Section 1
Overview

1.1 Introduction

We live in a challenging age. There are unique social, political and environmental prolems facing mankind, and concerned people around the world are devoting much time and effort to solving them. Forums are taking place at the highest levels of international dialog, and most everyone is at least partly aware of the issues that are being debated. But in the discussion that follows we would like to shift the focus. The program outlined in these pages, though conceived with the world in mind, will not address global problems directly, rather we will examine issues and challenges that are much more immediate, and that are not as unique to this age as one might think. A sea change is taking place at a deep level in our social structures, and the place where the change is most apparent is at the grass roots. As we go about our daily affairs each of us is affected by what takes place on the national and international scenes, but for the majority of us the contribution that we offer to the ultimate solution of the problems must be made locally, in our own communities. It will be suggested that there are key elements missing in how our communities function, and how they govern themselves. Without these elements all manner of problems arise that adversely affect the quality of life for everyone. Thoughtful people are beginning to realize that what we need is a new social paradigm. But the structure of that paradigm, and the way to accomplish it are not exactly clear. The proposal presented here will try to steer us in the right direction, to get us off the ground floor at least. It's a plan that establishes a toehold, a lever with which to engage the world and redirect social evolution ever so slightly into a more positive direction.

1.2 Civic accountability

Let us begin by raising a philosophical question. When we think about civic and governmental responsibility, the question that comes to mind is, to whom are our civil servants accountable? The lawmakers, the bureaucrats ... the prosecutors and police ... who do they work for? Whose needs do they meet? What about our honorable judges, stationed on those imperial platforms, in whose judgment we place such great trust – who do those guys answer to? To the abstract legal code? To their colleagues? To God? Moreover, who are we, each of us, accountable to? What is the worth of our own activity relative to civic life? Certainly there are many dedicated, hardworking professionals in public service; sincere, well intentioned people who take their jobs and their duty seriously. But as one local lawmaker put it, government can't do everything. Still, are we as a community of individuals, and a nation of communities paying close enough attention to what those folks are doing? Do we grasp how much power we've actually vested in the governing bodies – how readily we've handed over to them the authority to make decisions that can affect millions of us in profound and personal ways? Who exactly is keeping tabs on the public officials? Especially local officials, local government, the civil servants who serve us most directly, whose sphere of activity is closest to our individual lives and circumstances? And what could a citizen do if he perceived that his governmental leaders were not performing to the highest standards? What channels exist for feedback and dialog? Moreover, wouldn't responsible leaders actually welcome constructive feedback? Wouldn't it help them identify which aspects of community life needed more attention, and thus make their jobs easier?

That government can't do everything is either an understatement or a total falsehood. It depends on how you perceive government. People who think of government as a separate entity, as an independent service provider – a combination trash collector, pothole paver, and delinquent jailer – would rightly argue that there's a limit to how much service it can render. Government agencies don't have bottomless pockets; the availability of resources is subject to the same limitations that any corporate entity faces in our economic system. However, if you view government as it ought to be viewed in a democracy – as an entity that is of the people and by the people – then there are really no limits at all on what government could do. In this view we ourselves, the citizens of the community, or the nation as it were, constitute the government. It's not the politicians that we send off to the city council, or the lawyers we consign to the judge's chambers. Government is us. By this understanding the question then becomes, what can't we do ... all of us .... together? What shouldn't we be able to accomplish? And the answer in this case is that, ideally, we can accomplish anything we want. It's the difference between cooperative action and competitive action. We don't want "The Government" competing against us, trying to defeat us, as if they were alien invaders. Rather, we want the government cooperating with us, because the government is us. Unfortunately, in the modern political landscape, the latter view is not prevalent. Most people do not view government this way; they do not think of themselves as servants of their fellow citizens.

1.3 Community Conscience Advocacy – representing consciousness

With regard to the accountability question, there are few people among the general citizenry who give serious attention to the activity of government. Certainly the special interest groups, corporate lobbyists and such, are paying attention. But with the public at large, the body politic, it's a different story. Lots of folks can get very vocal about particular national or global issues – poverty, pollution, terrorism – but if you were to ask them to name even one local lawmaker or judge, they couldn't do it. This is not a healthy state of affairs. It creates an enormous gap between the universe where the government works and the real life of the populace – the trials and travails of individual citizens. This gap is most apparent in urban and suburban settings. The larger the municipality, the greater the disconnect between those who lead (ostensibly), and those who are led. The longterm solution calls for a complete overhaul in our education system. Yes, education – that's where the fundamental failings are. But in the near term what is needed is a person or persons to step in and fill the void; to reconnect government and community, government and neighborhood, government and household. This person will endeavor to represent the conscience of the populace.

