Power consolidation combined with opaqueness is the perfect hiding place for scoundrels.

Anyone in power discouraging or outright rejecting transparency does not have the best interests of those they claim to represent at heart. This applies to every power major power structure currently operating on the planet, including (but not limited to) government, business, and organized religion.

Requests for opaqueness from those in power, therefore, must be treated with the greatest suspicion.

There may be a reason for the opaqueness (such as “secrecy,” “privacy,” “sanctity,” etc.), but under no circumstances should it be forgotten that in opaqueness scoundrels may hide and grow, therefore every request for opaqueness must also include a compensatory strategy for preventing scoundrels from thriving in that shadow.

The only entity requesting opaqueness without offering such a compensatory strategy is a scoundrel.

If a compensatory strategy fails (and all will be tested), then the only responsible act by those the entity represents is to demand the entity routs the scoundrels first, then to re-assess the requirement for opaqueness second, and then (if the cost of transparency is still too high) to demand an improved compensatory strategy. The only responsible act by said entity is to follow this sequence.

There is a limit to the number of scoundrel incidents an organization is allowed to have before they do not deserve the support of those they claim to represent. There are a lot of factors that apply in constructing that limit, but it must always be on the table.

No organization should be immune to this.

A power collector deflecting calls for transparency may succeed if it can deflect that energy back into those it claims to represent, and in particular those it can cast as villains. This is typically an indicator that the entity is sufficiently corrupt that it can no longer be said to legitimately be serving those it claims to serve. It has run fully off the rails, so to speak.

Next Post Previous Post