The Democratization of Power: You Can't Have #OpenGov Without #ResponsibleSociety

"We're in the age of the democratization of power.  Small actors can do big things.  The state no longer holds monopoly on the use of force," he said.

Whether Anonymous, whatever Anonymous is, committed the recent cyber attack that shut down several government websites yesterday remains to be seen.  That's part of the problem with collective anonymity; when no one knows who you are, anyone can pretend to be you.

We value anonymity for valid reasons; there can be very personal consequences for political actions, even when - especially when - the cause is just.  Equally, there is power in collective identity, a symbolic face that can be worn by legions.  This is true whether it's a Guy Fawkes mask, a uniform or a partisan t-shirt.

Yet with the power of anonymity comes great consequence, with mistrust and paranoia chief among them.  Human beings are hard-wired to identify threats before they do harm - it's a big neurological piece of why bigotry and especially violent bigotry exist.

Of course, you don't need to be anonymous or tribal to have powerful impact.  Ted Kaczynsk, among others, demonstrated that before the Internet and Social Media became a thing.

With the advent of the digital realm, it's continuously easier for a growing percentage of the populace to engaged directly with politicians, public information and even the policy-making process itself. Regular citizens can have Twitter conversations with Ministers of the Crown, post and vote directly on policy initiatives and even play a role in writing government directives.

This is happening at the same time as government power is increasingly consolidated in one person (the Prime Minister) and their unelected advisors (the real-world version of the Small Council).  Yes, we are seeing the collection of information reduced, those who speak truth to power silenced and decisions being made on poorly-conceived ideological grounds.  Opposition Parties vying for power are practising internally the exact same methodology.  These are very troubling truths.

Thing is, these truths are dependent on just one thing - public passivity.  

We have a representative democracy in Canada where Parliamentarians are meant to represent their constituents in holding government to account.  In reality, Parliament is now an arena for would-be governments to duke it out, with our representatives by default representing their Party more than their constituents.  It's not that our democratic representation has been taken away from us so much as we have failed to adapt engagement to the times.

Two teenagers can command media attention and even get face-time with a Premier.  It's a real thing. Facebook campaigns have stopped policy in its tracks.  We, as citizens, have more power to shape the policy agenda than ever before - we simply aren't exercising that power broadly, nor responsibly.

Politicians are only creatures of their Parties when their constituents allow them to be.  This happens because as citizens, we have fallen into price-matching political platforms and politicians instead of being active participants in shaping the direction of government.

Political parties have the power to fund or not fund local campaigns, promote or not promote their Members and, should they form government, deliver or not deliver on local projects.  That's a heck of a lot of influence over our representatives.

At the end of the day, though, it's our votes that Members of Parliament require most.  Between a promotion to Cabinet and simply holding their seat, which option do you think a politician would prioritize?

Citizens have the potential of enormous power to influence government - it's even more the case as Open Government becomes a thing.  If we choose not to exercise that power, we end up with the status quo.  If we choose to exercise that power irresponsibly, however - as I would argue this cyber attack was - government has plenty of cause to step back from openness and indeed start moving the other way.

There's an irony here which Anonymous should really pay attention to, given where they've borrowed their brand from.  But I guess some people like picking fights, regardless of collateral damage.

Open Government is not an inevitability - in fact, it's an impossibility without responsible society.

Responsible Government:

            - the powers of the governor general are limited - a fundamental concept which exists 

              nowhere in any legal document

            - based on the notion that the executive is accountable to the House of Commons

            - those who exercise executive power must obtain the support of the House for the use of 

              that power 

None of this happens, because with majority governments, Parliament is beholden to Government in the person of the Prime Minister and his backroom.  In short, the PM is the new King and his advisers are the new Privy Council; Parliament is more the King's court than the people's representatives.

The move to Open Government increases public access in much the way Magna Carta increased access for Parliament to government.  Combined with the increased consolidation of power in the office of the Prime Minister means the role of Parliament is changing.

Similarly, the role of citizen is changing, too.  We want more from government - we're not going to get it unless we're willing to step up as well.

Representative Democracy is failing; it's a model that simply can't be sustained with the demographic and access changes that have emerged.  The old model could never be equipped to tackle Wicked Problems anyway.

