[John Paul Esposito] I think that the major thing that cripples the democracy of an
embyonic organisation (which does not have a vision of a major goal within immediate
reach) is the logistical difficulty of getting people to do work in their spare time
--- which by definition is a scarce resource --.
Precisely because time is scarce, those who do the work are the most passionate about
the cause -- and such people inevitably take a dim view of others 'interfering' when
they care so much and are giving up their valuable time . Democracy takes time and
this is something small organisations have very little of -- so the temptation is for
people to run off and do their own thing -- which is the antithesis of organisation.
Fortunately, as someone else pointed out -- the smaller the organisation, the less
need for formal organisation-- and the use of lists and bulletin boards such as these
can enormously facilitate the exchange of information [John Paul Esposito] -- which
is really how you build any community -- letting each other know what we're thinking,
what we want to do at any particular point and to define ourselves and our positions
viz-a-viz others. If ideas can get tossed around without anyone having to agree to
interminable meetings -- and if everyone has 'the minutes' everybody is as empowered
as their involvement has permitted. None need wait for another to speak -- and none
need wait so that they can listen.
It seems to me that we all must know people who potentially could be involved -- and
who'd like to be -- and if each of these people in turn go to their circle of
acquaintances and so forth -- well you get my drift. Eventually we'll have a sizeable
political community -- And if we fail to create such a community -- it will be because
at this point in time -- an insufficient number of people existed who were driven by
what we had to offer in the way of political discussion and community.
Is this so? Obviously I think not. But this is something to be tested in practice.
There never are any guarantees in politics -- or anything else for that matter. You
can't even be sure that the toaster you bought from the shop this morning will work.
You've just got to open the box and see what happens.
Maybe a ruthless bunch of overtoasted self-serving careerists will emerge. But I'd bet
against that -- we're nowhere near important enough for that yet.
Maybe everyone (or most) will decide it's all too hard and depressing and pointless.
That's more likely -- but anyone who thinks that is always going to be disappointed --
and is always really asking someone else to take responsibility for them. And it's up
to those of us who think otherwise to keep the organisation from getting cliquey and
nasty - instead keeping the discussion focused, fresh and with a sense of perspective.
If we keep the exchange of ideas going, if we can focus on achievable stuff which we
enjoy doing and which satisfies the yen we all have in the here and now to make as
much trouble as possible for the reactionary farts who run the system, then most of us
will have a sufficient pay off to keep being involved.
That's why I don't think spending a significant amount of time working out how to stay
democratic is really time well spent -- at least not yet. First, we have to survive
and grow. People don't join an organisation because it's democratic or 'grass roots'.
They join because they like its goals, think them achievable and find a space to work
towards these which fits their particular persona. In the long run, the best way to
meet this last criterion is through something usually regarded as 'democratic'. But
to go back to metaphor, rotating the job functions on a crusie ship for the sake of
demonstrating democracy isn't much use unless there is a cruise ship and somewhere
worthwhile to go.
Paul
