WDDM - Structure
Possible structural options that the WDDM members could consider – my view of
their pro's and con's:
- Organisation –
If it is be an organisation, the
implication is it would act on behalf of the members, that in turn implies –
a) empowering selected people to speak on behalf of the organisation and it’s
members, which will require –
1. procedure to establish/confirm the
opinion of the members.
2. rules which the selected would have to conform to.
3. strict penalties for failing to comply.
b) The need for funds to support the organisational structure (internally and
1. Funds can be obtained from many sources, the real problem occurs when the
source is removed, the organisation would collapse.
2. The easiest way to break any organisation, or industry, is to make available
large sums of money (grants etc) which would then increase the infrastructure
and overheads then cut off the money supply.
1. The members would leave/delegate the action to the organisation.
2. Individual initiative would be eliminated due to needing approval of the
3. Theoretical objections would over-rule practical application due to the lack
of practical experience.
- Association –
Implies/requires action by the members.
a) The core of the association needs nothing more than the members have now
i.e. the means to communicate.
1. The structural requirements would/could be simple and least cost.
b) The power of WDDM would be in the individual members’ willingness to act on
their own initiative.
1. There is not, nor can be, one way to achieve democracy due to the historic,
cultural and social differences that exist world-wide.
2. The existing power structures in different countries may/will need different
solutions to resolve the situation.
3. Theoreticians can advise, but theory (by definition is untested) can only be
a guide, the responsibility for the actions must be with the ones prepared to
make the decision to act.
4. All WDDM members should support the actions of members that fit within the
frame of the Mission Statement
c) An example of the above was in the Public run Village Referendum
1. It challenged politicians, officials, and corporate power,
2. It claimed, not requested, the right of the citizens.
3. It was done as a citizen (I did not use my position as a Parish Councillor).
4. I knew I had broken the rules, I suspect I broke a few laws.
5. To cover the potential of retaliation on the other people involved I asked
for some international help, requesting they emailed the Chief Executive, and
the Leader of the Council, with copies to the local papers, congratulating them
on supporting the referendum i.e. it was a Catch-22.
6. Mistakes were made, lessons learned, I would be reluctant to claim the
lessons can be defined as global rules, but they do indicate items that need
Only the individual can make those
decisions according to their own situation.
- Summary -
a) An association can grow/evolve to become
an organisation but it is difficult to imagine a devolution from organisation
1. Unclear as to how many members the group would need to in order to be an
2. Ditto with how much money.
b) Association Communication Structure (I would suggest something similar to
1.The principle is - (using Yahoo type principles and terminology)
1) Central list i.e. WDDM
2) Continent lists i.e. WDDM (Europe)
3) Country lists WDDM (UK)
The founder members in each of the lowest level list form a committee and
start a Country list.
The reason for the committee is to
1) get more than one perspective in any reports issued
2) to have the ability to translate reports in to other languages of their
3) be active.
4) publish their own country website.
3. List 'Owner'
The nominated member of that committee becomes
1) the list 'owner', the other members being 'moderators'.
2) the one who can publish reports of any activities on the Continental list
i.e. a Continental list member.
3) a continent 'moderator'.
Ditto upwards to WDDM.
If it really took off County/Regional lists could be added on the same
principle i.e. WDDM (UK-Kent)
1) Any 'debate' would be only be done at the lowest level due to the
impracticalities of 1000's trying to contribute.
2) The largest list I am on has nearly 6000 members and has very strict rules
i.e. any one can contribute their perspective, but no one is allowed to
contradict someone else's contribution because other list members
are taken <quote> 'to be old and ugly enough to make their own mind
up'<end quote>, and it works extremely well.
The exception being, subjects being mixed on one list, hence, the reason I
1. It should be a 'one stop' shop window for democracy under the banner of WDDM
and it's Mission Statement (Mirek has made a good start with that, it will
improve once the preliminary text is removed).
2. If the association principle is adopted, it could list the country groups
for aspiring democrats to join via their own countries website.