They hide behind procedures not for convenience but out of fear, says Paweł Jabłoński about acting quickly in crises
Jabłoński also cited the remarks of Donald Tusk that there is no time for procedural convenience in moments of serious disruption.
Procedures exist to guide actions. Yet during crises there are special crisis protocols designed for urgent situations. In recent times, crises such as the health emergency, energy and coal challenges, and the consequences of a geopolitical upheaval tested the resilience of government operations. Hundreds of civil servants remained at their posts, often working long hours to keep essential services functioning. When the administration changed and a new leadership team arrived, some observers argued that the prior crisis response units faced pressure or scrutiny. Those dedicated public servants carried on with their difficult assignments, balancing the need for rapid decisions with the safeguard of due process. The scene described by observers highlights the friction between speed in crisis response and the discipline of established procedures, a tension familiar to many governments around the world, including those in North America.
These discussions underscore a broader reality for crisis governance. The ability to act swiftly can save lives, protect critical infrastructure, and stabilise communities, but it must be underpinned by clear lines of accountability, transparent oversight, and robust checks. The people who do the frontline work often operate out of the public eye, maintaining energy security, health resilience, and emergency readiness when systems are under strain. The debate is not about abandoning rules but about applying them wisely and consistently when every moment counts. As reported by wPolityce, the exchange reflects how political leadership and civil service obligations intersect during periods of upheaval.
Beyond regional borders, the core question resonates with countries across Canada and the United States. North American crisis response is built on preapproved protocols, rapid mobilization, cross agency coordination, and ongoing evaluation. The aim remains simple yet urgent: minimise harm, protect vulnerable groups, and restore normal operations as quickly as possible while preserving the rule of law. This requires clear resource allocation, protection for frontline workers, and transparent reporting during rapid change. The discussion demonstrates that effective crisis governance relies on a solid framework that endures beyond any single government and protects the integrity of public service.
Ultimately the focus is on safeguarding public service values, sustaining trust, and supporting the people who serve during emergencies. The priority is decisive action that delivers results without compromising accountability. The repeated references to crisis procedures and civil service resilience highlight a shared expectation: governments will balance speed with responsibility to keep communities safe and informed during challenging times.