What's emerging now is Participatory Democracy - a model in which Parliamentarians will act more like facilitators between the people and the public service, with Cabinet acting as coordinators and project managers.

But it won't happen unless we all learn to exercise our powers responsibly.

That's the choice before us.  We can ignore the burning platform until we are all consumed.  We can light sparks ourselves.  Or we can learn to collaborate.

Its time we stop believing that he who has the gold or the crown makes the rules and start believing that with great power comes greater responsibility.

I have no qualms about being on record as having said so.

A New Slope: Society Safe From Whom?

He also questioned the time and energy spent chasing teenage hackers.

"This is a slippery slope," said Healey.  "It's not what you should be doing.  It justifies [Anonymous].  Giving them this much attention justifies them and is demeaning to our side."

Our side?  Whose side?  Are young online activists on the other side?  Of what divide, exactly?

Despite being a condemnation of the soul-sucking, community-busting corruption of  organized crime, The Godfather movies were popular with gangsters; they saw them as a model of how to act.  By the same token, The Wolf of Wall Street has been celebrated by many of those who truly occupy Wall Street as the way to live.

I guess it should come as no surprise, then, that organizations like the NSA and GCHQ are apparently taking inspiration from V For Vendetta, completely missing the underlying lesson of what happens when you tighten your fingers.

Youth are finding it hard to get work, are being told their education is useless and that they simply have no value to add to the market and must expect to be treated as such.  Meanwhile, government isn't representing their interests (or, in the eyes of many young folk, anyone's interests), so what motivation do they have to engage?

What happens next is clear, as it will be the same thing that always happens when it comes time for societies to shed old skin; a lot of friction.  

It's a winter/spring thing, new growth, new faces embracing the social torch, so on and so forth.

But hey, there's a new Star Wars coming out - who's curious to see what that's about?

Occupy, Idle No More, Voices-Voix: Our Grassroots are Showing

Occupy wasn't/isn't very organized, nor did it mean to be.  More than anything, Occupy could be seen as a cri du coeur, a call for attention.  Idle No More was a bit more concrete - it had/has spokespeople, more nuanced positions and requests.  Then you have organizations and movements ranging from Anonymous to 404 Systems Error to Samara to Why Should I Care, all engaging new methods and new technologies to build awareness, engagement and accountability.

 

Call me crazy, but I very much see a pattern in all of this.

 

Is the Voices-Voix Coalition the next iteration is this ongoing evolution of grassroots engagement?  If so, what does it mean for politics as a whole?

 

 

 

 

Canadian government enemy list: Voices-Voix letter to PM Harper

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper

Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A2
By fax: 613-941-6900
July 24, 2013

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing to you on behalf of Voices-Voix, a coalition of more than 200 national and local civil society organizations across the country.  We are seriously concerned about recent reports that your office had instructed government officials to compile “friend and enemy stakeholder” lists as part of the process of preparing briefing materials for new members of Cabinet.

Prime Minister, we are in particular deeply troubled about the use of the term “enemy”; seemingly to describe individuals or organizations with views critical of or in opposition to government policies and initiatives.  We call on you, as a matter of urgency, to make it clear that any such lists already compiled will not be used, no further lists will be prepared and that there is no place for such terminology in describing how the government perceives its critics.  Instead, it is vital that Canadians hear unequivocally and personally from you, acknowledging that your government accepts and welcomes opposition and disagreement as an essential dimension to developing strong public policy and maintaining a vibrant democracy.

Voices-Voix came together in 2010, reflective of growing concern that the space for civil society dissent and advocacy with respect to a range of critical social and public policy matters in Canada - including women’s equality, the environment and other human rights issues - has become significantly constrained, both directly and indirectly, through a variety of government decisions and actions in recent years.

We have researched and documented numerous instances of individuals and groups suffering serious financial, organizational and professional consequences because they have disagreed with the government.  We have also sought to engage with government, parliamentarians and the public with an eye to building deeper understanding of the crucial importance of ensuring that individuals, communities and organizations reflective of diverse and critical views are able to participate in public debates and discourse without fear of repercussion and with government support when necessary.

