Re: Democracy (was Re: There is no leadership vaccumm.)

[kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)]

cas@taz.net.au (Craig Sanders)  wrote on 09.12.97 in <Pine.LNX.3.96.971209082004.5650C-100000@siva.taz.net.au>:

> On 8 Dec 1997, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
>
> > > Why is there this implicit assumption that democracy is a good way
> > > to run things ?
> >
> > Perhaps people forget that Democracy is designed to *prevent*
> > progress from crushing the little guy.  That's only an issue in an
> > *involuntary* arrangement, such as that between an inhabitant of a
> > territory and the occupying government.
>
> how true.
>
> unlike the "real world" of governments and guns, in a voluntary project
> like debian we can vote with our feet if we don't like the direction
> it's taking.

Actually, Democracy is pretty bad at keeping the small guy from being  
stepped on. That's usually done with constitutions.

Democracy is good at finding out what most people want. Unfortunately,  
it's also good at wasting lots of time with politics.

While, outside of involuntary associations, both democracy and  
constitutions are much less important, they still have a role in getting  
large numbers of people to agree on _something_.

To me, that means that we can't completely dispense with democracy and  
constitutions, but also that we should probably not vote on every issue  
that comes along. Some sort of middle position sounds good.

And also, a simple informal opinion poll can be valuable sometimes. For  
example, it can show you where a possible compromise might be found - or  
which idea would surely split the project. That doesn't mean you must now  
follow this indication; it does mean you know the consequences of doing  
so.

> > > I'd rather not be on a bus with a steering wheel for every passenger.
> >
> > Well and clearly put.

On the other hand, I like buses where everyone has this little button with  
which he can tell the driver where to stop.

(Also, a bus driver is usually not responsible for the bus schedule. And  
those that are could, IMHO, often use some more input.)

> I've seen exactly the same things happen to other groups when they have
> switched from being a benign dictatorship to a democracy. it diverts
> too much energy into politics and fighting...the group's focus changes
> from achieving whatever the original aims were to issues of control over
> the group. "well-meaning" people waste far too much of everyone's time
> attempting to save the group from itself.

The opposite happens as well. Just look at Debian :-/

Most people need to feel that they have some influence on the direction  
they are going.

> 	Elections		For the position of project leader.  once every year or
>                     two years.
>
> 	Votes			The leader[1] may call for a vote on any issue of
>                     fundamental importance - e.g. the social contract and
>                     the DFSG.  Results of Votes are binding on the leader.
>
> 	Polls			any person, including the leader, may call for a
> 					consensus poll on any issue.  the results of this
>  					should *NOT* be binding on the leader.

Sounds good to me.

> they want subject only to their own common sense (e.g. obvious things
> like you can't lead people - especially volunteers - where they don't
> want to go, and that a leader who drives away all their followers is
> only making a fool out of themself)

That's where polls can come in very handy :-)


MfG Kai


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .