Places to Intervene in the Malaysian Political System

Donella Meadows’ article1 counsels us to focus on critical leverage points in our efforts to effect
change to any particular system. The most helpful element of Meadow’s analysis is her ranking
of the impact of modifications to given leverage-points as it reveals where we have - perhaps
unknowingly - focused on the wrong points(!).

The following table attempts to apply Meadows’ model to the Malaysian socio-political system,
especially in the context of political injustice, oppression, etc. Tentative (pseudo-)conclusions
from applying Meadows’ study to Malaysian politics include:

• It may not be best to focus on political variables like ISA detention figures as a means
of changing the entire system; rather it may help to work at leverage-points which have
greater impact to the system
• Leverage-point no.4, the capacity for self-organisation, is something political parties
can ‘work on’ and excel at over vis-à-vis their opponents
• Leverage-point no.3 and no.2 (the systemic goals and ‘framing story’ respectively) are
certainly worth holding forums over!

(Note: I’ve removed three leverage points as I found them not too applicable, but do read the
original article for clarity).

Leverage Points Explanation / Malaysian

(in ascending order of impact) Key Questions Socio-Political System

9. Parameters, constants, • What variables do we look for • ISA detention figures

numbers to quantify injustice / • No. of arrests for
oppression? corruption
• Provides least leverage and • No. of times ‘brute force’ is
rarely changes behaviour used
• Effective only if their ranges are • Poverty rates
high enough to effect changes in • No. of orang asli villages
other leverage points remaining
• No. of seats won by the
Opposition in parliament

Though these are common and

necessary, targeting the above
rarely creates substantial
change
8. Length of Delays / • How long will measures meant • Effect of new laws, fiscal
Implementation Lags to reverse injustice take to policies, etc.
‘work’? • Court delays, case-
• Time required to obtain desired escalation, etc.
item or for new initiatives to
take effect

7. Negative Feedback • What keeps injustice from • International outcry

loops growing?
• Preventive measures, automatic
stabilizers, ‘corruption fees’,
‘injustice taxes’, etc.
• Domestic protests
• Social networking media
conversation throwbacks
• I’ve uploaded some ideas
based on this theme2

6. Positive Feedback • What causes injustice to grow? • Money politics

loops • Indifference of the people
• Acquiescence of the media
• Acquittal of guilty parties

5. Information Flows • What informational elements • Transparency of political

contribute to or hinder decision-making
injustice? • Spreading of news /
• Adding / restoring / revealing information regarding
information creates injustice
transparency • Conversations
• Raja Petra Kamaruddin is a
good example

4. Self-Organisation • How flexible are the partisan • Ability to organize events?

parties involved? • Ability to communicate
• How learning-oriented / effectively?
adaptive is the populace? • Ability to get new
members?
• Ability to learn new
methods?

3. Goals of the system • What the system ‘does’ • Economic growth /

• Why does Malaysia exist?
What does the average citizen
want?
• The ‘point’ of playing the game
in the first place
prosperity
• Racial harmony
• International recognition
Which goal is helping to drive
injustice? Which goal hinders
it?
2. Paradigms / Framing • Who tells Malaysians the story
Story of Malaysia? From where do
we get our ultimate paradigms
about being a ‘nation-state’?
• What are the paradigms used
to thinking about politics and
political injustice?
• Shared social agreements about
nature of reality
• Dominant political ‘story’?
• Dominant theological
perspective? (hence, the
faith-and-politics models,
for example3)
• What other controlling
stories’ are there?
IMO, it was precisely this
leverage point that Brian
McLaren was trying to get at
with his book Everything Must
Change

1. Ability to change • Highest ability to ‘choose’ The Holy Grail of political

paradigms beyond self-given limitations transformation?
• Strong motivation to listen/learn
because no one paradigm reigns
supreme

What’s worth repeating, according to Meadows, is that the LOWER down the list we focus our
change efforts on, the MORE change we can produce i.e. effective systemic change depends on
targeting the right places.
1
Meadows, D. (1999) Leverage points: Places to intervenein a system, The Sustainability Institute, retrieved on May 24th 2010 from
http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf
2
See my blog-post found at http://alwynlau.blogspot.com/2009/05/recycle-for-justice-gentle-protest-via.html

3
See my blog-post at http://alwynlau.blogspot.com/2009/05/charting-faith-politics.html