Given Voices-Voix’ focus on shoring up and bolstering the space for civil society advocacy and dissent in Canada, the news of the “enemy stakeholder” list is obviously of very serious concern.  At a time when many organizations and individuals are already nervous about publicly expressing disagreement with the government, additional hesitation that they may be labelled an “enemy” for doing so will inevitably increase that level of trepidation.  That in turn has very real implications for fundamental rights protected under international human rights law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly.  This is of course worrying when it comes to the discussion and debate that is needed regarding the particular environmental, human rights and other issues that may be at stake; it is worrying more widely as well though with respect to the state of democracy in Canada.  Plain and simple, in a healthy democracy government does not publicly talk of its critics and detractors as enemies.

Prime Minister, civil society organizations across the country are waiting to see you demonstrate and assert the urgent leadership that is needed in the wake of the revelation of this intention to prepare enemy stakeholder lists; leadership that affirms and appreciates the work we do.  As such, we call on you to:   

1. Make public any “enemy stakeholder” lists that may already have been compiled, confirm that such lists will not be used by the government, and make an unequivocal commitment to prepare no other such lists.
2. State publicly that the government acknowledges and unequivocally welcomes the essential role of civil society in Canada across a range of activities, including service delivery, research and advocacy.
3. Proactively seek regular opportunities to clearly state that the government does not see civil society groups that may be critical of government policies or initiatives as enemies, but rather as important partners in developing and delivering sound public policy and programs.
4. Convene a multi-sector government/civil society roundtable process tasked with identifying measures that would strengthen the independence and better support the work of civil society groups in Canada.

The news that some members of government view civil society critics as enemies has become a source of considerable worry and consternation.  It can now serve as an opportunity for the government to renew that relationship, so as to bolster the many essential contributions that civil society groups make to both developing better understanding and addressing pressing social needs locally and nationally right across the country.

Representatives of the Voices-Voix Coalition would welcome an opportunity to meet with you and/or other government representatives to discuss our concerns and recommendations further.  A meeting can be arranged by contacting the Voices-Voix Coordinator Aurore Fauret by email at communications@voices-voix.ca or by phone at 514 770 4950.

Sincerely,

On behalf of the Voices-Voix Coalition Steering Committee
 

Alex Neve
Secretary General
Amnesty International Canada
Béatrice Vaugrante
Directrice Générale
Amnistie International Canada francophone
Robert Fox
Executive Director
Oxfam Canada
Leilani Farha
Executive Director
Canada Without Poverty Advocacy Network
Pearl Eliadis
Barrister and Solicitor
Lecturer, Faculty of Law, McGill University
Charis Kamphuis
Convener
Research Network on Dissent, Democracy and the Law
Julia Sanchez
President-CEO
Canadian Council for International Cooperation
Michel Lambert
Directeur général
Alternatives 

 

 

The Summer of Discontent

"They are not listening to us," he added. "This is the beginning of a summer of discontent."

 

It's gonna be a hot summer in Toronto.  It's getting hotter across Canada.  Even Finland is feeling the heat.

 

Social discontent resulted I Occupy and the Tea Party Movement, just as it did Arab Spring.  In Canada, the second wave of protest was a bit more focused - people began to decide they would be Idle No More.

 

None of the issues that fuelled this rising protest moment have been addressed.  In fact, if anything, they've gotten worse.  Those political leaders who dislike progress can delude themselves it's possible to stamp out the spark of civic engagement and ignore the rising political temperature.  That just makes them the frog in the pot. 

 

It's a cycle we've seen before.   It would be most appropriate if a tree were to catalyse something bigger, something coordinated through social media, something viral and transformative.

 

I picked this as my song for last year's summer, but then I'm notorious for straying too far ahead.

 

Political Ignorance and Blizzard's Blinders

If there's a vote, their best hope is that the electorate has a massive amnesia attack or takes their stupid pills that day -- and gives them another tax-and-squander majority.

 

In other words - free speech at all costs, but if you don't think exactly the way we do, you're clearly an idiot.

 

That's a wrong-headed approach - the same one that's gotten Vic Toews into trouble, repeatedly.  If you assume the public is dumb, then you don't want to risk exposing their ignorance to information with which they might form opinions that disagree with yours (and are therefore stupid).

 

But then you're withholding information, denying yourself constructive criticism and stifling a fundamental piece of our democratic process.  Then, to keep the message control up, you end up dictating to the Public Service, going over the head of our democracy entirely.

