Democracy - Can it Work?

[Bruno Broughton]

Peter Waller:

The NAA can hardly be classed as 'democratic'. It was voted into power by the committees of various groups and clubs, but at no time did the members have a say.

With respect, Peter, I don't think you know how all of the member organisations function.

 

The Angling Trades Association certainly DO give its members their say... at the quarterly general meetings and at the AGM. Their views DO dictate how I act at NAA meetings, and I AM answerable to them... in the first instance, by presenting a written report to Board and general members' meetings every three months.

 

On matters of major import, I consult before I act (yes, and that included the MOU); on purely technical matters or less controversial issues, I am trusted to use my judgement, act, and then account for my actions. As I have done so for 'the trade' over 14 years, without getting the silver bullet, I think an objective person would agree that my political judgement is OK, at least.

 

I am intrigued by your concept of democracy - voting rights without membership. Do I take it that you demand the right to vote on ATA matters as a non-member? I will gladly raise this at the next meeting if you so wish, but I think I can guess at the outcome!

 

[ 17 April 2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

[phonebush]

Editorial Correction, I wouldn't want there to even be once we didn't all say the truth to one another. A fishing forum with suspect information - NOT while the Phone is around!!!

 

Respectfully quoted, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority"... "there is a certainty of corruption by authority"

Lord Acton (wasn't he a Brit?) "Essays on Freedom and Power" 1887

Phone

 

[ 17 April 2002, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: phonebush ]

[Keith Truscott]

Answer,

 

My priciples and opinions regarding open democracy are well known Mike. I like democracy and will defend its continuence to the hilt. Because without it, dictatorships rule. And I will NOT join any angling organisation that is not democratically run.

 

What was it that Joseph Stallin once said? Ah yes.

 

"Dictators corrupt. And total dictatorships corrupt, absolutely".

 

Regards,

b

Lee.[/QB]

 

Hi Lee,

 

So are most democracies corrupt it is just what degree of corruption. Wherever you have humans you will have some degree of corruption.

 

Communism is probably in principle the best system ever invented, but will never work as has been proved due to human nature. There has been a lot of talk of benevolent dictatorships. But isn't this the case in most organisations even when you have an elected committee because during the term of office they make the decisions for the membership, otherwise it would be impractical to run if you had to hold a referendum or call a membership meeting. Also most club constitutions allow for the committee to co-opt members on to the committee as required without a vote from the membership.

 

Not being funny but did you not yourself a short while ago decide through lack of response to disband the RSSG. Was this a democratic decision by the members that you did have at that time on a vitally important decision?? Luckily subsequent events have proved that the hard work put in by you, Ray, Ian and others was not wasted and the RSSG has nearly reached fruition. I use this as an example that there are allways two sides to a coin dependenton hoe people decipher them.

 

Keith

[waterman1013]

Lee

 

I have posted a thesis and expected reasoned debate not a complete set of ready to hand answers, most of which, to my mind, completely misunderstand the original posting. Sophistry will not get us closer to a reasoned answer or conclusion but it might make the thread interesting to those who just sit and watch.

 

“Just how far are you going back in history?”

 

Your view of democratic institutions and history is too short to be of value in a discussion reflecting human time scales. I refer to the development of societies and civilisations, not the plantation of an existing society, Western European, onto a native people, in North America. Go back and look at the history of Egypt, Ancient Greece and Rome for a reference to what happens to democracies.

 

And do you not see that western democracy (civilisation) as we have known it is breaking down around us. This civilisation is heading rapidly towards its last throws as is demonstrated by low turnouts in elections throughout Europe and North America and the ever decreasing numbers who subscribe as members of political parties.

 

Once the “people” lose the will to participate in democratic institutions, democracy itself fails. People turn to single issue politics, e.g. angling, where they feel they have some power to create change in their society. The party politicians then introduce changes to the voting systems to try to encourage participation but only manage to create weaker, coalition governments, which reflect the policies of the extremes. Look at Italy and Israel for examples where minority governments are kept in power by the extreme left or extreme right and the government policies reflect this fact. They are only one short step from becoming elected dictatorships or collapsing as functioning states.

