Karl, I'm always amazed at your ability to maintain such a measured tone.
Personally, I'm angry. I think some of the positions I've seen re
constituencies are reprehensible. Blatant power grabbing, the notorious
'capture' attempted right in front of my very eyes. (or ears, actually).
In case anyone is unclear about this, the whole point of a constituency is
to solidify a power base, and defend it against dilution. Constituencies are
by *definiton* 'capture by special interests'.
I thought that there was at least some agreement on the rules of engagement
in this process, I guess I was wrong. If there is a resolution to this, it
will be inadequate, because it will be neither compromise nor consensus, it
will be imposed. A forced acceptance of imposed authority.
Does anyone understand this? An arbitrary authority will come into existence
and be accepted because some faction is forcing the issue, and refusing to
facilitate a resolution in any other way.
The only comforting thought I've had is that some people who have not been
paying attention will be blindsided by some pretty nasty stuff, and I expect
that their reaction will *not* be measured.
David Schutt
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karl
Auerbach
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 3:08 AM
To: Bret A. Fausett
Cc: DNSO; IFWP
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update
<snip>
Once more, it is made clear to me that the only unit of interest should be
the individual human -- one person, one vote. Giving special recognition
(and votes) to any aggregation is an invitation to abuse and manipulation.
And the initial allocations of strength to these aggregations will endure
much longer than the estimates of those strengths have validity and will
thus pre-ordain many of the decisions, especially the critical
early/formative decisions.
<snip>
