The Shallowness Of Governance And The Weakness Of Humans

In every era of human progress, one paradox remains stubbornly intact. Our tools evolve, our institutions expand, but our instincts remain largely unchanged. Despite centuries of civilisation, governance continues to fall short of what human nature demands.

This is not merely a policy problem or a leadership vacuum. It is something far deeper and more universal. It is the tension between the systems we design and the species we are. We like to believe we have moved beyond primitive impulses. Yet in the boardroom, in the marketplace and on social media, the same old forces still govern us. Greed, fear, dominance, tribalism and insecurity. Evolution hardwired them for survival. Governance has always been our best attempt to contain them.

History is full of stories where institutions failed not for lack of rules but for lack of realism. We overestimate rationality and underestimate emotion. We build structures that presume integrity, but too often crumble under pressure or temptation. From the tulip mania of the 1,600s to the subprime crisis and the crypto boom, market crashes are rarely failures of intelligence. They are failures of character, timing and feedback.

It is not just financial markets that show this pattern. In start-up ecosystems, the rush to scale often outpaces the care to govern. In public institutions, laws are written with great intent, but often enforced with minimal integrity. In family businesses, emotional loyalties often overwhelm objective decision-making. And in civic life, we express outrage at corruption while indulging in small-scale evasions ourselves.

Modern governance has become a system of checklists. Policies are drafted, boards are formed, compliance is tracked. But governance is not a software patch to fix the glitches of capitalism or bureaucracy. It is the core operating system that holds together trust, responsibility and power. When we forget this, we end up designing systems that look perfect on paper but collapse in practice.

In truth, governance falters not because it lacks information but because it lacks introspection. We focus on procedures but ignore incentives. We chase transparency but avoid accountability. We design for the ideal citizen or leader, not the flawed and ambitious human being that evolution has produced.

Evolution teaches us adaptation, not perfection. Nature is filled with feedback loops. Populations expand until food runs short. Climate shifts and species evolve or disappear. These systems correct themselves over time. Good governance must do the same. It must anticipate failure and resist the temptation to control every outcome. It must reward transparency, not just punish deviation.

Three learnings from evolution apply directly to governance today. First, we must design systems not for how people ought to behave but for how they actually do. Assume shortcuts will be taken, corners will be cut, and temptations will arise. Second, build feedback mechanisms that respond in real time. Governance cannot be frozen in five-year plans while society moves in five-minute headlines. Third, trust and reputation must be seen as active levers, not passive ideals. In early human societies, the cost of losing trust was survival itself. Today, trust is eroding in public life because accountability is too slow and consequences too abstract.

Each generation lives this tension differently. A young professional in their twenties might see governance as red tape, until they encounter a workplace where the absence of boundaries leads to exploitation. A manager in their forties lives the daily pressure of targets, where doing the right thing feels like a personal risk. A 60-year-old citizen sees the same cycles of fraud, populism and moral compromise play out across decades, and wonders why nothing seems to change.

The answer lies not in reinventing governance but in deepening it. Boards must be courageous, not just independent. Policies must embed character, not just controls. Leaders must be stewards, not just performers. None of this is easy. But it is the difference between lasting systems and fragile illusions.

Good governance is not the job of governments and regulators alone. It belongs in every corner of society. In startups that choose long-term value over vanity metrics. In family firms that hold themselves to standards higher than their balance sheets. In local government bodies that choose transparency over transactionalism. And in each of us who must resist the seductive pull of shortcuts.

For the 25-year-old building their career, this means asking whether success comes at the cost of integrity. For the 45-year-old team leader, it means building a culture where feedback flows both ways and blind spots are acknowledged. For the 65-year-old mentor, it means helping the next generation carry forward not just wealth and knowledge but a moral compass.

We must stop outsourcing ethics to scorecards. Governance is not an Excel sheet. It is a way of thinking, choosing and living. It shows up in how we make decisions when no one is watching and in what survives after the headlines fade.

There is a reason why good governance often feels heavy and slow. It is built to outlast impulse. To guard against drift. To remind us that just because something is popular or profitable does not make it right. It is not surveillance that keeps society healthy, but stewardship.

At its best, governance is a mirror. It reflects not just how well systems work but how well we behave within them. The flaws it exposes are not signs of failure but opportunities for growth. As markets accelerate, politics polarise and technology races ahead, this mirror will matter more than ever.

What it reveals is simple. We remain flawed but capable. Weak but willing. And in the shallowness of systems, we are called to bring depth of character. That is not idealism. That is evolution, done right.

Dr. Srinath Sridharan is a policy researcher and corporate advisor.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of NDTV Profit or its editorial team.