 

Most of the complaints one hears from the public about policing, crime, education etc. reflect the fact that common standards, which are the basis for the formation of civilisation, are no longer common or practiced. That is a collapse of civilisation by definition. The collapse of civilisation leads, inevitably, to the collapse of democracy.

 

“I accept that within the confines of history in terms of its years, democracy is pretty much a modern thing.”

 

Democracy is not a modern concept. It dates back to the earliest civilisations, or at least their latter days. Democracy, was understood by Plato, who described its weaknesses as a political force when he wrote in Republic, “Democracy passes into despotism.”

 

Socrates, the Athenian philosopher who taught Plato, expounded the theory “that true knowledge emerges through dialogue and systematic questioning and an abandoning of uncritical claims to knowledge.” To debate a thesis or a question by posting, “answers” may seem instructive but hinder real debate.

 

Britain only became fully democratic sometime after 1970, when universal suffrage was granted to Northern Ireland, the Scots, Welsh and English having had it for some time since 1923. So Britain has not had to maintain it’s democracy for too long yet.

 

“America. Land of the free. Home of the brave. Totally democratic nation”

 

Oh, yeh, right. I suggest you ask the blacks, Hispanics and the under-classes how they feel democracy works for them. America works if you are white, in work and not long term ill. If that is democracy then you and they can keep it. No offence to my American cousins, but the USA is certainly not the epitome of democracy. Just ask the students who were in Chicago for the Democratic Convention in 1968.

 

If democracy is so strong in the USA why does it feel the need to stifle debate from the left or liberals? I would submit that the USA is in reality an oligarchy, which operates for the benefit of the industrial/military complex, which always seems to get into a war just as the economy is in decline, viz. 1961, 1991, 2001 and so secure future oil supplies while at the same time boosting the economy with “defence” spending.

 

“the world of PLC companies is the realm of money” “PLC trading has nothing to do with angling, why the comparison?”

 

Lee, I think you have a too simplistic view of the world. The management challenges within angling are exactly those of business. It has nothing to do with money it is all about management, policy making, direction and the motivation of those who lead. The way they lead and the fact that democracy can work against quick progress.

 

For example we all know that the existing structure of NAA, with its six constituent bodies is not the best way to move angling forward. We all have a view of what would be ideal. Those views may differ between us but there will be certain commonalities;

· One organisation to represent ALL anglers

· All anglers subscribing to pay for it

· Regional structure to fight the local battles and provide training and development

· National structure to persuade Government, NGOs and the media and to fight the national battles

· A voice within the European structures for angling

· A voice within the world structures for angling

 

The reality is that we all know that the sport needs this in place. To achieve it we must first persuade three Governing Bodies to give up their status as GBs. We must persuade the Government to introduce a licence for sea anglers and to partition the licence funds between the EA and the proposed angling national body. That requires primary legislation and is years away, if ever. In the meantime we must persuade all anglers that the plan is viable and will be good for them (the sport).

 

Yes it might be achieved one day through the democratic process. You and I will be long gone and so possibly will the sport, so it will no longer matter. Side step the democratic process and the changes could be put in place within a year. And angling could then progress.

 

Revolutionaries achieve change, either by their actions or by the fact that governments fear revolution (it takes their power base away) and react by introducing changes quicker than would otherwise be the case.

 

Yes angling presently lacks the money but so many of the posters here refuse to invest in their sport until the “perfect” body exists. Hence my original post to see if we could define the “perfect” body and then see how many might support it. Given that philosophers have been arguing about society and its structures for thousands of years I doubt we will but until the rivers open up I thought it might keep some of us amused.

 

“Answer,

 

What are you referring to when you state that the "SAA and RSSG are both semi-democratic in constitution"? A strange statement to make when the RSSG constitution does not get ratified until our final formation meeting next weekend. And when it does, ours will be totally democratic. Indeed, the RSSG officers are electable EVERY YEAR.

You dont care how leaders come to the fore? I would think very carefully about that statement Mike. Because it is so thin in content as to be an unbelievable thing for an educated man to say.”

 

Why oh why do you assume I am attacking RSSG. I have the constitution. You sent it to me. I don’t expect anyone will make radical changes to it at the next meeting and so in reality RSSG, as is SAA, will remain a semi-democratic institution, even if you think it to be totally democratic. That is not a problem to most of us, we understand that no institution yet devised by man has been truly democratic, but perhaps we are wrong; RSSG will be the first.

