Here's the thing, I agree with you, many of our systems are in fact flawed, corrupt, and otherwise broken. However, I also understand that systems are made up of human beings, and humans by nature are imperfect. Hence the imperfect nature of systems, no matter if they are global, interpersonal, or anywhere in between, is natural.
With that in mind, I believe there are a number of ways that we as imperfect people can attempt to correct or alter systems with different degrees of effectiveness.
First, we can observe a system from afar and complain about its insufficiencies, the injustices it creates, and all other ways in which it is ineffective. To complain about a system does little more than to bring attention to a problem. I equate this to a poorly written social documentary. Whenever I watch a documentary on a social ill or problem, I hope to have some sense of how to address the issue at hand by the time the film has concluded. Now granted, these potential solutions may only be temporary fixes or may not be directly feasible for myself as an individual. Nevertheless, there is hope that somehow the problem or issue at hand may be manageable.
However, a poor documentary ends with little to no practical for resolution for little to no one. This is equivalent of highlighting a problem and doing nothing about it, often criticizing those responsible for it in the process. Sure, this brings some awareness to the issue little else. These muckraking commentaries or documentaries are little more than a platform for complainers to whine about their view of social ills.
In the same way, to critique a system's insufficiencies or other problems is just that: a public complaint. It is an irate citizen complaining at a public forum about the toxic waste seeping into her private pool. Her anger is real and perhaps her concern is valid. However, it is likely that her concern will go unnoticed or unaddressed as those working within the system may find it difficult to see past her visceral anger. (See Tone Policing)
A second way that we can attempt to correct a broken system is to spit fierce venom at it directly and confront the problem head on. This can sometimes take the form of an ad hominem argument when viewed from one angle. While addressing the principal concern of a system may appear ideal in practice, the issue here is the way in which the concern is addressed.
Oftentimes when someone enters a new organization or role she is able to offer a necessary outsider's perspective to those who have been enmeshed in their bubble for any number of years. This can be extremely helpful for the organization, agency, system, etc. in question. However, the new individual and system must come up with an effective way of communicating with each other. That is to say, the individual and the system must learn to understand each other and, in a way, speak each other's language before making any sort of real, meaningful, and lasting change. Otherwise, the change risks being ineffective or seen as a judgmental critique of ongoing practices.
This gets to the third, and perhaps most effective, way of creating meaningful change: calculated constructive criticism shared in a similar language over a period of time. Each aspect of this method is critical, as if you leave one out the whole process may be in jeopardy. First, the method must be calculated, meaning it is well thought out and planned by those who wish to create change. It cannot be something that is just done on a whim or it will likely create further systematic problems.
Second, the criticism shared by the outsider must be understood to be done in a constructive manner. When one is receiving constructive criticism, she is encouraged to remove herself or any feelings of personal judgment or hostility towards her from the situation. This is how constructive criticisms work. Think, for example of the way in which art critiques work: an artist presents her work to a group of peers in an effort to gain feedback (whether positive, negative, or neutral), and then she does her best to receive it all objectively. It is paramount that during such a critique, those who are offering their input do their best to provide honest feedback and attempt to remove the artist from her work. In some cases, it is often beneficial to have the artist's name removed or masked from the critics' view to avoid this very thing. That is often why you may see researchers' names removed from a study when they are being considered for publication: to avoid undue bias and prevent criticism toward a person or institution rather than the information presented in the study.
The third element of creating meaningful change is the importance of shared language. The importance of speaking a shared language cannot be understated. Consider for instance the vast diversity of acronyms found in a number of professions and organizations. A fairly well known mistake was immortalized on the internet when someone mistook the shorthand "lol" to mean "lots of love" rather than its common interpretation of "laughing out loud." Granted, that is not a necessarily an acronym, but it is easy to envision how a misunderstood acronym can lead to misunderstanding fairly quickly. The same can be said of terms that mean one thing in a particular profession's jargon and something very different in a another's. Consider the term computer that not long ago was used as a job title in the accounting field I believe. However, now a computer is more likely to be the medium through which you are reading this than what a profession you aspire to.
Each of these elements combine to create an ideal manner in which to create lasting and meaningful change to flawed, broken, and/or corrupt systems. As the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are many of the systems that run the world. With that in mind, it will take time and considerable effort to create and ensure meaningful change in any system; and really, because, as mentioned before, systems are created by imperfect people, the best way to create effective systems is to regularly promote a culture that encourages open and constructive criticism. With this in mind we are more likely to catch our errors before they have a chance to negatively impact a large number of individuals and other interconnected systems.
Or maybe I'm just naive.
