He does of course mean this only with respect to those out of power. In power, he is just as much aware of the advantages of comprehensive non-exposure as, for example, his successor Czar Vladimir. Mere democrats, on the other hand, might mean something else by the idea.

I agree that you achieved these purposes in the revision. The idealist naturalism involved in "bee democracy" doesn't seem to me entirely satisfactory. From Mandeville on, we see in bees whatever we need to see in ourselves. But they remain social insects, not social primates, and "democracy" seems to me poorly to capture the world of arthropod sociality.

So far as the essay's further revision is concerned, I'm not sure what the stake is. I think the idea you are seeking to convey is clear enough and forcefully enough put. The remaining editorial question, I think, is whether it would be clearer with less theoretical machinery rather than more. We do have corporate whistleblowers, actually, and the question of how lawyers can help them pursue their activities is less a theoretical and more a practical subject, on which many lawyers are directly and consistently engaged. For them, the question might be posed, how much does Lenin know about what is to be done?