It assumed that a good result would continue to cultivate a change in mindsets and a change in the paradigm because of that. However this was already a highly divisive process and decision at the time.
The question of the referendum was: “Do you support the final agreement to end the conflict and build a stable and lasting peace?” The government ran a “Yes” campaign. The Yes vote received 49.8% of votes, but the No received 50.2%.
The government made the following mistakes:
-
Underplayed the risks of doing something that wasn’t necessary: The government did not need to hold a popular referendum, since the Peace Accord was due to become part of the Constitution. This risked the objective of achieving social and public support.
-
Misunderstanding the narrative:
-
The government engaged with the political narratives of the negotiations, not with a narrative around the benefits of the peace accords. This allowed misinformation to take hold and fuel public mistrust and opposition.
-
The government argued that the objective of the peace process (of which the referendum was a key part) was to "end the conflict”. The FARC was not the only actor in the larger civil/violent conflict, and so the Peace Process would not stop other illegal activities related to land grabs and the drug trade.
-
-
Misunderstanding key audiences and over reliance on polls:
-
There was very little public support for anything related to FARC. Being the oldest guerilla group, the one that had more military/territorial power and that committed some of the "worst" heinous crimes, their public perception was, largely, extremely negative.
-
The campaign relied too heavily on opinion polls, which initially showed strong support but failed to accurately track changing public opinion, resulting in a narrow 51-50% split in the final vote.
-
More conservative and right-leaning citizens weren't talking openly in public spaces about voting NO, so there was less visibility of the oppositional perspective.
-
-
Neglect of key communities and their social networks: The government tried to build a cohesive and large campaign, both digital and offline, but it failed to address the importance of local and community networks, especially how they communicate. The government disregarded or underplayed:
-
The way media was consumed and circulated socially
-
The incentives that different people/actors had to promote mis/disinformation
-
The importance of digital networks and messaging apps like WhatsApp for family/friends/community communication
-
The influence of legacy media (print media, TV, radio and advertising) and its digital circulation.
-
-
Using the wrong messengers: The government and its Yes campaign did manage to use relevant cultural figures (singers, footballers, artists), but took other steps that countered this, for example:
-
The campaign failed to find trusted spokespeople who could bridge the divide from different regions.
-
It relied on polarizing figures, in particular the Colombian President at the time, Juan Manuel Santos, to share their message widely:
-
Santos had served as Defense Minister under the previous President Alvaro Uribe, the Peace process’ highest profile opponent. But when Santos was elected as President (mainly because of his work in government), he decided to make the Peace Accords happen. Many Colombians felt angry and betrayed by this.
-
Uribe’s Democratic Center ran the No campaign, which emphasized this sense of betrayal by Santos, and indignation to Santos' government and anything related to the Peace process (“salir a votar verracos”).
-
-
-
Lack of sensitivity to cultural values: The referendum campaign did not sufficiently address the deep-seated attitudes and behaviors shaped by 60 years of war, overlooking the importance of psychosocial research, systemic change, deep narrative work, and building strategies that would trigger different responses according to the values of diverse audiences.
-
Bad timing and message management:
-
The government focused the discussion mostly on the political dimension, when it should have explored many others (as the Truth Commission did).
-
The government booked the referendum to take place before the Peace Accord negotiations ended. This meant that all the disagreements during the negotiations affected the Referendum campaign, fuelling the opposition’s arguments.
-
“We live in a time when all elites, whether on the left or the right, believe in rigid rules that say there is no alternative to the present political and economic system.” - Adam Curtis
story: the successes of the
colombia truth
commission, colombia
“What the war left behind was silence, that is why our initial communication attempt was to say that we were not indifferent, that we were putting an end to that stage of silence, honoring the dignity of the victims: their voices and their stories.” -
Colombia Truth Commission National Communications Strategy
story: the challenges of the
colombian national
referendum of the peace accord
between the colombian
government and farc, 2016,
colombia
.png)
tool: excavating system levels
-
Draw out the soil chart shown here.
-
Write out and place sticky notes on the diagram, the different tangible (people, products, things) and intangible (values, beliefs) parts of the system you’re looking at. If there are elements that aren’t key to the system, place them outside the soil sample. They may be above even the top layer.
Life grows from the root. You will find that the best way to shift a system is to go to the root.
Tip: Make time for mistakes. You may realize in this process that you are analyzing the wrong system and need to look deeper at another aspect as a system itself!