By conscience, we don't mean from a partisan standpoint, or a special interest angle. Nor is it a moral stance, or a particular set of "values". Rather, it's someone who speaks for conscience in the broadest, least biased, least judgmental sense. We're talking about responsible, compassionate advocacy. And it reaches both ways: horizontally, out to the community, and vertically, up to the jurists and lawmakers. For, though they might not realize it, our political leaders are as much in need of outreach and advocacy as we are. It's not sufficient, nor even very helpful, to stand on the sidelines and pitch stones. There are already many government critics who are doing that. Cooperation is what we're aiming for, and you don't achieve cooperation when the atmosphere is clouded with criticism. What's needed is an observer and community participant who brings an attitude of tolerance and acceptance to what he or she says and does, and this applies not only to relations with neighbors, but also to dealing with the government bureaucracy. It must be someone who can fathom ways to bridge the gulf between increasingly polarized political, ethnic and religious opponents; who can locate the common ground where we all stand, and then lead people there.

So how does one become a carrier of community conscience? There is not a quick answer to this, because conscience is not easy to get a handle on – at least, not with logic and argumentation. Actually, the better term to use is "consciousness", because it doesn't carry as much of the moral content that conscience does. When there is less moral spin on what you do, when you are acting from a standpoint that is less judgmental, the effect of your actions is actually more positive and far reaching. In any event, handling conscience, or consciousness requires special techniques – meditative techniques (see Sections 3.2-1, 3.4-9).

The other point to understand about community conscience is that there is more to it than writing laws. Certainly the law of the land is supposed to express the consciousness, the thought, of the community, but that does not mean that it reflects the highest and clearest degree of thought possible. In today's society more often than not the most farsighted, clear thinking individuals don't get involved in formulating laws. They don't participate in that arena. However, it may not be necessary for the deepest thinkers to be directly involved in lawmaking. They may influence the process in more subtle ways. Here again less is more. The less you say in general, the more attention you get when you do express your ideas. A quiet word of advice judiciously offered could have a greater effect than weeks of contentious debate. Moreover, a carrier of community conscience is not someone who would resort to forceful measures to make a point. And this includes legal force. He would never file a lawsuit to exert his influence, because his role is educational, and education and force are antithetical to each other.

This is a key point, and one that most lawmakers aren't getting. Our current system of government is inexorably bound to the use of force. The ultimate backing behind every legal action is an armed deputy. Such a system does not encourage voluntary participation. Just the opposite. The implicit lesson is that one must somehow get over on the folks in power. In contrast, with Community Conscience Advocacy the ultimate force behind one's actions is the force of conscience. It's neighborly cooperation at the most basic level. It's a completely different approach to governing, and it's badly needed, because in recent times we've been heading ever further down the road towards a militarized world. Fear, force and suspicion have become the dominant factors that shape our social structures. From spy satellites to background checks to gun-toting airline pilots; from dead-bolts to guard dogs to bulletproof glass, we have executed a collective retreat to our fortified bunkers, locking out all who would appear to threaten us, including the neighbors. As the world has become more fearful, so it has also become more criminal; not only because of threats from international terrorists, but from ordinary, homegrown criminals – your garden-variety delinquents, thieves and thugs. The two go hand-in-hand: the more militarized the world becomes, the more that criminality grows, and vice versa. This is not just a post 9/11 phenomenon. Its roots are decades, even centuries older. What we need is a new paradigm – something to balance the good-guy/bad-guy, cops-and-robbers mentality; to nudge us from the state of fear that has so tightly gripped our society; to re-establish openness and trust in the functioning of our communities and our nation, and indeed the world

Our proposal is going to highlight some rather straightforward problems; grass roots issues that are pretty well obvious to most of us. The question then becomes, if they are so obvious, why haven't they been resolved? And the answer is that in general, people are not thinking clearly about them. At least, not anyone who has taken a hands-on, leadership role in community government. There is no shortage in the world of scholars, authors and highly educated experts in various fields of social import – economics, the environment, social science, law – but as with our politicians, these people are nowhere to be found on the streets and in the neighborhoods of urban America. The scholars might appear on television, expounding technical analyses, or they might testify at legislative hearings now and then, but the way to address these issues comes neither from a technical angle, nor a legislative angle. New laws and new technologies are not going to fix what's wrong with our communities. Rather, we need to adopt a different approach, a spiritual approach. It's an approach that has actually been around for a long time – millennia, in fact – but unfortunately, spirituality is not something that many people really understand anymore. But the spiritual side of life – human consciousness – is where the deepest laws of nature and the most powerful problem solving technology can be tapped. Consciousness is where the inner world of thought and the outer world of matter and material concerns meet. When you experience the full reality of that inner world, it produces a clarity of thought and spontaneity of action that enable you to better deal with the external, mundane affairs of our communities and our society.

Continue .....