To shoot or not to shoot?

I think Orwell's short story raises an important dilemma, which I'm not quite sure how to solve. As a colonial policeman, both the natives and the British government expect him to fulfill his role and his duty towards society -- this would mean restoring order by shooting the elephant. Yet the elephant is not altogether disorderly and violent, but also has a "grandmotherly air" about it.

Here, what seems to be highlighted is the conflict between the self and the institution that the self is part of. This reminded me of something that I either read or something that someone told me really long ago. Basically, some MP who wasn't a part of the PAP criticized its policies a lot ... however, later on in his career he joined the PAP and he stopped criticizing it not because he suddenly agreed with everything the PAP did, but because it is incredulously hard to do what is right when one is also a part of the institution. The question then to ask would be how it is possible for one to remain as an individual while still be part of an institution, especially when one disagrees with something that the institution preaches? Audrey (for those of you who know her) once told me that the great Milton stayed cooped up in his home till his death because he didn't believe in institutionalized religions, and he was trying to escape from it.

However, I’m wondering if the escaping from institutions are the right way to go about dealing with these sort of things, or should we instead remain "plugged in" like in the Matrix and fight it out? But how?