Authoritarian politicians of Senator Joe Lieberman's ilk are warning the world of the dreadful damage done by the WikiLeaks dump of US diplomatic cables even if the worst consequences will be mere embarrassment and discomfort.

Truth be told, little of substance has changed, and chances are excellent that even less will in the future. Everyone understands that diplomats report detailed conversations whether any are verified or not. Presumably, government officials rely on accumulated expertise to separate the wheat from the chaff, though one cannot deny that most operate with specific agenda in mind. Simply stated, there are no Mother Theresas in international affairs, individuals who place human interests ahead of national ones.

Still, one of the more valuable lessons for citizens living in democratic societies must be the awareness that what is being reported and presumably done in their names, may not seem to be what they are. Naturally, political elite rely on a second-tier class composed of professionals who grant the top-tier an unprecedented level of legitimacy, while taming masses at the bottom of socio-political totem poles.

As a critical mass, this second-tier will now be far more sceptical of accounts that leaders dish out on specific developments, ostensibly to advance acceptable and agreed upon goals. In fact, it is this fiduciary alliance between elite and second-tier acolytes that justify many abuses in a people's name, often with legal imprimaturs that grant otherwise questionable justifications. What WikiLeaks revelations exposed were the sum total of these hypocritical steps that will now produce an inevitable awakening among second-tier consumers who, this is worth repeating, sustain the top elite with raw legitimacy.

Truthfulness will now require that we wonder, question, object, dispute and, as necessary, reject tales that drag us into wars, ruin our finances, clash our civilisations, and otherwise isolate us further.

When we hear that the Pakistan Intelligence Service, the ISI, may be swinging both ways on the Taliban, or that China launched a cyber attack on Google or that Saudi Arabia urged the US to bomb Iran, we should truly interject an element of doubt in our thinking. In fact, the time may be ripe to doubt cunning politicians who disclose such fables, since their chief purpose is to manipulate citizens into positions that might not necessarily serve our interests.

Many "WikiLeaks" documents highlighted hearsay, focusing on corrupt and incompetent officials, but also recorded clever diplomatic reportage without sugarcoating. Indeed, what truly stood out were global elite's insatiable appetites to do everything to preserve their power, often behind closed doors.

Beyond such understandable fare, responsible citizens around the world ought to determine whether they can continue to rely on those who argue that the world would be a safer place, if the public were kept in ignorance. Advocates such as Senator Joe Lieberman propose infantilism as an option, but this will no longer do, because the top elite will now have to work much harder to woo second-tier legitimisers with concrete and value-added features.

Freedom of speech

For despite many shortcomings, Western democracies strive on the free flow of information that enriches them beyond description. Nevertheless, reaching this point in the long and on-going struggle for freedom of speech was not easy, nor was it looked upon favourably by potentates eager to emasculate masses.

The great Thomas Jefferson, who loathed yellow journalism, would be ashamed of those who manipulate information were he around today. Though he reviled polemical journalism, in 1787 Jefferson wrote to fellow Virginian Edward Carrington these memorable words: "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them."

Contemporary potentates would probably dismiss Jefferson as an idealist hack but even they ought to realise that access to information in the 21st century requires that the top elite ingratiate themselves with the tamed constituency within the second-tier that legitimises every conceivable wrong. WikiLeaks revelations accelerated this reassessment by placing a wrench in this heretofore-successful endeavour in absolute manipulation.

Sadly, powerful entities such as Amazon.com, PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, were cajoled into behaviours that fell outside their writs. Yet, by accepting to be bamboozled by the Liebermans of this world, these companies rejected principles of free information. Even worse, they denied customers the basic freedom to choose, which is a clear violation of Jefferson's astute warnings.

We will long discuss the WikiLeaks disclosures, which must be perceived as an act of resistance by American officials who provided the data to Julian Assange and his group, even if un-patriotic politicians disallow such comparisons.

The Monticello sage once bemoaned that people could not always be well informed, and affirmed that "if they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty".

Indeed, no country could preserve its liberties for long if, in Jefferson's own words, "their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance."

Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books on Gulf affairs.