With some keen insight, journalist Susan Delacourt listed how policymaking is changing in Ottawa. Writing recently in a piece for Policy Options magazine, Delacourt revealed how the Trudeau government was working its idea from the outside-in, as opposed to the previous top-down pattern of the former Harper regime. In her words: “Trudeau has promised to govern very differently. So things are getting a bit more complicated in the new Liberal Ottawa — policy-making is effectively being crowd-sourced. Everyone — from ministers to Commons committees to public servants, even people outside government — is being asked to come up with policy options.” It has yet to be seen what the effectiveness of this approach will be, and if indeed it can survive in a fast-paced world filled with layers of complexities and differing agendas. Regardless, this is precisely one of the forms of openness many Canadians voted for this past October. Political power is changing, dramatically, and those who hold it are never as secure as in times past. That's because it's spreading, not concentrating, and those politicians and their parties who bring in more players have the upper hand, at least for the present – democracy is in the process of flattening out. The domineering form of political power we have known is quickly giving way to shared experiments between government and its people. The keys to making this work are participation, respect, and an effective policy forged out of collaboration as opposed to political conquest. Up until now the political class has experienced great difficulty finding the middle ground – caught between the desire to manage a country and an out-of-control populism. Those with political power have always opted for the former because it was easier, involved fewer moving parts, and made getting elected a matter of keeping party supporters happy enough that they vote in the next election. Not any more. The public is growing increasingly impatient with the exclusive kind of managerial politics and want in – as is their right and responsibility. But the primary campaign in America shows what happens when parties refuse to budge: they become the objects of derision. In Canada, however, the opportunity to govern in that “middle ground” is a distinct possibility and the Trudeau Liberals are taking it out for a test drive. Should they eventually retreat into the customary centralized model, they could pay the price, having already raised public expectations. This might prove difficult for politics, but is a necessary step for democracy. Supposedly an effective organizing and power-sharing arrangement between citizens and their representatives, politics has become a mug's game between political parties while an increasing number of citizens retreated from the nastiness that inevitably resulted. Now, with these same parties having to pull closer to a somewhat more animated and aspirational citizenry, it is inevitable that they will have to share an increasing portion of the power and responsibilities that come part and parcel with governing. The prospect of any government having to not merely be accountable with voters but also to be in partnership with them is not a bad thing. The days of the “two choices” for politics might be coming to an end. First, it's no longer enough to just win an election and ask voters to trust your management skills. Second, the days of holding your finger in the air to determine the direction of wherever the citizens are going in order to get power were enough to get citizens to deride their politicians. A new governing choice is now on the table: a more effective form of shared political management with societal players, and the willingness to stay on principle as opposed to selling the political party's soul in order to achieve, or maintain, power. In recent years, politics has become the equivalent of war, and as with any kind of conflict, the extremes become more pronounced. The time has come for a more collaborative form of political management that is more inclusive. It's not the distinction between war and peace, but it could move us from war to negotiated compromise – not only between parties, but between the political order and citizens. The days of mutual contempt between the two might just be waning. Citizens want to share power with their officials and a more collaborative form of policymaking might be one way to achieve it. We know, as author Moises Naim puts it, that power is shifting in an increasingly frenetic world – from West to East, from North to South, from gigantic companies to fluid startups, from brawn to brains, and from tin pot dictators to town squares. But in Canada it's also moving out from the confines of Ottawa into the diverse communities across the country. Mayors are every bit as important as federal cabinet ministers. Citizen action groups are proving just as effective as government committees. All of this is a reminder that the most powerful person in the land isn't the prime minister or premier, but the ordinary citizen who has the power to select or reject both. More than anything else this fascinating transition in political power requires a clear and fluid policy framework to pull it off. As Susan Delacourt concluded in her article, “ultimately public opinion is going to be driving policy.” If that is indeed true, an informed and attentive citizenship is required more now than ever before.   Glen Pearson was a career professional firefighter and is a former Member of Parliament from southwestern Ontario.  He and his wife adopted three children from South Sudan and reside in London, Ontario.  He has been the co-director of the London Food Bank for 29 years.  He writes regularly for the London Free Press and also shares his views on a blog entitled “The Parallel Parliament“.  [Editor's note: Glen Pearson's recent post “The Ticking Time Bomb Sanders and Trump Both Share” is a worthy read as well.]