 

Freedom of speech cannot exist in an information vacuum.  By hiding the facts and indiscriminately dehumanizing anyone who disagrees with them, the "free-speech" Political Right prove themselves to be hypocrites. 

Blizzard can spin all she likes (and I have no doubt that she believes her own reactive rhetoric), but the fact is that every Party left with an unchallenged majority falls into the trap of putting long-term partisan interests ahead of the public good.  That's why we have a Parliament in the first place.  Which is why it's dangerous at any level for government to start interfering with the functioning of Parliament - when the institutional heart of our democracy ceases to function, so does the illusion that we have a representative system.  When government refuses to do it's job, others - like Anonymous - will step in and fill the gap. 

 

We have never had a government try to be as transparent and direct as Premier Wynne is attempting to be - in trying to promote a much-needed political culture change, Wynne is exposing herself and her government to all kinds of attacks from Opposition Parties who see winning power, not serving the province, as priority. 

 

No, she's not perfect and yes, the temptation to circle her political wagons and fall back to the traditional fight-or-flight of blood-sport politics will gnaw at her.  If the Opposition refuses to join the conversation - and if they succeed in using Wynne's open approach against her - you can guarantee that political operatives from all Parties will take notice and information will retreat back into the shadows.  Bureaucracies will increasingly be controlled by political masters.  Individual leaders and their own ideologies will drive the nation instead of evidence and public interest.

 

That's what gets us things like the press being denied the opportunity to speak to Omar Khadr, Canadian military being forced to consider "political truths" and the social costs that come with propping up the Canadian economy with cheap foreign labour.  Who knows how the RCMP bungling of Rehtaeh Parsons case and the politically convenient timing of the would-be VIA Rail bombers fits in. 

 

When governments start to treat the public like idiots and assume they can fool us with political slights of hand, the people will lose confidence in government entirely and turn elsewhere for the leadership they crave. That's how revolutions begin.

 

When you take the approach that you're smart and everyone else is dumb, all you're doing is proving your own ignorance - at everyone's peril.
 

Game Theory in Canadian Politics

The one caveat is that the other player must be unaware that they are being manipulated. If they discover the ruse, they can play a strategy that results in the maximum jail time for both players: ie both suffer.

Politics is a blood sport, as we're often told.  In short, it's a game - a highly competitive one in which multiple players vie for a prize - control of government and the ability to set the policy agenda.

Of course, there are more than Political Parties at the table in this particular game; there is also The Public.  The Public is not a homogeneous entity, nor are they constrained to the same rules generally accepted as essential for Political Parties to succeed; homogeneity of message and Party discipline, for instance.  As a result, The Public is not privy to the same shared resources, messaging and understanding of manipulative techniques that Political Operatives and to a much lesser degree, The Media are.

There are a couple of consequences that stem from this reality - one is, The Public cannot present a comprehensive and stable game strategy to ensure their best interests are being met.  Another is that Political Parties tend not to see The Public as a player in the game; instead, they are perceived as an audience or a consumer.

Standard practice is for Political Parties to (rightly) assume that The Public is by and large unacquainted with political stratagems; people are ignorant and therefore can be manipulated.  The question becomes which Party has the most money to both sell their message and damage their opponent, as well as the best discipline to show no cracks in their own public presentation.

This approach is entirely dependent on a divided, ignorant populace that doesn't see itself as a player at the table.  We are expected to see ourselves purely as recipients of political shenanigans - more than that, we're encouraged not to see ourselves as a collective with common interests.

That's the way the game has always been played; the tools available have reinforced the one-way dialogue between competing Parties and potential voters.  Traditional market forces apply - just as it's assumed successful companies will target likely audiences, Political Strategists pick their targets and pick fights with everyone else to suppress oppositional voting.

Well, the rules are changing.

Social Media has opened up the dialogue in ways that simply have never been conceived before; The Public gets to watch in-fights between political tweeters in real time, respond en-masse to approaches they take issue with and share information between themselves to build a picture of the sorts of political manipulations at play.

It's getting harder and harder to pull the wool over The Public's eyes, as made obvious by everything from Porter Push Polls to Political Truths to RCMP manipulations by Vic Toews.  Even cross-sectoral impacts like Harper's position on UN drought talks and international acceptance of our commitment to clean usage of the Oil Sands are revealing themselves to the average citizen with a computer.

