I recently attended a lecture with my former boss, Mwikali Kivuvani, on the evolution of beauty. You’d think this sits outside our work, but it is deeply connected to the everyday realities of bodily autonomy, self-expression, choice, and the systems we continue to challenge such as patriarchy, racism, capitalism. I left the lecture with more questions than answers, and a massive side eye to the beauty industry. The underlying message sounded more like: the world is changing, catch up with what is “en vogue”, get over yourselves, and get along with the programme. But the forces shaping these standards remain the same-; capitalistic interests, patriarchal norms, and deeply embedded misogyny. So I left with a big question, do we actually get to decide for ourselves?
A reflection with Mwikali led us to look beyond beauty, into patterns across systems. And it hit me, this is not just about beauty. This is how systems work deliberately and by design. We are constantly moving to the next thing. Some of us willingly, others with questions. But if it is not challenged collectively, we eventually adjust. We normalize. We move on. We get along with the programme.
A clear example is digital advancement. From the internet to artificial intelligence, each wave has come with resistance and yet, over time, we adapt. We are asked to adjust to platforms, to systems, to ways of living that are presented as inevitable. Eventually, they become normal. Expected. Non-negotiable.
But it doesn’t stop there. At the governance level, decisions are often made on behalf of citizens, sometimes rapidly, sometimes under pressure, and often within the realities of financial dependency, particularly in many Global South contexts. When systems are externally funded, priorities can shift. Not always visibly, but subtly through what is included, what is excluded, and what becomes non-negotiable. These dynamics do not just affect states. They ripple into the day-to-day lives of citizens and even civil society spaces, shaping alignment, creating tensions, and reinforcing power imbalances. The reality is simple: power often remains with those who hold resources. And so even critical national decisions carry the risk of being influenced in ways that may not fully reflect the needs or rights of citizens.
And again, we are expected to get over it. Get along with the programme.
So I find myself challenged. What else in our societies has been normalized under the guise of progress or inevitability? What harm might we be overlooking in the process? And how do we ensure that power remains with us, that we take responsibility for our choices, knowing that those choices shape the societies we live in?
But perhaps the question we should be asking is not just how we adapt but how we participate, question, and shape what is presented to us.
Leading with purpose, Judy Amina