Current Issue - See Below    Archived Issues - Click Here        PDF Version

The Global Systems Review Issue 20  November 2010

The Global Systems Review is a periodic e-newsletter that explores critical world issues through the lens of whole systems thinking.

This issue addresses the political gridlock following the recent mid-term U.S. elections, and asks the question: “How can we move from partisanship to partnership?”

In this Issue:

• Until We Remember… – Divisiveness is our brokenness; unity our unbreakability.

• Reaching Across the Aisle – Mark Gerzon shares his experiences with cross-the-aisle endeavors during previous administrations.

• A Simple, Complex Journey – Glenda Eoyang looks at the patterns in partisanship and partnership and how to change them.
  

Until We Remember…
By Louise Diamond

We are broken
And we will not be mended
Until we remember
That we are unbreakable

I wrote those words in reference to Bosnia after the war there in the mid-90s. They seem relevant today to the extreme political partisanship in the U.S.

In fact, I see many parallels between the our red/blue polarization and the divisions between parties in various ethnic conflicts I’ve worked with over the years: the demonization and de-humanization of ‘the other;’ the framing of everything in an ‘us versus them’ mode; the inability to solve common problems because the adversarial relationship takes all the energy and attention; the elevation of ‘winning’ above all else; and the extremists punishing anyone attempting to reach across the divide.

The main difference is that in ethnic conflict these dynamics both result in and are the result of violence. So far here the violence is only verbal, though hints of encouragement to do physical violence have already appeared and the door to this path has been opened.

The brokenness is easy to see in Israel and Palestine, or between the Croats, Serbs, and Muslims in Bosnia, or the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, or between the Catholic and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Here we are just starting to realize how broken we have become with our divisiveness. Not only is our political system gridlocked by extreme partisanship, but that gridlock insures that we are unable to act on the critical issues we face, internally and globally. We’ve heard it before: ‘A house divided cannot stand.’ With the world as it is today, this red/blue divide is feeding our potential collapse.

So what does it mean to remember we are unbreakable in this situation? It means to remember the ground on which we stand. We are one nation. We are one nation that has an important role to play in our one world. We are one people whose strength and integrity lies in our diversity. We share one aspiration – to live with dignity, freedom, and security with ourselves and others, and as a beacon in a troubled world.

So the path out of brokenness is to remember our unity; to hold it higher than all our differences; to build on it and strengthen it every way we can. The action element of unity is partnership. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, Greens – all of the ways we define ourselves politically – are in relationship to that larger whole that is our country. Our choice is to focus our attention on competing with each other or to turn our attention to acting together, as true partners, to address the very real and dangerous issues that threaten our well-being and viability.

So the question becomes, what is the way to get from brokenness back to our unbreakability; from divisiveness and separation back to unity and partnership?

Let’s take a lesson from peacebuilding in ethnic conflicts. The answer there has proven to be three basic steps that are simple but not easy:

1. Activate the will. Set the clear intention to work together in mutual respect for the good of the whole rather than its parts.

This sounds simple, but in fact tends to be extremely difficult with a leadership that has a vested interest in maintaining the divisiveness. In our case, we also have a powerful coalition of politicians, media, and money aligned against this very vision.

However, in any system, no matter how polarized, there are always some few who see the need and have the courage to reach across the chasm between parties to seek common ground and higher synthesis. Because the polarization tends to be very successful at de-legitimating the moderates, they tend to be fewer in numbers and heavily constrained, and we certainly see this in Congress today. Yet finding and supporting these internal champions – individuals and institutions – is critical. Otherwise, the system will default to further reinforcing its intransigence, and will be extremely vulnerable to any crisis, abrupt event, or ill-intentioned demagogery.


2. Engage in meaningful dialogue: Put aside our tightly held dogmas, slogans, and verbal weapons so we can truly listen and hear the best in one another’s perspectives.
   
   Dialogue is a set of skills that is quite different from our normal way of communicating based on debate and defeat, compromise and horse-trading. In a polarized system, true dialogue usually requires some expert facilitation and training so that the participants can practice making their assumptions explicit, being open to hearing differing views, and finding the creative space that expands the range of options and weaves the best of all perspectives into something new and better.
   
   Often the path to dialogue begins with a handful of brave souls who may not occupy positions of power but have access in those halls, or are willing to be change agents in their communities. Various bi-partisan commissions or working groups are a step in this direction if they are run on the basis of true dialogue. In the peacebuilding world it’s the behind-the-scenes meetings, often called Track 2, like the meetings that led to the Oslo Accords, that fill this need. They are successful to the degree that they are able to bring their new findings and their new relationships into the mainstream and especially into the leadership.
   
   
3. Act Together: Nothing succeeds like success. Several small, jointly-agreed actions, when repeated over time, can build confidence, legitimate cooperation, and ultimately change the culture of separation into one of partnership.

Unfortunately, we may not have the luxury of time to build this new model gradually. We are facing truly dire breakdowns in many of our domestic and global systems that cannot wait for our political leaders to figure out how acting in unity might be more effective than maintaining our divisions. The push may need to come from the bottom up, from the many civil society innovations in all the areas where our political leaders are stuck in inaction.

The trick will be in breaking through the wall that traditionally keeps individuals with special expertise away from decision-makers unless they have clout through lobbyists and large donations. Our leaders often articulate the need for us to be a leader among nations in innovation. We need to help them unlock the doors to true participatory democracy and listen to the people beyond the ballot box.

Reaching Across the Aisle: Innovations in Cross-Party Collaboration
By Mark Gerzon, UN consultant, global facilitator, author; www.markgerzon.com.

[This article was originally published as a chapter in a book, Crossing the Divide: Intergroup Leadership in a World of Difference, Todd Pittinsky, editor. Harvard Business School Press, 2009. Reprinted here by permission of the author.]

All of us are here for a common purpose, to make America a better place. There is and must be room for all our voices to be heard to achieve our common purpose.

Representative Peter Welch, January 5, 2007
On the floor of the House of Representatives.

At a 2007 retreat for US Senate Chiefs of Staff, designed to promote greater cross-party collaboration and dialogue between the Members, the Chief of a well-respected Republican pulled one of the facilitators aside and whispered in his ear.
“If this process gets any traction,” he said in a hushed voice, “the party leaders will squash it like a bug.”

As the editors of this volume correctly observe, there is often an “ingroup/outgroup leadership trade-off,” and nowhere is this clearer than in the Congress of the United States of America. This chapter addresses this subject and poses several questions, including:

• Can partisan leaders work for bipartisan purposes?
• What are the obstacles and rewards for doing so?
• What are the trade-offs between working together “across the aisle” and working effectively within one’s own party?
• Can changes made in off-site laboratories be applied to the real world of Capitol Hill?
• What is the relationship between “group” and “intergroup” leadership?

This chapter addresses these questions based on the author’s experience as a participant-observer in more than a decade of bipartisan “retreats” and “dialogue trainings” with both Members of the US House of Representatives and Chiefs of Staff from both the House and Senate. These experiences provided intimate, off-the-record, personal contact with hundreds of House Members and dozens of Chief of Staff. My observations are based on personal testimony from Members and their Chiefs of Staff, and other primary and secondary sources about the House of Representatives.

To understand the challenge that the House faces as an organization, imagine a corporation divided in half, with roughly fifty percent of the executives on Team A, and the remainder on Team B. To make matters worse, their Team Leaders discourage them from collaborating and encourage them to denigrate the executives on the other team. The corporate culture consequently consists of an avalanche of negative stories and half-truths about their “colleagues” on the opposing team. All executives in this company must be on one team or the other; virtually no “independents” are allowed. And every two years, they ask their “customers” to vote to rehire their own team of executives and fire the other!