The Public is becoming conscious of the games being played with them; we're cluing in to our collective stake in The Ultimate Game that is politics.

As the rules of The Game change, Political Strategists are going to have to revisit their approaches and start questioning the political truths about the long game they have clung to.  This will force them to start considering the temporal political map more closely and chart their courses further out than has been their tendency. 

That's when they'll become conscious of this unsettling fact: they're being played, too.

When that happens, we'll find we're all playing a much different game than we thought we were.

The Social Media Community: With Great Power...

Secondly, there’s no denying that social media has changed the way we communicate, interact and, in many cases, do business—and, as such, content like tweets and Facebook posts now carry as much weight as other, more traditional forms of communication.

 

 

There's a fascinating picture emerging about how social media is rejigging the rules of social engagement that hopefully everyone is paying attention to. 

 

There's no question that tools like Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr allow more information to be shared by more people to larger audiences almost instantaneously; this is both a good thing and a bad thing.  It's good in the level of coordination and social solidarity it provides - look at how platforms like Ushahidi make disaster relief coordination between individuals, organizations and nations around the world that much more seamless.  Smartphone Aps like Guardly add an extra level of security to women walking university campuses at night.  Rapid response just keeps getting faster. 

 

Look also at the amazing level of coordination and pro-social behaviour that happened in response to the Boston Marathon - citizens were tweeting their love and support, letting others know if blood donations were needed at hospitals and where worried friends and families could turn to learn if anyone they knew who was in the race was injured.  The bombing was horrifying and tragic, but the response was the exact opposite of what terrorism is supposed to produce - a sense of community and comfort instead of heightened feelings of fear and vulnerability.

 

I'd also argue that social media is leveling out the playing field between the haves and have nots in a manner similar to the influence of unions a century ago.  Connect the dots between various e-campaigns over the past decade or so; former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty backed down on increased restrictions for young drivers in response to a Facebook campaign.  Similarly, #TellVicEverything stopped The Canadian Harper Government's Internet restrictions Bill dead in its tracks.  A robocall push-poll by Porter Airlines rapidly led to a sharing of information between people called on Twitter; within a day, the who and what behind those calls had been exposed online.

 

Then there's Anonymous; where the existing political or justice systems fail to fill their public mandate, there is now a powerful entity watching the watchers.

 

This is where the power of social media starts to slide into darker territory, though, and where the need for responsibility comes in to play.  @Vikileaks was done anonymously (though it didn't stay that way) and was really a mini-terror campaign directed against Vic Toews.  Cyberbullying is a terribly invasive form of individually-targeted terrorism (which is essentially what bullying has always been).  Hacking and information bleeding happens all the time; though most of us are more familiar with the "OMG - you should see this pic of U going around" variety, these privacy breaches can be much more damaging - and also point out a major weakness in the institutions we are supposed to trust with our personal information.

 

Which is where the hacking of AP's Twitter account and the circulated story about White House bombings and a wounded President come in.  One single tweet, coming from a reputable handle in an age of rapid-response and information dissemination briefly threw the market - the engine of the economy - into a nosedive.  that was just one tweet; picture a more coordinated attack that hacks the social media accounts of multiple respected agencies (media, government, banks, whatever). 

 

Picture the Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast spooling out over social media, except with the story a nuclear explosion over a major city.  It would go viral in seconds; timed and coordinated properly, the average citizen would be left with conflicting information and no way of knowing what or whom to trust.  Call it Invasion of the Social Media Snatchers.

 

It's for good reason that governments and organizations are seeking ways to clamp down on Internet security; the potential risks posed by hacking are stupendous and horrifying.  What's more - as would-be terrorists realize they can do the terror-infliction thing without putting themselves in harm's way, the use of hacking, information theft and misinformation campaigns are only going to increase. 

 

How can we say this with certainty?  As I've written elsewhere - as Western governments increasingly use advanced military weapons like drones to do their dirty work while keeping their hands clean, those on the receiving end are going to look for any and every way to respond in kind.  It's a historical trend - when you can't fight a super power head-on, you employ creative, guerrilla tactics.  The guerrilla war is increasingly online.

 

You can try to clamp down on e-terrorism all you want; as history teaches us, building more complicated locks simply results in smarter criminals.  This is not a battle that will be won through escalation - the only way to end the conflict is to look at the root causes behind what informs and facilitates e-terrorism and information manipulation.

