In late summer of 2018, I spent a few days in Geneva. I was working at the archives of the World Health Organization (WHO) for a book and was staying with a friend who I had known for well over a decade. He had joined WHO recently. One evening, over dinner, we ended up talking about the problems at the WHO. I could see that he was deeply frustrated by the stifling bureaucracy and inherent inefficiencies in the system. As he put it, it was an organisation that continued to significantly underperform despite having extraordinary scientists, physicians and public health practitioners in its ranks. While I had never formally worked at the WHO, I knew what he was talking about. The bureaucratic inefficiency and mind-numbing paperwork is among the first things a lot of people note when they engage with the UN. So I pushed my friend about why he thought the organisation was inefficient. I also said, “If people outside see it, and if people inside know it, then why doesn’t it change?”

My friend’s response was immediate: “The job pays too well, the perks are too good for anyone to rock the boat.”

“What do you mean?” I remember asking him.

“Well, imagine you come from a place where this is the best job you could ever imagine. It allows you to leave the country where things are not going too well. The job provides a very decent stipend for your children to go to an excellent school. Why would you ever want to say that the system is not working, and risk losing the job?” my friend replied.

He went on to say that if it worked well for me, pretty soon I would become a believer in the system too. “You may say a thing or two about reform on the edges, but you would not actually want to change it. There is much at stake for you personally,” he elaborated.

Over the years, I have recognised the truth of what my friend was saying in domains that go well beyond the UN system. These days, I see colleagues championing their new AI ventures. Some of them, whom I have known for a long time, are very thoughtful people who care deeply about ethics, impact on communities, environment and justice. On AI, however, any discussion of ethical implications, critical thinking, ownership of intellectual property or risk to vulnerable communities is brushed aside. I wonder if they have become believers because their own financial interests are tied to the system working a certain way. A reform could in fact have personal implications.

When the Prime Minister of Canada spoke at Davos, in a speech that has been discussed endlessly, he talked about the essay by Czech dissident, and later President, Vaclav Havel about a greengrocer who puts up a sign every day not because he believes in the idea of the working people of the world uniting, but because he has to perform this to belong, and not get the attention of the authorities. That is certainly true today in many societies, including ours, where we conform and perform to belong. But I also think that many who become part of a system that provides handsomely for them, not just perform but also actually start to believe that the system is right, and in no need of any serious change.

Financial benefits create new bonds of belief in the system. I do not think anyone of us is immune to it – those who go into non-profit, those who choose academia, or those who become spokespersons for individuals and institutions. But I do believe reform can happen – and it must – whether in the academy, in international institutions, or in other sectors. It takes courage, deep thought and a commitment to the greater mission to argue for reform. That cost can be steep with implications for one’s own financial well-being. But we must question and try, to the best of our ability, to live in truth. Because if we look hard enough, and argue with ourselves, we will see with clarity on what needs to change. The honesty that comes from doubt and acknowledgement is much needed today to preserve our most cherished values and institutions built on those values.