What happens when legal system ignores the feedback

Zahira Sheikh has been convicted for contempt of Supreme Court and is in jail. Satnam Bai is being prosecuted for giving false evidence on oath. Bharti Yadav has been declared as a proclaimed offender and may be soon made an accused. What is common in all the three cases?

They are victims. Zahira Sheik lost most of her near ones in Best Bakery incident. Satnam Bai’s husband was killed in 1984 riots. Bharti Yadav was going to marry a man who was murdered.

Legal system refuses to acknowledge and incorporate the feedback effect on the victims. Instead of incorporating the realities of the victim-survivors and the pulls and pressures they go through, the legal system adheres to their strict rules of evidence and procedures. In these cases, the issues of varying versions given at different times come up at the trial. The legal system refuses to appreciate the pulls and pressures of the victims that lead to these varying versions. For instance, the pressure on Bharati Yadav by her don-politician father and brother has to be factored in. Further the court makes it even more difficult for the victims by not allowing facilities like video conferencing for presenting the evidence, when Bharati Yadav seems to be pressurized for not coming in India. On the other hand, the legal system pronounces the victim as ‘proclaimed offender’. The pressure on the victim - worry about the child’s future, ties with the perpetrators of the crime, fear of the powerful people in the society, distrust of the objectivity of the police – in changing the versions are just ignored. The same is true in other socially-relevant cases like dowries, rape or domestic violence.

In cases of riots, where the crimes could be committed by high and powerful ones, legal system refuses to factor in the reality where the prosecution could be half-hearted in presenting the complete evidence.

Should the legal system incorporate this ‘feedback effect’ and help ensure justice? Should the legal system help the survivor-victim in teasing apart the strands of the case instead of putting them in the docks? Should legal system draft new rules of evidence and legal procedures to ensure that all the evidence is brought on the table? Surprisingly, very few legal luminaries are even concerned about these aspects of justice. Rakesh Shukla, a Supreme court advocate, seems to be an exception.

Because, when legal system does not incorporate these feedback effects, it unknowingly subverts justice, which it is supposed to ‘offer’ in the first place.

Social planners need non-linear thinking to generate better outputs with lesser effort

Because social entrepreneurs attempt to influence the ‘social’ system - be it anti-dowry, fighting child labour, AIDS, or causes like Narmada Bachao Andolan - which is much larger than one can encompass in an organizational boundary, they have to learn to use non-linear thinking to find better leverages to influence the ‘system’, otherwise they tend to spend disproportionate time, effort and money to exert any influence.

Their first obstacle in finding leverages is their linear thinking. Linear thinking means ‘x’ causes ‘y’. This makes them presume that social causes can ‘sustain’ on the strength of decibel level, if they have money. If they do not have money, they believe that social objectives can be achieved by sheer commitment and effort. Both are simplistic cause-effect relationships.

A social system is highly interrelated. Our beliefs, which are part of a social system, have a long historical history. They therefore are manifested in many of our behaviors, both private and social. Removing their ‘linkages’ with so many behaviors is not only time-consuming but evokes huge amount of resistance. Overt resistance can at least be addressed consciously, covert resistance is both difficult to notice and explicate. It is downright ‘impractical’ to assume that beliefs, howsoever wrong they may seem to some, can be ‘changed’ by rationale explanation, commitment of effort or just drowning people in the decibel level.

Understanding of social system- as objectively as one can do so – by explicitly accepting one’s own mental models is important for any social activist. But this understanding is not enough. It is equally important to map this system with a tool so that one can find leverage points that can drive change.

A non-linear thinking tool set is therefore a first prerequisite in the hands of social planners, activists, NGO’s and Government policy makers. Without this tool set, even a committed effort can result into nothing.

With no such tool set, many social entrepreneurs start with hope and noble intentions but end up with lot of frustration and struggle; and a lost cause.

Systems thinking is more useful for social planners

When I read that Warren Buffet has donated a huge sum of money to Bill Gates foundation for meeting social objective, I realized one of the curious anomalies that exist.

Systems thinking is more useful for understanding ‘open systems’ like society than closed systems like organizations. A foundation like Bill Gates foundation therefore needs to use 'open characteristics' of a system and exploit its characteristics. Unfortunately, these social activists and planners use the 'closed' system characteristics more than ‘open characteristics’ of a system, perhaps because all the 'management teaching' is based on closed system principles.

For instance, western police try to use closed system principles for monitoring criminal activities in a society much more than using the open system principles. It is well known that Mumbai police use social ‘networks’ better to monitor criminals instead of using the highly advanced technological systems used by Western police force.

An article on Trichy police, Page number 47, in Business World of 3 July 2006 explains how open system principles can be used with advantage.

The above article shows how the community itself can be used effectively to monitor criminals and perhaps even prevent them for becoming criminals. Some of the ideas quoted in the article are

• Using police to help community in street lighting and other issues to gain the community’s trust and confidence
• Inviting community to become part of the policing system, through use of suggestion boxes
• Creating a system to complain, even anonymously, so that community believes that it is being heard
• Using NGO's like self help group of women to counsel women ( who are divorcees, who are wives of difficult men like drunkards and small criminals ) to help them start new businesses
• Using NGO's to address the specific professional issues of fisherman to help them avoid criminal activities
  Running an ex-convict rehabilitation program with NGO to ensure that criminals do not 'return' to crime

This is an excellent example of using the open-system nature of society to achieve social objectives at lower cost. Of course this will entail changes in the way we have organized police force, in the principles by which we train the police force, and above all, by the way we view social governing systems.

Historically researchers in Systems thinking have always found application of systems thinking more in social systems than in organizational systems. Urban transportation, population dynamics, ecological systems have been a favorite hunting ground for systems thinkers.

Despite this large amount of ideas, social planners, NGO’s, policy planners and Government officials have not used systemic thinking in their work. In this blog we shall explore the different facets of systemic thinking useful for these individuals.