Lonehill: The BEST of People... The WORST of People... and Everybody In-Between

The LRA's threats of litigation against this writer and/or his opinions have led to some personal musings on social behaviour experienced within community.

This could probably be titled: What I Learnt From Being A PASSIONATE Community Contributor.

1. Status QUO Rules - Don't Dare Rock The Boat!

No matter how bad things get, the ruling pattern of social behaviour seems to be to maintain the status quo - i.e. not to rock the boat.

Lying somewhere between the Stockholm Syndrome and, what I'll call, the Zimbabwe Syndrome, adversely-affected people seem to comply with whatever their psychological captors throw at them. For 'captor' also read 'corporate bully' or 'social bully'.

Perversely the captor gains the 'loyalty' of their victims by seeming to spare their victims from the ultimate threat of death, destruction or such-similar threatened personal disaster.

THREAT being the primary psychological weapon of such captors.

In such situation, individuals do not want to be singled out from the crowd for fear of being 'dealt with'.

The pop psychologists will also probably refer to analogies of the 'frog in the gently heating pot of water' or that of the 'ostrich with his head in the sand'... or, 'if we ignore the problem maybe it'll go away'... to explain why people within an affected community will tolerate much more than outsiders can believe credulous (e.g. Zimbabwe).

It takes a particularly fearless, thick-skinned type of individual to stand up and rock the boat in a community, as such action attracts the enraged ire of all those with vested interests to maintain the status quo AND even the ire of those adversely affected by the status quo but who do not wish to have the boat rocked for whatever fear they have had drummed into them - 'you're only going to make it worse' or 'you're not going to make it any better' being their constant refrain for doing nothing.

So, in 2000, on penning this call-to-action communication - (click link) Lonehill Village Terrorism - Lonehill man Critical After Vicious AK47 Attack - this writer knew that he was not going to be the most popular with some in his community.. ;-)

Know that popularity will be an almost impossible crown to attain for the individual who challenges the status quo by rocking the boat!

Don't engage in the process if YOU are a sensitive soul, wanting to be a local politician, and/or fearful of heated criticism and threat of personal attack.

Also know that one need not be popular to be effective... most often, 'popularity' and 'effectiveness' do not go hand in hand when the chips are down and things need to be done.

2. Change UPSETS People - It's Easier To SIT On The Fence!

Given an audience with the then LRA of 2000, for all intents and purposes an ineffective community structure with little in the way of moral support, drive, initiative or finances, this writer was expressly forbidden to erect posters proclaiming - Are You DYING To Stay In Lonehill - which he ignored. The rest is HISTORY.

At the time the LRA was seen to be a behind-closed-doors decision-making body of 3 to 4 individuals that was seemingly out of touch with its community needs.

Not that these individuals felt that they were the problem.

To them the problem was the apathy and lack of financial support that they experienced from their community.

So was derived the personal insight: 'Apathetic Communities arise from Pathetic Leadership'.

The poster campaign and follow-up messages took a a very deliberate approach to destroy the fences that many locals were sitting on by posing a controversial challenge: 'The CHOICE is yours... it is either one or the other... there is NO INBETWEEN! You are part of the solution, or you are part of the problem!'.

Know that that people do not like to have their comfort zones rocked.

When one breaks down the fence that people are sitting on then they are FORCED to move to one side of the fence or the other... and they don't like to be exposed for the decision they then have to make: which side?

There were those who sided with this writer and collectively created arguably the most innovative, successful, open and inclusive community initiative this country had ever seen.

And there were those who totally disliked being exposed as the 'other' camp, making this writer the specific target of their ire and committing to never getting involved in the project.

Illogical? Yes... but hey, people act on emotion... not logic.

Change UPSETS people... accept it.

3. NEW Rulers Don't Like Their New Status Quo Rules Challenged - Don't Dare Rock The Boat Again!

Having initiated the NEW Lonehill Community Initiative and spending four-and-a-half years as a 100% committed volunteer driver (moving on to the board of the LRA by take-over/merger) and today, another three-and-a-half years later, after closely following the LRA's actions (and debacles) as a passionate contributing resident and a declared vested interest potential business contributor, this writer is amused to see how the observations in Points 1. & 2. above just seem to repeat themselves.

It seemed that this writer's voluntary resignation from the LRA Board due to envisaged future potential vested interest purposes saw an immediate return to a behind-closed-doors decision-making process which excluded the system of open transparent meetings and tenders with maximum invited community participation that was the hallmark of the initial success of the initiative.

