This is understandable to me, though abstract because I know no details. However, I wonder if the argument can be made that in precisely institutions, such as the legal one where the clash of worlds is so clear, that the bridges begin to be constructed? Where and how are the bridges constructed? Or will the modern just eventually take over? Or will the country become fossilized, as you seem to suggest? Or is it precisely in the institution of law that bridges are not built? Your piece raises many questions. Surely worlds are colliding all the time. As an anthropologist, I witnessed, for example, in rituals, how the status of 'having money' took primacy over birth order. It is always in myriads of the micro that something gets entrenched in the macro.

Good luck for your friend and innovator. I hope this can be resolved in a healthy way.