When you have governments that withhold the facts from their citizens and only spool out pieces of partisan rhetoric, the playing field is wide open for misinformation; people already don't believe government is being open and honest, so they are that much more likely to believe alternate sources.  The way to combat this risk is for government to be more proactive, transparent and frankly, honest about what they're doing, what problems are arising and to proactively engage with citizens for solutions.  That way, people feel they are part of the government process and are less likely to be swayed by alternate misinformation; they will also feel more comfortable turning to official sources for verification before jumping on whatever meme is circulating on a given day.

 

The second piece is just plain good PR - instead of picking fights with specific enemies to reinforce relationships with established partners, governments, Political Parties and all organizations need to build stronger relationships with a more diverse range of players.  Altruism, after all, is selfishness that plans ahead; you're less likely to face a sneak attack from someone who you have supported or collaborated with in the past.

 

Social media might not create information, but it does disseminate it rapidly between massive audiences.  Not only can average citizens from anywhere on the planet compete with talking heads for attention; Established Voices can be co-opted through hacking to devastating public effect.

 

That's power money can't buy.

 

With great power, however, comes great responsibility.  That responsibility lies on the shoulders of every person with access to a computer, but unless they have positive role models (like government) encouraging responsible use of the medium, we will simply be looking at an online tragedy of the commons.

 

If that's not a reason to rethink partisanship, negative attacks and reactive policy, I don't know what is.

 

Anonymous Methodology

VICE: How do you go about sourcing the information that has led to naming the four suspects? Anonymous: The information we have gathered comes from a combination of internet research and informants. It's a lot more like being a journalist than it is being a detective. We use advanced search techniques to comb the internet for statements, photos, videos, whatever we need. We can locate statements by suspects made years ago on accounts they may not even know still exist. We've also developed a level of trust with our online community and they feel comfortable speaking with us because they know we'll protect their identities. We validate their information in the same way the police might, by cross referencing stories and doing background checks on the individuals who are providing the information. There's also a psychological factor. It's important to recognize the motives behind the person who is providing you the information. Some people just want to be involved so they'll embellish their accounts or perhaps they want revenge. You can't always count on a person's memory either so it's important to test them to discover if the story they are telling you has been compromised by time or their emotional state.

I'm a bit at odds with myself over Anonymous.  Clearly, they're filling a role that isn't properly addressed by our public institutions, but our public institutions have names and faces that can be held accountable. 

Yes, it is essential in our current social configuration for people to have the safety of anonymity to bring forward information, but when the institution aggregating that data has no face or name, who holds them accountable?

Generally, they seem to do a good job of holding themselves to a fairly high bar but if history is any indication, institutions that aren't held to account have a tendency to drop the bar over time.  It happens to all of 'em.

The best solution is to focus on the last line of the quote posted above.  If we can all learn to take a step back and deconstruct our own perspectives to find out where our inevitable biases are (you can't avoid it - emotions are the filters through which we process data) we can manage those emotions and avoid the urge to strike out or strike back and instead stay focused on moving forward.

It's not a matter of resisting institutionalization but accepting that we're all part of a social system and working, together, to make that system function well.  Whole, parts, etc.

It'll never happen, but it's nice to think about.

The Role of Government

 

This begs a second question, since when is young boys taking a picture of a rape of a 15-year-old girl and then distributing it considered an issue for the community to handle?

 

Call me naive, but isn't the role of a democratically elected government to represent the voice of the community - and ensure every voice gets reflected in decision making?  Through justice services, aren't governments supposed to put a floor on acceptable behaviour and provide mechanisms for restoration, reconciliation and rehabilitation?

 

We have a consumer-based culture that's all about individual rights, individual access, etc - but we've left out the social accountability piece.

 

We need the social accountability piece.

 

Ayn Rand was wrong, folks - society is a system of which we're all a part.  When we work against each other, constantly, ignoring things we don't think matter, problems arise that impact all parts of the whole, like an illness.  The role of government is to serve as brain, responding to the needs of the parts and coordinating operation against them. 

 

Oh - and when the elected mechanism of government fails to do its job, others step up to fill that space that aren't accountable to the public.  That's how revolutions happen.

 

It's time the institutions we're meant to rely on step up to the plate.