It was a time marked by individuals on the LRA Board looking one in the eye and saying one thing... and then taking a completely different decision when in committee behind closed doors (sadly, much as is still experienced by this writer today). Leading to the despicable removal of Ian Bell at the time, and the disastrous marketing and management decisions that seemed, in this writer's opinion, to signal the potential running aground of this initiative.

After giving the then LRA a year to prove this opinion disastrously correct, it was time to stir the pot once again.

Having experienced some absurd, illogical reactions from individuals in this community, this writer's funniest and most absurd story heard about how status quo attempts to dumb down individual intelligence, was this response reportedly given by a member of the LRA Board to a new Board Member at the height of our past LRA debacle being (to paraphrase): 'Aren't you embarrassed that no one here likes you or your questions'.

It's no wonder that this community experienced an almost wholesale change of the LRA Board at that time.

Thankfully, Ian Bell was correctly reinstated and basic management order was restored: Lonehill: Give Credit Where Credit Is Due'.

The question to ask is, would this have happened without someone having rocked the boat?

Would the ORIGINAL launch of the Lonehill Community Initiative (Lonehill Security Action Group - LSAG) have happened without someone rocking the boat?

The simple answer is NO.. if one wants something significantly different to happen in a community... if one wants to change the status quo... one has to MAKE something happen.

If anything, this writer's advice to anyone wanting to make a significant difference in their community is to recognise that one's actions will bring out the BEST of people... and the WORST of people... and elicit a range of responses from everybody in-between.

And, make no mistake, the one rocking the boat will be seen by others (and will be told in no uncertain terms so) as being the best of people... and the worst of people... and everything in-between... all at the same time.

Don't worry what people think... do what YOU know is right.

If you have got to rock the boat... ROCK THE BOAT!

Oh yes... the status quo may well issue threats.

Know that such reaction is primarily designed to dumb-down open debate and the independence of intelligent thought and opinion.

Very much like an old Zig Ziglar fisherman's story of why crab baskets don't have lids on to stop crabs escaping. If one of the crabs starts to climb up the sides of the basket, the other crabs will reach up and pull it back down. People in communities can be a lot like crabs.

This writer's response to those in 'power' who issue threats, or who act like crabs, is to look them in the eye and give them a broad knowing smile.

Sometimes even to throw the head back and just laugh at the weakness of feeble character of those 'leaders' who cannot handle an eyeball to eyeball open debate or discussion around a table to carry their points of view.

Let's face it, it is EMBARRASSING for those who have egotistical pretensions of 'leadership' and/or political position to be exposed for being laughably pathetic.

So what will bring out the best in a community?

Debate and dialogue will. New ideas will. Inclusivity will. That's what this forum is all about.

Refer: Do WE Demonstrate The Characteristics of TRUE Community..?

This forum has listed many positive suggestions, inputs and ideas (see summary here) for the LRA to consider, most yet to be seen to be implemented.. ;-)

In essence, this forum's call is for the LRA Board members:

1. ..to RAISE Standards... continually... especially those of service delivery, openness and transparency.
2. ..to unleash the Abundant Potential that lies within our community... open up to include everybody who wants to participate.
3. ..to facilitate a regular major indaba of all key stakeholders, decision-makers and interested contributors in this community.

The threat of litigation against this writer and/or his opinions is hardly the response one would expect of quality, open-minded, transparent leadership.

But then again maybe it's a sign that such opinion is touching a raw nerve. Why? One can only wonder.

Surely, the objective of great community leadership should be to channel all passionate willing contributors, especially those with proven credentials of making things happen in a BIG way in their community, into directions that can deliver massive positive results for the community.

Does that mean that such leaders should work with people that they clearly do not like?

Well YES... if they subordinate their personal feelings for the good of their community. That's what leadership is about.

Would this writer work with people he does not like?

Heck NO... and he wouldn't select a team to work with that didn't have an abundance mentality and commonality of goodwill towards each other.

That's what makes a community... there is always a selection of the BEST of people... and the WORST of people... and everybody in-between... to select from to work in independent silos of common interests and like-minded thinkers for the overall good of the community.

Great leadership can and will make that happen.

The opposite is to 'divide and rule' and to deliberately exclude participation of others.

Seems logical... but when ego and emotions are in play... logic takes a back seat.

Regards
Trevor Nel - Lonehill Resident
011 - 705-2790