The notion of resilience, the ability and inclination for collective response to an external impact that damages or destroys formal institutions, is useful. Yes, the construct has been around for a long time. I don't mind the new term.

Right now we are all about standing up local government. This means we help local government deliver services (output legitimacy). The way we do this changes citizens into clients. They don't have to put anything in to get something out (no inputs required). This breeds dependency. We all know that. Dependency is a deficit. It tells us part of what is wrong, not what to grow.

For example

When I was in Bamiyan in 98 the farmers there just waited on their asses for the NGOs to come along and pay them through their shell of a local government to fix up the irrigation canals damaged by normal spring flooding like they did the year previous. This means that they did not have to work together to figure out how to do things on their own. Because they didn't have to work together, they lost one thing that forced them to work across tribal lines. Standing up local government, in this instance, strengthened divisions functional to conflict and undermined the networks of relationships/trust that enabled these folks to do things on their own. This version of standing up local government undermined it. We are doing the same today.

Talking about resilience adds the dimension of cross-difference relationships for collective action. It lets you see things you can't see when you talk about dependency. This ties better into an exit strategy. Resilient communities are likely more fertile ground for local democratic institutions.

Resilience is a useful notion today.
We'll find better language later.