| From: | Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sun, 14 Jan 2007 01:34:38 +0100 |
| Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Re: AN EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEMOCRACY (1.0) |
Antonio and all,
Apologies for the delayed reply, things have progressed locally.
(antonio)
Ok.: This means, you have become a *natural leader*, locally.
Because your local community recognized *your* referendums
successfulness, you have actually achieved the *natural*
authority of a leader.
(BC) A very relunctant leader, I prefer to 'show the light' and
remain in the background, however, as no one else would do
it I had to take the lead.
Some may remember that I was in trouble with the council
for doing the last one .... after the council had made a decision,
however, I have been savaged by wolves before, and suggested
they tookthe issue to the UK Standards Board ... which promptly
ended the issue. On Tuesday we had our council meeting and the
issue I mentioned (which maybe another possible referendum)
was on the agenda ......... and the chairman asked me if I would
do a referendum !!!!!
I am not saying that the PC is turning democratic, the light at
the end of the tunnel may be an express train, but it is a start ...
and it has only taken me nearly four years .....which is more
success than I have had with 'showing the light' to either of the
WDDM's.
One has to wonder why the 'democrates' can't 'see the light'
and 'representatives' can.
If the advocates started working on democracy instead of
discussing it, and stopped relying on technical quick-fixes, we
may actually make some progress, even that assumes they
have the nerve to stick their neck out.
<snip>
(antonio)
Ok., there are several roads to Rome. And everyone goes the
road one already knows. My road has been quite different, a
three decades ago. Let me introduce you into it for a two steps.
<snip>
(BC) I considered those factors, and a lot more, the question that
held me back was - which is the key ingedient?
In your terminology, education - educating the public - that they
can make a difference, ...
... hence, I went for the last functionGood luck, Bernard, with your forum.
and did it first.
Now all (!!!!!) I have to do is build everything else in front of
that, simple when you say it quickly <grin>
(Bernard continues)
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.
(antonio)
.... provided only they were ripe enough to take direct
responsibility upon themselves, at least in order to originate
policies and discuss them publicly.
If they were missing this democratic pre-requisite, there is
no political road leading to Rome. All what they (say, my far
village inhabitants) were and still are in need of, is Education
to become aware active and responsible citizens. Anything
else but a top-down political organization allowing them to
remain passive followers, like bewildered herd, of any leader
in office, maybe supposed to be the best one
(BC) The problem with public meetings/discussions is the
most vocal/dogmatic dominate the process, people like me
rarely ever get up and say their piece, it's not my way.
A forum is needed that puts everyone on equal footing and
I am still working on that.
Regards
Bernard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Rossin" <rossin(at)tin.it>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Cc: "Antonio Rossin" <rossin(at)tin.it>; "Richard Moore" <rkm(at)quaylargo.com>;
<wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>; "Bernard Clayson"
<bernard-clayson(at)shuartfarm.fsnet.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:08 PM
Subject: [WDDM] Re: AN EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEMOCRACY (1.0)
Bernard,
I'll insert my comments in your text below:
At 16.13 07/01/2007, you wrote:
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),
(antonio)
Ok.: This means, you have become a *natural leader*, locally. Because your
local community recognized *your* referendums successfulness, you
have actually
achieved the *natural* authority of a leader.
(Bernard)
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.
(antonio)
Ok., there are several roads to Rome. And everyone goes the
road one already knows. My road has been quite different, a
three decades ago. Let me introduce you into it for a two steps.
The little village I live in is about twenty over km far from the
town, an the inhabitants were aware that the town councillorship
was spending the whole budget for policies useful to the town
center inhabitants only, not the distant villages communities.
So I organized a list of village citizens to concur to the political
elections of the town councillorship. We gained 10 % of the
votes and 2/20 councillors. I did not want to become one of our
councillors: we chaired two women to that task.
I wanted our little political party to act as an assembly, with all
the supporting village citizens to share-in and discuss proposal.
But no village citizen wanted to attend the assemblies, mostly
because -- let's suppose -- they feared from being seen and
attacked by other political authorities.
Actually, a war started with the traditional political parties.
Their leaders attacked us, by charging us with incompetence,
lack of social responsibility, wranglingness, undemocratic
riots-like behaviour etc., -- but in the meantime all the policies
we wanted to be implemented in favour of our distant village
have been implemented. Therefore, our political initiative has
been actually successful.
Five years later, the village inhabitants wanted me, as I was
the accepted leader of our little party, to concur to a second
political election of the town councillorship. I firmly refused,
because the organization I wanted to set up the first time was
an assembly-based one, just a kind of direct democracy -- not
a representatives-based on one. I had been disappointed by
the no sharing-in to our assemblies by the village inhabitants.
All they wanted to obtain, it was some better representative
to decide for them. All I wanted to obtain, it was themselves
to be able to decide awarely and responsibly by themselves.
During the five years past legislature, they proved me at large
that they were incapable and/or unwilling to take any direct
responsibility upon themselves because -- let's suppose --of
their fear from being attacked by other political leaders.
(Bernard continues)
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.
(antonio)
.... provided only they were ripe enough to take direct
responsibility upon themselves, at least in order to originate
policies and discuss them publicly.
If they were missing this democratic pre-requisite, there is
no political road leading to Rome. All what they (say, my far
village inhabitants) were and still are in need of, is Education
to become aware active and responsible citizens. Anything
else but a top-down political organization allowing them to
remain passive followers, like bewildered herd, of any leader
in office, maybe supposed to be the best one
Regards,
antonio
----- 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?
Coming 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