[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00883: Re: AN EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEMOCRACY (1.0)

From: "Bernard Clayson" <bernard-clayson(at)shuartfarm.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 15:13:05 -0000
Subject: Re: AN EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEMOCRACY (1.0)

Antonio,

Without contradicting (hopefully) anything you or Richard have written, let me explain my logic in
all of this.
The referendums were not the objective, they were a way of making the community (and WDDM) aware of
something that can be done.
That was achieved (locally), the next step was to get the public involved in longer term planning.
That took nearly two years to achieve approval by the parish council, I could have done it without
their approval, but I did not want to start a war, nor did I want to exclude the option of the
potential influence with other authorities.
That has been achieved, it is not a Wisdom Council, nor is it Planning Cell etc, it's members are
from organisations within the village, including the PC.
When I request an officer from district or county to give us a talk on a subject, they readily
agree, they are also looking for ways of communicating with the public, they also like the idea.
Small start, but I doubt if I would achieved that without the referendums, and one has to use the
'tools' available.
I now have the potential of another one, this time regarding a development, they would like a)the
public's input in to what could be done (options), and b) the public's support, or rejection, before
they spend serious money on the planning procedure.
There is something for everyone, and it does emphasis my point that 'there are many roads leading to
Rome' and we should not rush in to supporting preconceived ideas of one road.
It is slow, difficult, far from perfect, and it could fall apart tomorrow, but it is more rewarding
than the hypothetical prattle by advocates with theories and no experience of realities, so everyone
needs to get stuck in to prove what they talk about.
Then, and only then, we will be in a postition to convince others of the potential, and that leads
to the web site, which should be a shop window for others to view what options are available to fit
their circumstances.

Regards
Bernard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Rossin" <rossin(at)tin.it>
To: "Richard Moore" <rkm(at)quaylargo.com>
Cc: "Antonio Rossin" <rossin(at)tin.it>; <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>; "Bernard Clayson"
<bernard-clayson(at)shuartfarm.fsnet.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: AN EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEMOCRACY (1.0)


Dear Richard,

Your document below sounds IMHO quite a good theory.
Let's apply it tentatively to Bernard's practice, in the quote:
______________________________
At 13:45 +0000 6-01-2007, Bernard Clayson wrote:
I agree, people said that I would be breaking the law by doing
public-run referendums, I have done two so far ......... and no
one has taken me to court.
That appears to be the biggest reason why democracy does
not progress - fear.
If the advocates do not have the courage of their convictions,
why should anyone take any notice of them.
It also shows why there is a demand for an organisation, they
want something to hide behind.
Not very encouraging is it.
___________________________________

As how I understand it, Bernard should have been running
some function like that of your "Wisdom Council". As the
outcome, two Referendums have been implemented.

Nevertheless, there are too few alike "Wisdom Council"
organized functions in the real community, hence we have
so few outcomes (Referendums) being implemented by the
community -- let alone Referendums being run by political
parties for political propaganda purposes.

Most of all, the "control" topic should be accounted. Who
is who controls the "Wisdom Councils -- that in turn have
to control about the Government decisions?

Goming back to Bernard's practice: if fear is at work, and
if "Wisdom Councils" are -- or they should be -- the logical
development of a given community's "Distributed Dialog",
there will be not so many community members wishing to
share-in to distributed dialogues and Open Circles, as soon
as the discussion topic was any *questioning the Authority*:
say, the authority of the Wisdom Councils over the whole
community,and that of the Government in office over the
Wisdom Councils respectively.

In other words, if the people were fearing from questioning
the authority, both the Wisdom Council formal organizations
and the Round Circle informal organizations would be fated
to become the prey of the authorities in office. That is, the
political parties will be in control of both, not the reverse.

Therefore, I would apply the primary emphasis to "distributed
dialog" made by commoners' "Open Circles", rather than to any
"whole-system" dialog made by "Wisdom Councils", since the
Wisdom Council members -- their recognized authority -- are
expected to be a product of the "distributed dialog" discussion.

Accordingly the greatest emphasis should be applied at the very
first, to the Family dialog, or language patterning model, since it
is out from this very basic level that the (more or less fearful)
community members have to come out, to give democratic life
to their future "distributed" and "whole-system" dialogues and
membership in control of every collective issue.

Regards,

antonio




[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]