I’ve written here now and then about hopes of the coming of an Age of Transparency, and then the dawn burst upon us and one of its names was Wikileaks.  And like other dawns, it was even accompanied by a chorus, even a symphony, of tweets, and other social networking sites buzzing.

And like other beginnings, it became messy and sometimes violent.  Very violent, as the revolutions and protests in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and Iran demonstrate.

I doubt anyone will ever be  able to draw a direct line from any Wikileaks document, specific FB post or tweet, to any resignation or deposing of any official anywhere, but that’s not necessary.   There’s an atmosphere, a field of influence, a spirit, to which they all contribute and in which they reside.

I’m glad to see it. I feel somewhat vindicated by it, and feel certain Dad, parked in some celestial recliner somewhere, feels vindicated, too.  If you’re so inclined, check out the latest addition to the library of his columns.  There’s a subhead in that column that reads, “Visionaries Are Scoffed At.”

Dad was certainly a visionary, and I have inherited that particular gene, or curse, or blessing, depending on your perspective.  At times it’s all three.  It’s a wonderful thing because visionaries can see a beauty that isn’t yet, and be driven by that beauty, and try to make it real.  It’s a horrible thing because there can be few or no others who can see anything similar, and when others pay any attention at all, it’s likely to scoff or worse.

When Dad left the newspaper and wrote that column, he was given a copy of it engraved in metal and framed.  I’ve seen it nearly every morning since he died in 1997.  It hangs in what may seem an odd place: in the kitchen, next to my coffee bar.  I like it there because seeing it at the start of the day reminds me that I came by this visionary propensity honestly, and his column is proof that there are other people in the world who get it.  It also reminds me that when scoffs and worse come, the appropriate response is, “So what?”

Twenty five or so years ago I set out on a path having to do with a particular vision of people being treated well, with respect, especially dis-empowered people, and how people in power treat them.

My attention focused first on child protective services, and how it can become better by treating everyone involved, including the workers, with respect.  That focus of attention was by choice, and I gave it my all, even to making that the center of my doctoral research. Next, I became intimately familiar with the maltreatment of another state agency, this time not by choice. Bureaucrats who were more concerned with preserving their power than serving the populace did what they could to silence me through a different arm of bureaucracy.  I gave my all once again because it was either fight or give up my credibility, and without my credibility, I would have no way to advance the vision I had about people being treated better, with honesty and respect.  The fight took pretty much everything, literally, but I came out with my credibility.

I also came out with a sharpened vision, about how much bureaucratic maltreatment there is and how to reduce it.  I’ve studied and researched and at times wondered if all this vision does is present a distorted image of a windmill on the horizon, and what a fool I’ll find myself to have been.

I’ll know better about that pretty soon.  If it turns out I’m a fool for thinking I can do anything to make things better, so be it.  I’d rather be a fool reaching for something beautiful than a cynic congratulating myself on rendering an accurate description of the mud on the ground.

But maybe I haven’t been tilting at a windmill.  Maybe there is a way my experience and knowledge can be put to use to make a substantive difference.  When the gubernatorial campaign started up last year, Peter Shumlin struck me as also being a visionary, and therefore someone who might be able to understand this vision that I see.  I put in time on his campaign, and at a couple of campaign events buttonholed him about meeting with him after he was elected.  Given the field of Dem candidates and their favorability ratings, he wasn’t “supposed” to win, but he did, and now I get to lay out the vision, along with the nuts and bolts of how to make it real.

Windmill, or something else?  I have two meetings scheduled in the Governor’s office–this Friday, March 18, and Thursday, March 24.  I’ll update here after those meetings.

Two somewhat different takes on Rudd’s speech are found in Melbourne’s The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, though both Ross Gittins in the SMH and Michelle Grattan in The Age seem to agree that the passing of the John Howard approach to bureaucracies and bureaucrats is a good thing. Even so—and perhaps I’m not reading him correctly—Gittins seems to suggest that Rudd’s commitment to building bureaucratic processes that aren’t driven by ideology is questionable:

A clear message to emerge from that speech is that Rudd is more a bureaucrat than he is a politician. As a consequence, he – and his Government – is low on ideology, but high on bureaucratic “process”.

