Who Brings Change?

You have to thank US President Barak Obama for making the word "Change" a fashionable expression. Thanks to his campaign slogan of - "Change, yes we can," everyone is crazy about the benefits of change.

On the whole, I think President Obama has made some important noises about change. Although I don't agree with his prescription, I think he's rght to want to change America's healthcare system, which remains the most expensive in the OECD but continues to leave millions without access to healthcare. His policies in the Middle East have yet to be fully formed but he did make right sounding noises about change.

However, as much as President Obama has talked about change, one has to ask if things are really going to change. A lot of what he's offered to change remains in the rethoric stage and as far as many in the Middle East are concerned, the ground realities have not changed - Israel continues to violate peace treaties by building illegal settlements without so much as a peep from the Ameriacn government, which helps finance these illegal occupations. If there's anything we should be aware of, it is the unchanging fact that new leadership of any organisation will always talk about change and very often keep the status quo. Existing systems are for the most part so comfortable, that the people who spend their lives fighting the system end up being seduced by it. Chinese history is full of examples of hords of barbarians conquering China and then being seduced by the Chinese way of lfie. The same can almost be said of the Western World. Today, the up and comming powers of the world are China and India and how did they do it? They adapted Western technologies and systems.

So, what exactly is real change? I was reminded of three men in the last few days, thanks to the 20th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall (Which is being covered extensivly in Europe), namely former Soviet President Mikhil Gorbachev, Former State President of South Africa, FW De Klerk and the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzahk Rabin..

What made these men so unique? They were men who fundimentally altered the systems they were brought up in. Gorbachev was no democrat, he was a communist apparatchik at heart. De Klerk was a sicon of the arpatheid system and Rabin was until his seventies a Zionist who fought to for Israel`s right to control various lands. Non of these men set out to change the system they were brought up in but ended up changing their systems fundimentally. Gorbachev ended the Soviet Union, De Klerk ended Arpathied and Rabin introduced the idea of land for peace in the Middle East.

I think what made the changes that these men brought onto their respective systems so profound was the fact that they were part of the system. Non of them wanted to change things radically and that was key to what they did? If you look at Israel, every Prime Minister has failed to make peace gestures the way Rabin did. Nethanyahu and Sharon never had intentions of making peace with the Palestinians, while Barak (who was incidentally a good soldier) failed to imagine the issues the other side would face. Rabin`s partner, Shimon Peres was an intellectual who talked peace but was too much of an intellectual who had no relationship with Israeli people in the same way Rabin could (Rabin was horribly inarticulate and his speeches were dull). Who sounds more believeable on security, a man who spent his life in a classroom or a man who spent his life in the trenches? In South Africa it was something similar, only De Klerk could have persuaded White South Africa that it was time for the system to change.

Needless to say, the changes that these men brought were not always well thought out. The Soviet Union collapsed faster than Gorbachev could manage and so he had to hand over the spotlight to Yeltsin. After Rabin, every Prime Minister has shown no desire to puruse his dreams. Ariel Sharon even went as far as to provoke the seond intifadah.

People who bring change make enemies and its often those who have the most to lose from the system who bring them down. With Gorbachev it was the communist party. De Klerk could not hold back that "black" South Africa wanted a Black Hero (Nelson Mandela). Rabin was not shot by some suicide bomber from the Arab World but by a Jewish Extremist.

It takes courage to bring about change and it often begins with personal changes. Change bringers often suffer and are reviled during their lifetimes. Of the three, De Klerk has probably retained the most respect thanks to the fact that he quietly slipped away from public life. Gorbachev has had to do something similar while Rabin paid with his life.

History is also being in the process of being writen so the way these men are remembered will change according to the times. Gorbachev played a role in the demise of the Soviet Union, yet his most popular successor (Putin) has restored many aspects of the Soviet Union. Israel remains further away from a peace treaty than anytime in history and South Africa is known for signs of ungovernability like corruption, crime and HIV. This can make some nostalgic for old fashioned authoritarianism.

But I believe history may actually be kinder. As popular as some of Putin`s harsher policies may be, few Russians are clamouring for the Soviet Union to come back. White South Africans are happy to vote ANC and think of the Abdullah Peace initiatives of 2002 and 2006 - The idea of Land for Peace exisits.

Change is hard an unpopular but in the end, its often necessary and it takes courage to ensure it happens.