4-1- The meaning of transition is the transfer of a system – such as society – from the existing state to another state – usually the desired state. In this discussion, “transition” refers to the economic, political, social, cultural, legal, science and technology situation in a society. In Kenneth Boulding’s classification (Boulding, 1956), such a system is called a societal system. Integrated systems are at the highest level of complexity. for example, Issues such as national development are of a complex nature. In short, it can be said that the complexity of these systems is due to the existence of a large number of factors and quantitative-qualitative relationships (especially qualitativeness due to human intervention), dynamism, a mixture of data availability/lack of data and also malstructure.
Whether transition is assumed as a goal or as a means, the process of transition is at the extremes of complexity; Because it deals with the dynamics of the complex situation. Of course, fixing the problems of complex systems is not necessarily complicated. For example, in a complex system caused by stupidity, going back to fine tuning may be the solution. In terms of system features, in detail and implementation, complexity is also expected.
2-4- The theoretical support for transition are:
Firston the basis of “structural analysis” – that is, determining the internal factors and relationships – of the integrated system. This analysis seeks the answer of “how and why the existing situation occurred?”.
Secondis based on “behavioral analysis”. In this analysis, it deals with the output of the existing situation and is looking for the answer that “What are the behavioral and consequent characteristics of the existing situation – both main and secondary?”.
ThirdIt is taking advantage of the experiences of others. It is assumed that the “transition process” in other societies has more or less the same characteristics. Taking advantage of other people’s transition experiences makes the transition process in a new field easier and cheaper. In other words, the experiences of others are used as a benchmark.
It is necessary to remember that in the opinion and practice, a combination of three approaches is used to understand the existing situation, determine the desired situation and the generality and detail of the transition process. The use of three approaches is recursive and interactive, and it is impossible to consider one of the approaches completely ahead of the others.
Explanation of the agreement of the fourteenth government in the goal-means theorizing
It is clear that the 14th government cannot be regarded as the originator of the multitude of current intertwined problems. In this situation, the 14th government is trying to achieve or get close to which goals by emphasizing reconciliation? It seems that the statement of the head of the government is an answer to the question that “the 14th government made consensus building the basis of its work in order to overcome the differences and add all the capacities and abilities of the country in the way of solving the problems.” (24 Mehr 1403)
In the “end-means” theoretical system, it can be seen that the agreement is only a means to achieve two goals: “solving the country’s problems” and “synergizing all the country’s capacities and capabilities”. In the meantime, it is not clear who the parties to the agreement are. But the actual and potential sides of the agreement can be understood from the movements of the government.
5-1- The parties to the agreement
It is reminded that “agreement” is against “disagreement” and basically corresponds to “agreement” against “disagreement” and disagreement. With the supporters, there is agreement, the desired agreement of the fourth government with the opponents becomes a matter. It is assumed that the national agreement and its parties are desired, not the transnational parties, of course this assumption greatly harms the agreement. Because a large part of the problems are from transnational interactions.
From the point of view of influencing the transition, the parties of the national agreement are in the following three categories:
– Infiltrators,
– Opponents,
– people
These categories overlap, despite the major differences, that is, some influential people are against it, and a large number of people are also in the opposition category. Considering the combined states of the categories, this overlap does not affect the recognition of the situation.
1-1-5- Collusion with influential people
Influential people are not necessarily against the government, but they have strong opinions in the sphere of influence of the head of the executive branch, and some fundamental decisions and actions of the government are subject to their opinions and opinions. They may have an opinion or a position against the government’s opinion in many things; Maybe because of the accident, they have given in to the government of doctors. If the world and people were in accordance with their wishes, they would have asked for another government, but they want doctors to accompany them. In facing such a situation, some fundamental questions are raised:
If the goals and means desired by the influencers are effective or create the current intertwined problems and the influencers are still on their positions, what is the meaning of agreement? Can it be said that in this case, agreement with the influencers is nothing but “surrender” or “compromise”? Is there a line between compromise and surrender? Is it possible to avoid surrender or passive compromise without theoretical support? Do the president and the governments have such support? Is such richness seen in the decisions and actions of the president and the government? In short, will agreement with this uncertain thing lead anywhere in the interaction with the influencers?
2-1-5- Agreement with opponents
1-2-1-5- Opponents of the election and tenure of the president are a colorful spectrum, including opposition influencers, especialists, opponents of democracy, anti-Westerners, Eastern believers, radical reformers, subversives, hopers or those dependent on foreign interference and finally the “group” The so-called shadow government. It is not possible to agree with this spectrum. That is, agreement in any sense with subversives, those who hope for foreign intervention, and dependents of foreign powers is not possible. There is no choice but to choose from this range.