On some of the touchstone ideological issues, Rudd is surprisingly uncommitted. “Policy design and policy evaluation should be driven by analysis of all the available options, and not by ideology,” he told the assembled troops. “I do not have an ideological preference for the public sector, nor for the private sector,” he said.

A bit later he refers to Rudd as “lacking ideology.” As a student of bureaucracies and the history of bureaucracies, I don’t see his commitment to policy and process based on “all the available options” rather than ideology as a negative. That is, after all, what we wish to see return to the likes of the U.S. Department of Justice–policy and process that are consistent across the board, rather than favoring one political ideology over another. I would suggest, however, that while we prefer our bureaucracies not be ideologically driven in the way the Bush administration departments have been politicized, advancing the idea of policies and processes that are responsive to their constituencies, as Rudd seems to have done, is expressive of an ideal, and in that way is putting forth a non-partisan ideology. Lacking a clear partisan ideology doesn’t mean that he’s “lacking ideology” altogether.

While Grattan awaits the proof in the pudding, she seems less concerned than Gittins:

A major difference between Rudd and John Howard is their attitude to the bureaucracy. When Howard became PM, he immediately got rid of one-third of the departmental heads. He was suspicious of the public service. His brother Bob once told me this went back a long way. “Our family in the 1940s and 1950s was very anti-public service … If he has a grudge against two groups, it’s the public service and academics.”

Rudd is just the opposite. He sees the public service as a strong source of ideas — albeit one that has been beaten down recently. He insists (the proof of this pudding will be in the eating) that he wants robust advice, not just what the bureaucrats think the Government wants to hear. That doesn’t mean he’s fully happy with the current service. He has made it clear he wants a more creative, in-touch bureaucracy, with new blood.

While both Grattan and Gittins write of Rudd’s wanting to see greater professionalization of Australia’s bureaucracies such that they become responsive to those they are meant to serve, Gittins does make note of an important omission in the list of stakeholders whom Rudd mentioned as being necessary to that process: labor unions. I would agree that labor unions are one of the constituencies that ought to be heard during Rudd’s reformation of bureaucracies.

Today it’s a story in the Sabah, Malaysia, Daily Express, and it’s rich with references to grassroots leadership, cultural change, and citizen involvement. Cogent excerpts:

The Government is doing its very best to cut down on bureaucracy and the time taken to process various applications from the public. Minister of Community Development & Consumer Affairs, Datuk Hjh Azizah Datuk Mohd Dun hoped that every department and agency will take heed of what the Government has already directed them to do in order to expedite processing of applications for assistance…

Earlier, in her address, Azizah said the passing of the 2004 Penal Code (PC) and Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) Amendment Bills in July 2006 and their gazetting in September 2007 was a positive step taken by the Government to address serious crimes such as rape cum murder, and indecent body search.

“The move to update the two codes shows the Government’s sensitivity to society’s current needs,” she said…

Azizah said the Malay proverb Jaga Tepi Kain Orang (Minding other people’s affairs) is no longer acceptable in this day and age.

“We have to know what is happening to our neighbour’s kids, for example, so that they don’t become victims of violence. If we witness a crime but don’t bother about it, we are only condoning it and letting it happen again in future.”

Azizah was impressed with the presence of men at the seminar, saying it marked the beginning of a change of mindset…

“Previously, when I organised similar seminars on women’s rights, fathers were hardly visible.”

She also urged the MPWS Legal Committee to continue holding such seminar [sic] to reach out to more target groups.

“I am glad that they will also be visiting districts on the East Coast. We want to have informed grassroots leaders.”

I believe it’s getting close to the time to start mapping these stories, geographically as well as by types, strategies, and outcomes.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen