WeekendAnalysis

government represented by the Muslim Brotherhood—not an endgame most people anticipated or wanted. “So, herein lies yet another lesson: What may appear to be fundamental change isn’t really change at all or may be change for the worse,” he warned. This sentiment is corroborated by what is happening in Tunisia today. While Tunisians thought that ousting Ben Ali, through radical means, would bring them a better life, the opposite has been true. This has resulted in endless protests and riots that began in January 2021 as the people have failed to realise the Tunisia they dreamt of.

Libya is another classic example of what radical political change can do. Open democracy - an independent global media organisation – published an article in 2021 titled ‘What exactly is happening in Libya?’ which stated that instead of uniting the country, the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi threw Libya into even more instability - with groups that had come together to remove Gaddafi, now turning on each other.

ORGANISATION

Since 2011, the organisation outlined, Libya has gone through several government changes, which has led to a long stretch of both political and economic instability. Deep rooted tensions between old tribal allegiances were sparked back up, and various local militia groups refused to lay down their weapons. Any attempts by governments to regulate these groups simply escalated their violence, it was said; and this situation still persists. That’s what radical change can give birth to; a situation far worse than your previous or current state.

In Eswatini, you cannot overthrow the monarchy through violent means; do away entirely with the institution of the monarchy; turn Eswatini from a kingdom into a republic; dismantle the Tinkhundla System of Government and replace it with a multi-party system; collapse the judiciary by firing all judicial officers; overhaul the entire education system; and other wholesale changes, all at once, and still expect to have a normally functioning country.

Incremental change, on the other hand, is more likely to result in a future that is more stable and progressively developmental. On October 14, 2020, Robert Longley, writing for premier reference site ThoughtCo, explained that ‘incrementalism’ in government and political science is a method of achieving sweeping changes in public policy through the enactment of small policy changes over time. For incrementalism to succeed, he wrote, there was need for mutual interaction, input, and cooperation among a multiplicity of individuals and groups representing different values and interests. To best express the process of incrementalism, Longley referred to this old idiom: ‘How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!’ When Prince David handed over the country’s Constitution during Sibaya in 2005, he made mention in his report that this document would from time to time be subjected to changes (amendments) so that it remained in tune with the citizens’ aspirations. ‘One bite at a time’, the Constitution can be enjoyed without upsetting anyone’s stomach. Longley noted that incrementalism is politically expedient, seeing that it is a safer and less traumatic alternative to sudden, sweeping changes. He said by incorporating the input of all interests, solutions achieved through incrementalism tend to be more easily accepted by the public. Since we desire change that will be acceptable to a majority of citizens, doing so incrementally would best suit emaSwati.

When addressing the subject of ‘radical versus incremental change’, the Citizenlab, whose mission is to build stronger democracies by making public decision-making more inclusive, participatory and responsive, states that ‘slow and steady wins the race’. It said by using incremental means, a government could reduce the risk and focus on trying to improve the system they already have in place, rather than starting from scratch and creating a new one. “The point of incremental change is to grease the machine, making a more efficient model than what existed prior to the change. Gradual change is a more stable approach to problems that do not require sporadic change and allow for sustainable and continuous improvement,” writes the Citizenlab.

There are a number of leaders, even though they are not in the political space, who are known for applying incremental change and whose experiences can be applied to achieve a political result. One of these is James Dyson - a British inventor, engineer and entrepreneur. He is known for inventing the dual cyclone type of vacuum cleaner and other airflow-based appliances, which made his company, Dyson Ltd, internationally successful and worth billions of pounds. His process of invention involves taking existing designs and gradually iterating upon them until the right version is found. That takes a lot of patience, and a systematic type of longterm thinking. Dyson explains this as such: “I made 5127 prototypes of my vacuum before I got it right.

SOLUTION

There were 5126 failures. But I learnt from each one. That’s how I came up with a solution.”

There is Marian Wright Edelman - an American activist for children’s rights, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, and originator of the well-known phrase ‘no child left behind’. Throughout a long career in advocacy, leadership and legal practice, Edelman achieved countless positive outcomes, driven by a long-term desire to see equality and opportunity for children and minorities in the United States. She believes that change is made over the long term with incremental efforts, and her view on incrementalism is this: “If you don’t like the way the world is, you change it. You have an obligation to change it. You just do it one step at a time.”

Dave Brailsford - a British cycling coach and former performance director of British Cycling, the governing body for the sport throughout the United Kingdom (UK) – is another example. He is best known for popularising the term ‘marginal gains’ when applied to incremental improvements in any discipline. Brailsford took an underperforming Great Britain cycling team in 2003 - who had won a single Olympic gold medal in almost 100 years, and not a single Tour de France - and led them to a period of dominance, winning six Tours and multiple gold medals in less than a decade. He describes the marginal gains philosophy in these words: “The whole principle came from the idea that if you broke down everything you could think of that goes into riding a bike, and then improve it by one per cent, you will get a significant increase when you put them all together.”

Having considered all these, Fingerprint for Success - a professional and personal development platform, points out three benefits of incremental change; longterm success, accomplishments (rather than getting overwhelmed with big ideas, you’ll actually get things done, one step at a time) and reliability (success over time is evidence that you’re to be trusted and relied upon by anyone). The much-anticipated national dialogue process should seek to achieve change that will be accepted, relied upon and trusted by emaSwati. Radical change is not the suitable route to take.