If, like Bernie Sanders, you say you want a revolution, well, you know — we’d all love to see the plan.

But what if we told you there’s an actual revolution underway, already hammering out the first wave of innovation on an anvil of open data and early glimmers of renewed citizen engagement?

Would you feel that burn?

A revolution, by the way, that Canada has an excellent chance to lead, if we play our cards right. We’re already fourth (and gaining) among 92 countries, according to one important new academic scorecard of how governments are adapting for the era of open data.

A revolution, most importantly, that could really use your help. Because there’s every chance it will stall without you. And where will that leave us?

Let us explain: out there in the big, bad world, beyond the online clutter, anger, snark and cat videos, excitement is growing around the idea that a new kind of digital democracy is within our grasp.

For it to work, two key pieces need to come together: the first involves a wholesale shift to open data, with all levels of government embracing the fullest possible disclosure of the vast stores of information they have long guarded closely; the second involves a new culture of democratic engagement, as civil society, data entrepreneurs and yes, individual citizens, step up and actually participate in crunching the data to help tease out policy answers to our collective challenges.

If the phrase “open data” rings familiar, it should. The concept is a well-known work in progress, thanks to the G7, which five years ago adopted the International Open Data Charter, agreeing that government information should be open by default. The idea has since spread to more than 90 countries.

In spirit, the open-data movement embraces the ideal that governments urgently need to unlock the mountains of information they have gathered and hoarded needlessly all these years and surrender it to the wisdom of the crowd. Data is not a liability; it’s an asset — one that could be worth trillions, globally, if fully mined.

Let the terabytes of raw data in literally thousands of categories, from health care to transportation to atmospheric carbon to race and crime, flow freely. Make it machine-readable. Put it online. Let civil society, digital analysts, entrepreneurs and anyone else who wants a try have at it. Let innovation thrive.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the World Wide Web 27 years ago, is among the leading advocates, arguing the moment must be seized: “Now is the time to resource and implement open data throughout the world.”

Until now, the U.K. and the U.S. have been the earliest, most aggressive champions.

Last week, however, the picture changed with the release of a new Open Data Barometer, an annual global report by the Open Data Institute. France and Canada soared in rank to third and fourth, respectively, as part of a “new generation of open-data adopters” now challenging the Brits and Americans in the global race to open.

The Open Data Barometer, though bullish on Canada, showed the march toward openness has a long way to go; presently, less than 10 per cent of what academics regard as releasable data is thus far available for crowd-crunching.

Worse, the report notes that momentum appears to be stalling in some countries. Many governments advertise their open-data policies “as a way to burnish their democratic and transparent credentials” without actually allocating sufficient budget and staff to make the data available.

But should it come as a surprise that, after so many decades of risk aversion, governments are hesitating? Without the strongest of policy directives from the very top that “open data” is more than mere fad, who can expect a traditionally verklempt bureaucracy to reinvent how and what it shares publicly?

Former British cabinet minister Francis Maude, who set the global pace on open data before stepping down last year, understands government resistance better than almost anyone. He has been sharing interesting insights since leaving the job that Canadians in particular might want to read carefully.

“Information is power. And traditionally even the most liberal government has been reluctant to share that power,” Maude told an audience in Sao Paulo, Brazil, late last year.

Transparency is a brilliant idea for politicians to throw around when they sit in opposition to the government, he said.

“And (it) remains a brilliant idea for the first 12 months of being in government, because all you are really doing is exposing what the government before you has done.

“And then it gets to the point of explaining what you yourself have done (in power). Then it gets harder, and too often politicians at this stage lose their nerve and retreat into their comfort zone,” said Maude.

“But the comfort zone rarely fosters creativity and innovation. So we owe it to the people we serve to get uncomfortable, to create that accountability and share data to drive innovation, growth and jobs. We have the data; let’s use it and ensure that all people have the opportunity to help shape public democracy.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

As it happens, Canada’s new Liberal government has already signalled a sharp slowdown on its campaign pledge to make government information open by default — with no expectation now of changes to the access to information laws until 2018, well beyond the 12-month mark outlined by Maude.

The inner tensions in Ottawa were laid bare in February in documents obtained by the Star that described how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s promise to pry open government would require nothing less than “cultural change” within the public service.

But that’s precisely what advocates of digital democracy have been saying all along. It was never going to be easy. Most things worth having aren’t. And if ever there was an issue worth holding the prime minister’s feet to the fire, this is it. What Ottawa won’t surrender, citizens must demand.

One need only look south of the border, to the dumpster fire of an election season that now has Donald Trump within range of the White House, to know the body politic needs more than mere tweaking.