Ramarao Kanneganti on the tendency of systems to preserve themselves

Ramarao Kanneganti Facebook post in Telugu. https://www.facebook.com/ramarao The translation from the comments: Any system, whether social, political, or economic, has a tendency to preserve itself. If it does not, it disappears. Over time, systems evolve rules that stabilize and protect them, sometimes deliberately, often gradually. These rules come from many places. History, culture, religion, habit, and circumstance. Some reflect real constraints. Traffic must be regulated. Contracts must be enforceable. Others arise in particular contexts and then persist long after those contexts have changed. But once rules are in place, they acquire authority. They stop appearing as choices and begin to feel like facts about the world. As Thomas Hobbes argued in Leviathan, the alternative to a system of rules is not freedom but disorder. Life becomes “nasty, brutish, and short”. Without a shared framework, social life becomes unstable. So we accept rules, even imperfect ones, because they allow coordination. You can see this in ordinary life. In the United States, the tax system is complex and often opaque, yet widely followed because it sustains the functioning of the state. In India, the government can be frustrating, but it enables coordination across a large and diverse society. In both cases, the system persists not because it is elegant, but because it works well enough. So far, this is about order. But rules also shape outcomes. Over time, they distribute advantage. Some groups benefit more than others. This is not always planned with major foresight. It often emerges gradually. But once patterns of advantage appear, those who benefit tend to reinforce them. Rules harden and begin to feel natural. Anatole France captured this clearly: the law, in its equality, forbids both rich and poor from sleeping under bridges. The rule is the same. The effect is not. There is formal equality, but not practical equality. At this point, we need a deeper explanation for why such arrangements endure. This is where Antonio Gramsci is useful. His idea of hegemony suggests that systems do not survive only because they are enforced. They survive because they are accepted. Over time, people come to see the system not as one arrangement among many, but as the natural order of things. What began as a set of rules becomes 'common sense'. This helps explain why inequity can persist for long periods. People do not simply endure it. They interpret it in ways that make it acceptable or at least understandable. Systems provide explanations, and those explanations matter. For example, why do people accept inequality? In the United States, for example, large differences in income and wealth are often explained through ideas of merit and effort. These explanations are not entirely false, but they do not capture the full picture either. Yet they persist because they provide a coherent way to understand outcomes within the system. All of this together made the system hegemonic. It did not rely only on enforcement. It was reproduced through everyday practice and shared understanding. This does not make it just. It explains why it endured. So systems persist through a combination of structure, culture, and belief. However, this persistence has limits. To understand those limits, Jean-Jacques Rousseau is helpful. In The Social Contract, he argues that a system is legitimate only if it reflects a shared will. Authority is not justified merely by maintaining order. It must be seen as representing a collective interest. Inequity, by itself, does not immediately invalidate a system. It can grow for a long time while the system continues to function. People adapt, justify, or work around it. But as inequity grows, its effects become more visible. The gap between the formal rules and their actual consequences becomes harder to ignore. Explanations that once seemed plausible begin to feel strained. At the same time, opportunities for movement within the system may narrow. When these conditions combine, people begin to question whether the system still reflects a shared interest. Laws and institutions may continue to operate, but they are no longer experienced as belonging to everyone. They appear to serve particular groups. In these changes, education plays a major role. Literature too. Revolutions usually are the result. This is how the social contract weakens. Not suddenly, but through a gradual loss of belief. To be clear, Inequity alone does not automatically lead to breakdown. Some unequal systems persist because they maintain legitimacy, adapt to pressure, or prevent coordination among those who are disadvantaged. Inequity becomes destabilizing when it is widely visible, when it cannot be convincingly justified, and when people feel that effort within the system does not lead to meaningful change. Under those conditions, acceptance gives way to skepticism, and skepticism to resistance. So: Systems create rules to stabilize themselves. Rules shape outcomes and distribute advantage. Over time, systems become embedded in culture and accepted as natural. Stability depends on material conditions, shared belief, and the ability to adapt. When inequity grows and legitimacy weakens, that stability becomes fragile. Where does this leave us in terms of political ideas? Liberalism focuses on fairness at the level of individuals. John Rawls’s veil of ignorance asks us to design a world without knowing where we will end up in it. Conservatism focuses on stability. Change should be gradual and tested. Stability itself is a hard-won achievement. Both are trying to manage the same tension. Fairness and stability. There is another perspective as well: The tension between openness and protection. Openness to markets, migration, and change on one side, and a desire to preserve stability, identity, and continuity on the other. But beneath both lies the deeper issue we have been tracing. A system can function with a considerable degree of imperfection. It can tolerate complexity, inefficiency, and some level of unfairness. What it cannot sustain indefinitely is a broad loss of belief in its legitimacy. Reducing inequity, then, is not only a moral concern. It is also a structural one. It helps maintain the sense that the system reflects a shared interest and that participation within it remains meaningful. Without that, institutions may continue to operate and rules may still be followed. But the underlying contract weakens, and the system gradually loses its coherence. What we are witnessing in the US, and broadly around the world is this phenomenon of loss of legitimacy. Conspiracy theories spread through social media accelerate the trend. The fundamental challenge is inequity and inequality