It is clear from the president’s statements that he is seeking an agreement with the moderator and the “so-called shadow government” (Dabas) group. There are many examples for this claim, and the latest one is the recent request from the director of “Dabas” to take over the administration in the 14th government, and if he succeeds, the president has promised to step aside in the next elections in his favor. Wefaq with leaders and Dabas group is an important example for structural and behavioral evaluation and semantic explanation of “Wefaq in the 14th government”.
The managers of the influential media are against; The Debas group does not agree with “the vote of the people” at the beginning of the revolution; They are against the West; They have a theoretical alignment with the East (China and Russia); One of the mentors of the group is clearly anti-development and says that you should not vote for the supporters of development in the parliamentary elections, even if half of the world’s people are killed to destroy the West, it is acceptable. It is interesting that during the presidential election, a long list of actions leading to the destruction of the country’s resources and materials was attributed to the Dabas leader by Mr. Bizikian and another candidate, which leads to hundreds of billions of national losses, if not thousands of billions.
What is the status of agreement with Dabas, which is emphasized by the president, in the goal-means system? Are the goals of Dabas consistent with the goals of the president? It is not in speech. Are doctors anti-development? Can development supporters agree with anti-development supporters? What is such a federalism about and how is it? Are the means intended by Debas to achieve his goals consistent with the means desired by the president? Does this mean that the medical profession also has a problem with democracy, it seeks the destruction of the West, even if half of the world is killed? There are many of these questions.
At least in speech, the positions of doctors regarding goals and means are not like this. In addition, in the statements of the doctors during the elections, he mentioned many of the country’s problems caused by the goals and means of Dabas. Have the goals and means of the Dabas organizers changed after the election? If Dabas is the same as yesterday, what does agreement mean?
2-2-1-5- In terms of goal-means, two “theoretical problems” can be seen in the association of physicians:
First, doctors do not differentiate between “post-election activist” and “election rival”. This error is caused by theoretical poverty. From this discussion, it can be seen that the consensus desired by the 14th government does not have the necessary theoretical support and is merely a glimmer of hope to get rid of the current predicaments, and of course, out of good intentions and naivety, and perhaps out of necessity.
Second, it comes from the doctors’ statements that one of the conditions for the failure of the previous governments was the non-participation of the opposition in the government. This condition is neither necessary nor sufficient and is in conflict with the necessity of meritocracy in the country. You may be unworthy supporters or opponents, who will find authority and value and attack the root of the interests of the people and the government. Of course, this possibility is much higher than the position of fighting with the government. These statements make the meaning of the desired agreement between the head of the government and the statesmen more ambiguous and confused, and the void of coherent theorizing can be clearly seen in it.
3-1-5- Agreement with the people
In the absence of powerful parties and the weakness of public institutions, it is difficult to explain the agreement between the government and the people. If we assume that the people’s vote for the president is at least a sign of agreement – in any sense – with the established government, only about a quarter of the people were in favor of the government for any reason, the rest were turned away or opposed. Here, too, there are a range of opponents – listed previously, such as subversives – with whom the government cannot agree – in any sense. What is the meaning of agreement with opposing or turning away people and how is it possible?
From the goal-means point of view, finding common goals or means agreed upon between the government and the opposing people is of central importance. Fortunately, “national development” can be expressed as the “common goal” of a large range of people. Of course, its verification requires a methodical study. Then “national partnership” will be “common tool” for “national development”. It appears from some statements of the 14th government that it seems to have such a position. Therefore, apparently, the meaning of “cooperation” or “coalition” of the government with the people will be opposed to a part of the “people”.
In practice, gaining trust and creating hope and attracting people’s participation is an interactive process. That is, it cannot be said which one of these three precedes the other, rather, according to West Churchman’s logical model, to solve a problem in complex networks (Churchman, 1971), one should start with several parallel actions at the same time, not all actions. , deferred to an action. For example, he took a step in strengthening popular institutions and made it easy for popular participation; At the same time as fighting corruption, he increased people’s trust; At the same time as solving people’s problems in the hands of the people increased, the hope for reform increased.
Some basic questions:
Does this type of agreement with the people come from the executive branch? Isn’t such federalism left to the decision of the system, that is, beyond the executive branch? Isn’t it necessary for such agreement to be favorable to democracy in the whole system? Is the structural capacity of the system favorable for such federalism? Is structural change in the system possible for harmony with the people (three-fourths turning away or opposing)? These topics open the ground for “explanation of agreement in transition theorizing”.
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1956. ‘General Systems Theory–The Skeleton of Science’, Management Science, 2: 197-208
• Churchman, C. West, The Systems Approach, NY, Delacorte Press, 1971.
* Reza Ramezani Khurshid Dost, Amir Kabir University of Technology and Iran Systems Science Association
Source: Author’s channel
216216
منبع: www.khabaronline.ir
