Re: various (lozenge etc.)

["Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se>]

Hello,
I agree with Mirek. In the future, fully developed democratic systems, there
will not be any need to have leaders (but there will always be necessary to
have some structures ensuring the running og the system). We are not there
yet. At this stage, when we are barely beginning to discuss truly democratic
systems and attempt, by trial and error, to put in place some rudimentary
mechanisms, leaders ARE needed! Current DD leaders do not get payed, they do
what they do because of deep conviction and concern about the future of
mankind. Therefore, there is no corruption and no reason to distrust this
type of leadership. We should be grateful to all those who assume a
(temporary) role as leaders in certain areas.
Sincerely,                       Jiri Polak
----- Original Message -----
From: "WDDM webmaster" <wbm@world-wide-democracy.net>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: various (lozenge etc.)


> Just a few questions/comments from your "part-time" webmaster:
>
> 1. Do you want me to delete completely some of the "masturbation prattles"
> pages from the Wiki? Which ones?
>
> 2. There may actually be more recent activity than it is currently visible
> on "Recent" and "Comments" pages. Because "blog" and "forum" are add-ons
> to the Wiki, the new submissions to them do not appear on the "Recent"
> page (top Wiki menu). I'll try to correct this.
>
> 3. What Bruce is doing (local referenda) is very valuable. But can a
> single person organize something like that in a community with one million
> inhabitants? That would be impossible with putting at first some DD
> structure in place, and securing the means (financing) for a referendum in
> a million-people city.
>
>   Therefore other activities (such as Georges' simulations in smaller
> groups) are also important to prepare for the acceptance of DD.
>
>   In this context, I would return to my earlier post about WDDM mission.
> It was probably not well understood. I was not doubting that our goal
> (principle mission) is the promotion and achievement of DD. I was
> suggesting to try to come up with what we, in this for now small group,
> can do to achieve this goal. Could we think about it some more? What can
> we concentrate on?
>
>   One obvious thing is to use WDDM as a place to report on our local
> practical efforts, as Bruce suggest.
>
>   I was thinking that WDDM could (also) become a laboratory or model for
> DD. Has anybody actually already succeeded in creating a truly
> "horizontal" group/organization without leading elites, in which everybody
> would have an equal voice/opportunity? (It seems to me that WDDM members
> are somewhat lost, expecting some sort of leadership, in spite of their
> professed stands against the top-down approach. Could we truly
> self-organize instead?)
>   That is why I think we need to develop some procedural structure,
> procedures how to collectively process proposals and come to conclusions
> without having a dominating person or committee. I don't think this is
> "masturbation". If we succeeded, it might be quite valuable contribution
> on the way to DD.
>
>   A related question: Is there any place in DD for leaders? Or better:
> What is the role of leaders/facilitators in DD? Some people are more
> initiative than others. They instigate change. Do we need some formal
> checks to prevent them to also usurp most of the decision making?
>
>   More: how to accommodate people (e.g. like me), who do not have time to
> devote all their time to public matters? That would be a vast majority of
> all the people in any future DD. People will always have to take care of
> their lives, feed their families, etc. It would be necessary to find ways
> how not to overload people with unessential information, and still provide
> everybody with all the objective information needed to participate in
> making informed decision.
>
>   Etc. ...
>
> Mirek