This is worth reading inre: the recent massive earthquake in Pakistan:

What about the Islamist organizations of Pakistan; how did they respond? The same Kashmir leader told Reuters, "The jihadi groups are more sincerely taking part in relief operations. Those groups, which were branded bad by the government, are no doubt doing well and will influence people's sympathy in the future."

A number of earthquake victims attested to this reality by stating that the only prompt help they have gotten has been from Islamist groups. (See Asia Times Online Waging jihad against disaster, October 20.) Even Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf agreed with the performance of the Islamist groups related to post-earthquake assistance.
...

Al-Qaeda is having a field day watching the community of nations perform so deplorably in regard to the human tragedy in Pakistan.

When local orgs outperform the nation state and international community, they demonstrate superior fitness, and they build primary loyalty with the Public. And they deserve to, because they're doing the Right Thing better than We in this situation -- taking care of people who are in dire need.

By the by, this is how Christianity spreads a lot of the time: missionaries arrive with Better Things (say, antibiotics) than the people have on their own, make they make sure the indios understand that the Better Things are only possible because of Jesus, and the rest works itself out. Human beings like to win. Whoever's doing it right has the advantage. Nothing succeds like success, and nothing fails like failure.

Look for more and more various developments like this -- smaller network orgs beating lumbering 20th-century institutions -- in the coming years. Eventually the Establishment will turn on and start working with the new stuff, but only after they're repeatedly and publicly whipped for their incompetance. The fatbacks recoil from anything which threatens their control, even if that means they get beaten like a gongs by their most hated enemies; they're fundimentally greedy and assume their "expertice" makes them more fit than any others to make decisions; rather drive in defeat than let go and win.

The only question is whether they go down in a heavy exctincion/evolution cycle, or adapt in time to save enough of their juice to remain relevant. Across the board the results will be mixed -- e.g. the odds of recognizable survival for General Motors are different than, say, the Democratic Party -- but I believe that by the time my children get out on their own the institutional landscape will have changed significantly.