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

01176: Re: [WDDM] Fwd: [sociocracy] Digest Number 373

From: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:41:32 +1000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Fwd: [sociocracy] Digest Number 373

Dear Bruce and all,

I copy your 26 May message below and insert commegts in CAPITALS.
-- Doug
===

hdr01176-tiff.gif

Dear Doug and group,

I have been following sociocracy(at)yahoogroups.com for over six months and it is a very interesting useful model of discussion. There are many tools of democracy like the citizen juries, problem solving task forces, and other NGO functions which could use Sociocracy.  Sociocracy requires one Aim per group. A group is made up of nine people, than that group appoints another group which is subservient to the first group and so on.
...
[DE:] -- SOCIOCRACY IS ONLY ONE OF SEVERAL SLOWLY FLOURISHING DECISION-MAKING TEMPLATES USING NESTED NETWORKS OF DECISION-MAKING GROUPS OF ALL RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS WITH CROSS-LIAISON BETWEEN RELATED GROUPS INCLUDING THE LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATION ABOVE AND BELOW, A GROUP SUBDIVIDES IF LIAISON AND OTHER CHANGES START TO ENLARGE THE GROUP BEYOND A MANAGEABLE SIZE THAT ALLOWS EVERYONE TO EXPRESS A VIEW SEEKING CONSENSUS:-- I.E. IF POSSIBLE NO CONTINUING OBJECTION BY ANY MEMBER. NON-SOCIOCRATIC EXAMPLES ARE DESCRIBED IN WRITINGS OF DR SHANN TURNBULL INCLUDING THE MONDRAGÓN COOPERATIVE CORPORATION OF SPAIN AND SEVERAL U.S. CORPORATIONS.
...
The first decision is to have an AIM. The group must agree so they have the same thinking on this matter. How can such a group have an Aim allowing abortion, when half the population is addamentaly against it? Would you than have another group with the Aim banning abortion? Or of Peace, when half the population wants War? Or half wants National Health Care and the other half wants Private Pay Health Care? If you collected most from one group or the other it would not represent the population. If you had 50-50 how could you achieve consensus?
...
[DE:] -- UNIVERSAL DECLARATIONS OF RIGHTS ARISE FROM WIDE CONSENSUS OF GOVERNMENTS AND AIM TO ACHIEVE WORDING THAT WILL ENCOURAGE THE WIDEST NUMBER OF SIGNATORIES. THEY REFER IN A VAGUE GENERAL WAY TO ABORTION BUT DO NOT COMMIT SIGNATORY NATIONS TO ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF ABORTION NOR TO ABSOLUTE FEEDOM OF CHOICE FOR PREGNANCY BEARERS.
SOME OF THE SIGNATORY NATIONS ALLOW EACH MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE A CONSCIENCE VOTE (EXEMPT FROM PARTY RULINGS) ON SUCH CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES (E.G. IN AUSTRALIA). THAT DOES NOT PREVENT CONTINUING GROUP DELIBERATION AND PUBLIC DEBATE. THE "NESTED NETWORKS OF STAKEHOLDERS" APPROACH OF SOCIOCRATS AND THE PRINCIPAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SELF-GOVERNANCE IS MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN THE GENERAL U.N. ASSEMBLY AND SECURITY SYSTEM RULE BY FINANCIAL AND MILITARY PRESSURE AND BIG POWER VETOS. IT IS ALSO FAIRER THAN THE RULE BY A 50% + 1 VOTING DECISION SYSTEM PREFERRED BY MOST POLITICAL PARTIES THAT GOVERN OR DOMINATE OPPOSITIONS ("THE ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT") IN OUR LARGELY 2-PARTY SYSTEMS..
...


As pointed out in their news letter;

"Consent decision making only works in a group of people who:

1. Share a common aim and
2. Can reflect together on how best to achieve that aim
3. The group consents to who is included in the group (and thus in
the decision making).

If these three conditions cannot be met, then majority vote or autocratic decision making works best."
...
[DE:] -- I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY EXAMPLE GIVEN BY ANYONE OF WHEN AUTOCRATIC DECISION MAKING WORKS BEST EXCEPT FOR AUTOCRATS AND THEIR FOLLOWERS.
...
Is eliminating someone from a group democratic?
...
[DE:] -- IT MAY BE IF THAT SEEMS TO THE GROUP NECESSARY TO AVOID A WORSE INJUSTICE.
THE DECISION SHOULD BE OPENLY JUSTIFIED AND THOSE IMPLEMENTING IT ANSWERABLE AT ALL RELEVANT LEVELS OF ADMINISTRATION. THE GROUP MAY CO-OPT CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS, CRIMINOLOGISTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAWERS OR OTHER SPECIALIZED GROUPS IN RELEVANT DELIBERATIONS.
...
Than there is the issue of Hierarchy. The "Lead" Group dominates all (sub) other groups. Thus ten people dominate everyone. If a member, ten groups down wants to change something, they must convince their group, and each group on the way up. This is a bit time consuming.
...
[DE:] -- I AGREE THAT BROADER OR "HIGHER LEVEL" ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO HEAR APPEALS AGAINST DECISIONS OF A "LOWER" OR MORE SPECIALIZED GROUP, AND POWER TO IMPLEMENT ITS DECISIONS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS DEFINING FEDERAL DIVISIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY, DEVOLUTION, SUBSIDIARITY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROTOCOLS.
...
I suggest that information which would provide both arguments should be public and each person must make their own choice on a ballot. This is the democratic model.
...
[DE:] -- I AGREE.
...
The work now progressing to develop a people's clearing house followed by a people's parliament model which would allow voting on each initiative before a binding referendum seems a good DD process. The difficulty seems always to have the necessary participation to actually be "democratic".

Kind Regards, Bruce

On 5/25/07, Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au wrote:

Sorry, Bruce, I can't agree.
Far from it being "obvious" to me that "Sociocracy can NOT apply" to DD,
I see voting WITHOUT nested networks of stakeholders (e.g. as in
Sociocrac,
the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation etc., will be hijacked by
mmaffiaccs:
= media, military, admnistrative, financial, fundmentalist/fanatic,
industrial,
academic complexes, caels ad cabals}.



Quite obviously Sociocracy can NOT apply to WDDM
This also brings into question the whole "consensus" rational.
I think we need to stick with voting. (democracy)
Bruce
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sociocracy(at)yahoogroups.com < sociocracy(at)yahoogroups.com
Date: 20 May 2007 09:58:31 -0000
Subject: [sociocracy] Digest Number 373
To: sociocracy(at)yahoogroups.com

Sociocracy
Messages In This Digest (4 Messages)
        ...
        [cut by D E ]
        ...
Consent decision making only works in a group of people who:

1. Share a common aim and
2. Can reflect together on how best to achieve that aim
3. The group consents to who is included in the group (and thus in
the decision making).

If these three conditions cannot be met, then majority vote or
autocratic decision making works best.
        ...
        [cut by D E ]
        ...


--
Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA
http://www.doinggovernment.com/
Check out my Blog too
http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/


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