Status quo is maintained because apparently people have vested
interest in the “power game”. They are complacent with the situation
as “continuity is the name of the game”. Any distraction, even if it
is a trivial one, is treated with a frowning gesture and sometimes
with utmost disdain.
For those who are followers due to controlled political system and
indoctrination through education and media, status quo is a “comfort
zone”. Such followers feel irritated if someone gets them out of the
comfort zone. It is because they fear uncertainty outside the status
quo.
Status quo persists mostly because those inside or outside the power
game perceive it as fairly reasonable, logical and worth pursuing.
Such perception is the product of intellectual bankruptcy.
Looking at it from this angle we may find that those who are “in” the game are merely pawns as the possibility of their being eaten up by the more powerful piece is most likely. The possibility exists as the broader spectrum of threats or risks which are ranging from personal aggrandizement to the dearth of creativity and innovation or the ability to adapt to the changing circumstances. In such case the game is mostly stagnated as the desire for continuity outshine the possibility of any progress at all.
Then there are others who are bitterest critic of the status quo. They are mostly outside the power game but they are equally well versed in the gimmick as if they were in the game. Such critics are always welcome in the power game as the more one understands the game the more chances are that one could be annihilated by the game.
The importance of the outside critics or forces against the status quo cannot be undermined. In modern times we have been witnessing big names who showed vision and resilience against the status quo. Karl Marks is one such example. However, a status quo is largely threatened by its internal stagnancy. The problem arises when a certain threshold level is reached. It may be that the power holders outnumber or that quality is being compromised. A reversal or dissatisfaction with the game is evident from this situation. The game suffers from chaos as its magnetism is weakened. But rather than doing away with the game another game is being initiated. Status quo and change move in circles. One circle gives birth to another circles and the game continues by taking different forms. It might look as if the circles are going forward or backward from a utilitarian perspective. The process is generally accepted in the name of “political stability”. That is why, in politics, we start with utopia and end in compromises.
Looking at it from this angle we may find that those who are “in” the game are merely pawns as the possibility of their being eaten up by the more powerful piece is most likely. The possibility exists as the broader spectrum of threats or risks which are ranging from personal aggrandizement to the dearth of creativity and innovation or the ability to adapt to the changing circumstances. In such case the game is mostly stagnated as the desire for continuity outshine the possibility of any progress at all.
Then there are others who are bitterest critic of the status quo. They are mostly outside the power game but they are equally well versed in the gimmick as if they were in the game. Such critics are always welcome in the power game as the more one understands the game the more chances are that one could be annihilated by the game.
The importance of the outside critics or forces against the status quo cannot be undermined. In modern times we have been witnessing big names who showed vision and resilience against the status quo. Karl Marks is one such example. However, a status quo is largely threatened by its internal stagnancy. The problem arises when a certain threshold level is reached. It may be that the power holders outnumber or that quality is being compromised. A reversal or dissatisfaction with the game is evident from this situation. The game suffers from chaos as its magnetism is weakened. But rather than doing away with the game another game is being initiated. Status quo and change move in circles. One circle gives birth to another circles and the game continues by taking different forms. It might look as if the circles are going forward or backward from a utilitarian perspective. The process is generally accepted in the name of “political stability”. That is why, in politics, we start with utopia and end in compromises.
