Op-Ed: Power Over vs. Power With

April 16, 2025  |  By Robert MacLeod

The rural uprising over the last month has been a remarkable example of what can be achieved through focused, direct citizen action. While we have almost achieved our immediate objective of repealing the 800-foot road rule and the Tier 3 designations of Act 181, we are close, there is a much bigger objective that we need to accomplish.

One of the most significant problems with the entire process by which Acts 59 and 181 were created was that both pieces of legislation were classic examples of POWER OVER instead of POWER WITH. “Power Over” is characterized by hierarchy. It is characterized by a governance model that shades toward authoritarianism. It is a process by which a small, select group makes decisions that are binding on others but may not be binding on themselves. It is a centralized process. Power over is predicated on the false belief that some have more, and superior, knowledge than others. 

In contrast, “Power With” is characterized by a decentralized democratic model where all interested parties have a seat at the table, and all interested parties have a voice that is heard and considered. It is collaborative and recognizes that all parties have valuable knowledge and wisdom that must be included in the process.

Acts 59 and 181 are perfect examples of Martin Luther King, Jr’s classic definition of just and unjust laws.  In his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, King wrote: “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that... had no part in enacting or devising the law.” 

This exactly describes the manner in which Acts 59 and 181 were created. Lexy Thompson clearly delineates this in  “The Meeting You Weren’t Invited To.” Neither landowners, farmers, foresters, nor any group that actually represents them were invited to be part of the process by which these laws were drafted. Establishment environmental nonprofits and others were perfectly willing to impose the law on those of us who live in and work in rural lands.

Another example of how Acts 59 and 181 were Power Over and not Power With is that the Natural Resource Conservation Districts were also completely shut out of the legislative process. The Natural Resource Conservation Districts are staffed by capable people who have a long track record of working with landowners. There is a level of trust that exists because NRCD staff listen to and collaborate with landowners. The result is that numerous substantive conservation initiatives have become standard practice. Farmers cover-cropping their corn fields, practically unheard of 20 years ago and now standard practice, is just one example.

The position of Rural Vermont Rising is that the legislative model moving forward must be Power With. We must be in the room, at the table, when legislation that will substantially affect us is being drafted. We must be included in meaningful ways; no tokenism.

It is not enough that Tier 2 and Tier 3 of Act 181 are to be repealed. Act 59 must also be repealed because it is the absolute epitome of power over. The law calls for 30% of Vermont lands to be permanently conserved by 2030, 50% by 2050. Permanent conservation is the ultimate POWER OVER model. It insists that I concede a legal power over my land to an outside entity. The logical reality of that is that someone else wants power over my land. There is no power with relationship in that arrangement. Act 59 is a crude tool that fails King’s just and unjust law test.

Are development regulations necessary? Yes, otherwise deep-pocketed developers will run rampant in our beautiful state. Is land conservation necessary? Yes, because we need to maintain and support a healthy ecosystem. Is achieving these goals through a democratic process time-consuming and messy? Yes, but it turns out to be a lot less messy and time-consuming than when a power majority attempts to compel a power minority to submit to their misguided plans.

Robert MacLeod lives in East Hardwick and teaches social studies and history at Harwood Union High School.