If such a divided company existed, it would certainly fail to compete against its competitors. It would be so inefficient that it would ultimately go out of business. Although it continues to function, the U. S. House of Representatives as an institution may face a similar fate. It was designed in the 18th century for a few dozen lawmakers from thirteen states to represent their local communities. Today, in the 21st century, the House of Representatives contains 435 elected officials from four times as many states. Similar to the fictional company described above, they are divided down the middle into two warring parties.

Although many Republicans and Democrats, as individuals, know how to play the role of bridge-builder or “mediator,” the built-in polarization of the two-party system turns the aisle between the parties into chasm. This dividing line often makes moderate leaders on both sides of the aisle feel powerless. Privately, Members of the House from both sides complain bitterly about how their respective party leaders dominate the proceedings to such an extent that they lose their voice.

Even members of the majority party felt disenfranchised by the two-party straightjacket. "You don't seem to understand," one of the most respected and well-placed Republicans representatives confided during a break to one of the moderators. "I am powerless!" Although the House was under Republican control at the time, this senior lawmaker felt so disempowered by the party leadership that he literally felt he could make no difference. Because of this partisan stranglehold on the institution, bipartisan collaboration is in danger of extinction.

Just as the house in which a family lives requires some care from family members, so does the U.S. House of Representatives require care from those who work under its roof. For many years now, Members have cared more for the welfare of their party and their own careers than for the institution. If that neglect can continue, we can expect more leaks in the roof, more unpaid bills, and a house that declines in value.

The men and women serving in the House and Senate do not need outside experts or elaborate research studies to know that repairs are necessary. They need to come together, across the aisle, and speak the truth to each other in a safe, trust-building environment. In such settings, they can decide together what they can do to turn the US House into a genuine home for democracy.

They have done it before; they can do it again; and they should do it soon, before it is too late. The Capitol building may be made of stone, but the process within it is made of trust. It is now time to rebuild that trust.

Why does this matter so much at this point in history? It is not because of some faint-hearted, nostalgic wish for a return Miss Manners-type decorum. On the contrary, it is because of a tough-minded, post 9-11 recognition of the complex, global decisions that face our nation. America cannot fulfill its destiny in the community of nations if our energies are squandered on kneejerk, paralyzing internecine warfare.

Against this backdrop, the question is not why intergroup leadership is rare in the US Congress. The question is how it can emerge at all. To improve these odds, this chapter highlights five innovations developed in a variety of off-site retreats that were “laboratories” in which one could experiment with alternative processes. We address the question: if adapted and incorporated into the workings of the Congress, could these innovations enhance the effectiveness of the institution?

This chapter, then, briefly outlines five innovations that made these off-site experiences effective, and then explores the feasibility of applying these principles to the way the US Congress currently works. [Click here to read the rest of the article and scroll to PAGE 4.]

A Simple, Complex Journey
By Glenda Eoyang, Executive Director, Human Systems Dynamics Institute; www.hsdinstitute.org.

Partisanship and partnership are two versions of the same pattern. Each is characterized by similarities, differences, and connections that have meaning across space and time. The difference between partisanship and partnership is really simple, though it is disguised as a complex problem. It depends on the similarities that bind the two players, the differences that separate them, and the connections that transport information and resources from one to the other.

In a partisanship version of the pattern, the players are similar in their senses of competition and self-preservation; the differences are often exaggerated or (in some political situations) created out of talk rather than real belief or action; and the connections serve only to distort and confuse understanding, learning, and productive work. The partnership pattern, on the other hand, rests on similar hopes for a shared future; differences that enrich and inform complementary actions; and connections that are authentic and transparent. Individuals and groups have three options to move from one pattern to the other:

• Focus on shared opportunities or threats. Certainly partisan groups today could find an unlimited number to choose from.
  
  
• Search for and take advantage of differences that are essential to realize opportunities or avoid threats. This search can become the first “shared opportunity” that will begin to transform the pattern.
  
  
• Establish connections that transmit, rather than distort, diverse perspectives and identities. An honest search for adaptive differences will bring to life connections that define the pattern of partnership.
  

If that sounds simple, it is! All it requires is a desire to move forward rather than to stay stuck in patterns of the past.