<div class="text-justify">

It is Finnish Independence Day today, a status gained from Russia in 1917. However, what does independence really mean for the citizens of the country other than being controlled by a different government? While just about every country celebrates a day similar - what has actually changed? This is something that should be considered these days as the governments themselves are losing power and being replaced by mega corporations and media distributors. 

What does it mean to be "independent" as a country when we live in a world that is economically reliant at a global level?

https://i.imgur.com/q4fz4UB.jpg

How I see it is that it is independent at a surface level only as for all intents and purposes, the people within a country have very little control over what the government does or does not do. Sure, you can talk about being able to choose the government democratically, but that in itself is heavily driven by economics of those mega-corps and the perception the media delivers. Much of what people vote on is largely irrelevant to the running of a country these days as people make their decision on personalities and events, not ideas - especially at a practical level. 

I think that much of what is important to our every day world at a government level is hidden away from us anyway, including the economic and military actions that are decided without consultation. Factor in the flow of income through the financial institutions that span the world and touch every country's governance model in some way, and the idea of independence seems largely irrelevant since all are at the mercy of the network. 

There is a funny conflict in the celebration of independence as many citizens simultaneously feel the restriction from the very government they have chosen. Even the "We are independent" contains the word *WE* and that automatically means *interdependence.* We are all interdependent on the actions and circumstances of others at a country level, otherwise here would be no such thing as a global economic crisis and it shows how reliant on others external to our borders we are.

It is interesting to consider how much a government decides is in the best interest of its citizens, and how much is in the best internet of a narrow slice of its citizens. The difference of independence from some past ruling class isn't at a citizen level per se, it just changes the people ruling. Of course, a country's citizens can be better off with different governance, but they are still largely impotent  and incapable to act independently as they are bound by the umbrella of the government that *protects them.*

We can of course see how non-interdependent citizens actually are when they choose to take some portion of the independent state for themselves - as they will be met with aggression - as seen in Hong Kong, but it happens in all countries as no country willingly gives up land and *taxpayers,* just because those people do not want to be part of the larger group. That is why factions fight for independence, but once gained, the infrastructure and framework looks much the same as prior to independence. 

What is interesting these days is that regardless of the changes at a government level, the mega-corps are largely exempt from the effects due to their integration into the behaviors of the population. Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Google care very little for which government is in power as they work outside of the framework at a global level. And because of the power they wield due to the data and networks they can leverage, they are able to largely dictate their own terms and treat their users poorly, without the governments intervention anyway. 

Perhaps the idea of independence makes people feel that they as individuals have some power, yet most do not take the responsibility of it, meaning they proxy the government anyway. At the ground level, there might be very little that changes in the day to day lives of the people no matter which government is in power. 

What I think is going to be very interesting in the next decades is when people start acting as individuals at a global level economically. What this does is take the economy that the governments actually want to control out of reach to some degree and makes them increasingly challenged as without finance, they don't have many other tools at their disposal, including their military. This would essentially economically strand a country's governance model and leave them powerless. 

People forget that governments aren't powerful without the finance of the people and the demand those people create. Take away the economics at even a small percentage and the knock-on effects can be enormous. I do not believe that any government is going to willingly give up their tools of control over their people, even if letting the individuals act independently is in the best interest of their citizens and by extension, the country. 

The problem is that no matter how one looks at it, a government is designed to service some better than others in order to build and maintain power. What the governments try to do is find a balance to keep the power model building without the citizens kicking up too much fuss and trying to fight for their independence again. 

Eventually though, all governments fail - *all countries too.*

The flood of change wipes everything away.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]

</div><center>

[![Onboarding](https://i.imgur.com/e6A1MiM.png)](https://steemonboarding.com/)</center>