Policy Vs. The Advocate

In society, the role of policy in any form is to make processes as efficient as possible. So you do not need to think through situational concerns.

The role of the advocate is to challenge policy by pointing out bad policies from the advocates perspective (who usually has a different set of priorities than the people creating the policy).

The advocate is the counterbalance to policy and represents the point of view of the idealist - those people who have a dream and vision - as opposed to the pragmatist - those people who just focus on being effective. In each of us we have both polarities but it is the pragmatist mindset that predominates today.

The role of policy is to simplify interactions by providing a "rule book" that says what to do in a situation - regardless if it is appropriate, moral or right.

The problem is that policy is often wrong, because it often only represents the view of certain stakeholders in a process (usually financial interests), and if a feedback mechanism is not in place to make adjustments, policy in addition becomes outdated and no longer applicable. In the most extreme of cases, outdated policy becomes law and great penalties are exacted for violating "policy". The advocates key responsibility is to ensure that policy is monitored, challenged and adjusted.

In short, the advocate contains within it the passion of the people who believe in things. When the advocate dies - democracy itself dies.

Policy Rules Us All

I think of Upton Sinclair when he wrote "The Jungle" which exposed chopped up body parts ending up in the food produced by the meat packing industry. The public outcry was so great that the FDA was formed to "police" corporations. It WAS "policy" to not put in place adequate safeguards on the machines, due to cost, so body parts ending up in your food was rampant. It was "policy" not to challenge the corporations - "policy" not to challenge the status quo.

Now I think of today where the Corporations just buy the FDA (our Federal Safety Advocate) and the Media (our Federal Free Speech Advocate), and our government is complicit with the rising levels of media consolidation . If Upton Sinclair produced "The Jungle" today - it would be quietly swept under the rug and YOU would be eating someone else's body parts (in this day and age it is GMO - Genetically Modified Food - and you probably ARE eating this now).

I am not against corporations or business in general. I firmly believe in Capitalism since it rewards human greed (and that is a powerful motivational force). It's important however to know that Pragmatists along with their "policy" belong in Corporations to lead society to greater efficiencies (i.e. the Walmartization of the world). Yet there must be a counterbalance to offset the Wallmartization of the world (outsourcing, having cities pick up the financial tab for their employees, destroying local economies by putting 3 Walmarts into an area and then closing two of them, aggressive union busting, etc.). It used to be that government could be called on as your advocate - but most of the government is now owned as well by corporations (so advocacy is handled on a one off, per issue basis in congress).

How Does This Affect Me?

You need to understand 2 things:

1. The role of the Advocate is the ONLY thing that prevents bad policy from ruling your life and the lives of your children
   
2. Neither the government nor the corporations seem to care anymore about protecting the role of the Advocate
   

Think about the last time that you were told "it's our policy" - regardless of how doing what policy stated made sense in the current situation. No matter what you said, you got this answer "it's our policy". It probably took you huge amounts of your precious time to "set things right" - if you bothered trying. Maybe it was a administrative error, a technical problem your had, a credit problem, a legal problem or a medical problem. YOU were your own advocate acting alone - up against some faceless policy that you could not reason with or explain your situation to. Every person you came into contact with was a robot chiming in unison "it's our policy". If you were REALLY lucky you might have found someone who risked being fired for doing the right thing for your situation and said "I am putting myself on the line and breaking policy here" - but most likely you found Robots and if you were REALLY lucky you found outsourced Robots speaking in a foreign accent that pissed you off some more (because now you were mad AND you could not understand what they were saying).

I was speaking to my cousin Rose and she told me some pretty disturbing things in this area - which directly affected whether people lived or died - and the robots (doctors, nurses, etc.) just didn't seem to care. I have asked her to post some of these things as a comment to this post. Yet what dawned on me in that conversation with her was that when the role of the advocate dies in society - so does the thinking of the advocate.

The Robot is what we become if we lose our humanity. Once the advocate dies - advocacy becomes criminal. The role of dissent or disagreement in society, so critical for a democracy to function, becomes a punishable offense. In essence, our own humanity becomes criminal.

If you think I exaggerate, consider this - violating policy in most organizations is grounds for termination - regardless of the policy being violated. Humanity (human initiative), simply gets in the way of efficiency and fiscal security. Social Services can now be called on you if you violate the policy, or code of conduct, you are SUPPOSED to have with your children and the definition of "neglect" is so broad that ANYONE could be considered "neglectful" (as opposed to immature or having kids before they were ready and now they have a steep learning curve ahead of them).

The danger here is that Robots don't think - they obey. Advocates think. They passionately reason for and promote change. Policy is a book of rules - often well intentioned - it CANNOT be as flexible as reality needs it to be so it NEEDS the advocate as its eyes and ears so it can be guided effectively.

The simple truth is that Robots are less of a liability in an "efficient" system than Advocates. Advocates act on principles - Robots act on rules. What we are breeding is a society of Robots and the afterbirth of this is actions outside of "stated policies", no matter how simple to do, are not taken for fear of reprisal unless "a committee agrees to change the policy" or it is "pre-approved" to step outside of policy in a situation - fear being the guiding principle - not logic or reason. Initiative is too much of a liability and is therefore severely punished. Many people incorrectly believe that for a system to function efficiently you need to destroy initiative to manage risk. These people want Robots and they are succeeding in getting what they want.

Now consider that there is NOTHING structurally protecting the role of advocate in society. The creation of the Anti-Corporation or the Advocacy Corporation - would be that structure - and it can only come into being in 2008 by YOUR advocacy of it.

The alternative is to create a society of Robots that blindly follow "policy" - because if we FAIL to protect and institutionalize the role of the Advocate - Robots will be the ONLY people you get to talk to the next time you have a problem...


Please respond to this post by sharing some of your encounters with policy and share how the policy did not only NOT fit the situation - following it would have actually caused you or your loved ones harm.

digg this del.icio.us reddit Yahoo!

Facebook Google Technorati