At 07:12 AM 3/2/2006, Jan Kok wrote: >Would it make sense for, say, a state political party to organize >itself as an FA? Would the FA replace the existing party >organization, or would it supplement it? What would be the benefits >(and drawbacks) of replacing or supplementing a political party >organization with an FA?
It could either replace or supplement, but my recommendation and expectation is that supplemental activity is far more likely to take place. Supplementation does not require abandoning any existing structure; attempts to bring FA/DP to existing organizations is going to run head-on into the Lomax Effect, the persistence of inequitable power. Further, initially, FA/DP will be correctly seen as experimental and therefore not a basket for most people to toss all their eggs in. If FA/DP involved classical organizational structure and overhead, the duplication would be a serious problem. But it does not involve that kind of burden; our common expectations about what organizations -- and especially democratic organizations that value consensus -- will be like, that they will be tedious and burdensome, is the major obstacle to the FA/DP revolution. And revolution it will be. But about as gentle and unthreatening a revolution as we could imagine. Suppose that some Democratic action group decides to adopt FA/DP as its operating structure. (There is actually a little interest). What this would do is to create a network of Democrats, plus a few others, who have an efficient way to consider and, when appropriate, implement new ideas, completely outside the existing party structure. As people interested in the Democratic Party, they would become able to move that very stubborn donkey, which, after all, depends almost entirely on Democrats for its life. "Almost entirely?" Yes. But there is something else: special interest money, which exerts inordinate influence. FA/DP would be an organization of the people; lack of such organization is what makes special interest money more than a footnote in history, for the people have, in fact, practically by definition, more money and human resources. It is my opinion that DP will act to concentrate trustworthiness, that higher-level proxies will, indeed, be worthy of trust. But the party itself can't be DP unless it wants to abandon the wont of political parties to take controversial positions. The FA won't endorse candidates, but it certainly will discuss them, and proxies will come to their own conclusions and communicate back to those they represent suggested action. >You (Abd) seem to promote the idea that the FA is just for discussion, >and that political action should be undertaken by "caucuses" that are >apparently separate entities from the FA. Isn't that somewhat >awkward, especially if most of the FA is in agreement about the action >to be taken? Can the caucuses use the same communication channels as >the FA? Several questions there, but all related to this political question. FAs are not just for discussion, they are also for coordination. Consider proxies as if they were nerve cells which communicate bidirectionally. They do not merely transmit information, but they filter it. Hopefully, they filter it intelligently! The FA/DP structure creates a nerve network containing both afferent and efferent nerves. If "most of the FA is in agreement about the action to be taken," those who are in agreement are able to coordinate their activities, and because they have discovered a consensus, the action that they take is highly likely to be effective. But the FA itself does not take that action, nor does it endorse it. The most that it does is to *report* the results of polls and make available transcripts and, ideally, neutral analysis of the various positions ultimately taken. *Wny* did most participating members come to agree on this course of action? It's a critical question. The proxies themselves, however, have no restriction on their actions. They remain free, and they can and will take controversial positions, as they choose. Those they represent, indeed, have trusted them to do this. And it is they who will transmit the suggested action(s) back to the represented members. Someone you trust suggests what you should do, and can explain why and can refer you to the transcripts and analysis if you have questions that he can't answer or if you find yourself not trusting what is being said to you. There will be shared channels of communication. There may be a mailing list to which all FA members are encouraged to belong. There would actually be two ways of belonging to this list: as a regular member, receiving all approved mail to the list, and as a special notice member, receiving only relatively rare mailings with supermajority approval. This list would be, in effect, the proceedings of the association at the highest level; to post to this list, one would have to meet list rules, probably the rules which have been discussed recently, perhaps that a member holds a certain number of registered proxies. Those members would have the right of direct post to the list. Others would be subject to moderator approval (and any full member would have approval rights). I think that these lists would be able to sort out their own rules, and trying to anticipate too many of the details is probably a waste of time; sufficient it is for now to consider that such a list may be practical (technologically it is trivial). Below that list, which in a sense defines the FA, at least in its internet presence, would be lists that high-level proxies may maintain for communication with all those in the chain below them. Thus a high-level proxy is a defacto caucus, with what can serve as an independent organization. The central association and its list could disappear, and the proxies could reconstitute it in a very short time and with little effort. The central association thus becomes expendable! Nothing to fight over. >Does it make sense for the FA to have no power at all? Yes. It is, in fact, crucial to the concept, except, of course: > For example, >it should have the power to govern itself, set the rules for >conducting meetings, etc., right? Every meeting sets its own rules, the central association may have suggested formats and operating principles, but those may be disregarded by any meeting. At its own peril, if the suggestions are based on deep experience. (And this is the way it is in Alcoholics Anonymous. And it works extremely well.) To the extent that the central association is a meeting, yes, it sets its rules. Basically, anyone who can't abide by the rules can *easily* create a new meeting. In standard organizations, this would be chaos and debilitating, in FAs, it is invigorating. AA saying: "All you need to start a meeting is a resentment and a coffee pot." AA channels resentment over existing power structures into the creation of new ones. If the new ideas are good, they thrive, and if they are not, those new meetings just fade away, having done very little harm, if any. *There is no property to fight over.* But does this mean that these organizations are powerless? Hardly. They will unite when they need to, when the time is ripe and the groundwork has been laid. Indeed, the whole process is like sane thinking. It starts with chaos and resolves in clear understanding. Unlike consensus organizations, which have correctly come to understand the possibility of consensus and which *require* consensus for action, FAs simply avoid central decision-making entirely; but when a caucus has settled on a position and has become large enough, it will simply act on its own. Caucuses can and will form special organizations, perhaps with traditional forms, including corporate forms, nonprofit or otherwise, to undertake tasks. Sometimes, as with Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., these organizations will have boards elected by an FA conference. Legally, however, the corporation is independent and the elected boards have full freedom to act as they see fit. And only those who support this activity need donate to it. FA members do not see their "dues" confiscated, by majority vote or otherwise, to further activities with which they do not agree. Indeed, there are no dues, just voluntary contributions collected as needed for known purpose. In AA, mostly to pay the rent for meeting space, which AA groups *insist* on paying, if they are following the traditions, because they do not want to become dependent upon any donor. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
