As I see it, democracy is unstable. I like living in a democratic system (yes, a democratically elected republic is still a democratic system). But we have to recognize that it is unstable and democracies work under the pretense that the keys to power are distributed and frequently moving hands (by elective processes). So the danger to democracy is the collection of keys, or the consolidation of power. Power consolidation DOES have benefits after all. I mean a benevolent dictator is probably the best form of government, the issue is that if the next dictator isn't benevolent (or how long until that). The same is with democracy. We keep power distributed so that when a malevolent (or even just non-benevolent) ruler comes into power they aren't able to do much. Essentially as long as we don't let corruption fill the majority of roles with power, we're fine. They have to spend a lot of time and resources consolidating that power.

Essentially this is what "turnkey tyranny" is: the point at which power is consolidated to such a degree that a malevolent ruler would have the power of a tyrant.

So it has never been about having something to hide or that people aren't using a power malevolently. It is the potential for abuse and that given enough time a power is likely to be abused. Distribution makes it more difficult (but does not eliminate) to abuse power.

With HN's love for federated systems, which essentially operate under similar principles, I'm surprised this is not a more popular concept. The only difference is that we're talking about government officials instead of Moxie.