 

Democracy is not solely about how often you hold elections. It is also about consultation. Are you going to ask the members every time you need to write a letter whether they agree with what you are saying? No, of course you are not and neither am I going to do that within SAA. We are elected to do the job and do the job is what we both attempt to do. The period of our election does not enhance or diminish the democratic process, as long as it is within the constitution of the body we serve. That is democracy in action, members voting to appoint officers and those officers taking responsibility for their actions. Some here do not like it like that but then they are not in membership, as far as I know.

 

No Lee. I don’t care how our leaders come to the fore. I am just grateful that they do.

They can be elected, they can stand in their own right, they can be appointed, they can just offer to do the job. I do not care as long as they are there and as long as angling benefits. And once they have arrived then members can vote them in or out as they see fit. I thought carefully about the whole post. I have nothing to defend in my argument or view of the world. What do you mean by “thin in content”?

 

“Most of the NFA activists that I know, are quite proud of their democratic procedure,”

 

Yes Lee, I am sure they are. That is exactly why the NFA fails to represent most anglers and why most anglers are not members of NFA. It is the problem which I attempted to point out. The National Executive Council of NFA takes all the decisions. Until recently it comprised 32 members and most decisions were achieved after much “horse-trading” between members or regions. Most clubs do not even send a rep to meetings now, so democracy is hardly working at all. The NFA has become an oligarchy but even now is moving forward by reducing the NEC to just 16 members. But a fast acting force for angling it never will be and most of the activists know that. They may not admit it but in their hearts they are all protecting what little power they have and trying to protect that which they consider to be theirs. Another fine example of “democracy” in action.

 

This not to throw rocks at the NFA. Most angling bodies are the same. It is the most natural reaction in the world to defend what we have, against the unknown and untried.

In my opinion SAA should happily throw its lot in with an advanced organisation to promote and represent angling, and I would fight for that and campaign to the membership to accept it, if such a body came into existence.

 

“Every single democratically elected fishing club committee have, within their constitutions and rules, clauses that give their committee the remit to make decisions on their behalf within their yearly AGM's. This is COMMON practice. The same clubs also have the facility to hold EGM's to decide, or vote, on urgent issues within the club apart from their yearly AGM's.

Does not the SAA have this facility to hold EGM's? They are in place for IMPORTANT decisions to be made when the whole membership can take part if they so choose to. This, is called democracy.”

 

This is not called “democracy” in my opinion. It is called constitutional rule. That is different from democracy.

 

EGMs are not placed into constitutions to enable “important decisions” to be taken by the membership. They are inserted to constitutions to protect the body corporate from a committee which the members feel is leading that body corporate astray. In that event the membership have the right to ask for an EGM.

 

In reality most committees call very few extraordinary meetings. In many constitutions the decision-making areas, which must be discussed at an EGM, are detailed, normally relating to loans and other commitments, which might affect individual members and their financial obligations to the club. That is not the case within SAA, although there is no reason why the constitution cannot be changed and there is provision within the SAA constitution to facilitate such changes. Indeed I am waiting a proposal on some changes from Steve R for the forthcoming AGM.

 

“Answer,

 

My principles and opinions regarding open democracy are well known Mike. I like democracy and will defend its continuance to the hilt. Because without it, dictatorships rule. And I will NOT join any angling organisation that is not democratically run.”

 

So you have left the ACA then? (Sorry, low punch)

 

Can you give us your definition of democracy? My book defines it as “government by all the people, direct or representative; a form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views." So Britain now fails the democratic test of that definition. That means we had democracy in Britain for less than thirty two years.

 

With your understanding of political organisation you will know that there are many stages between “democracy” and “dictatorship”.

 

This thread was an attempt to explore them. Nice bit of sophistry though.

 

So that there can be no confusion in the minds of readers I have used the following definition of “sophistry” – bogus reasoning and concern with winning arguments rather than establishing truth.

 

I am not attacking democracy Lee. I admit I am not a democrat, never have been, never will be. Too much of a dreamer for that. I respect the wishes of others to have democratic institutions and understand why they want them. I am not convinced such organisations can or do work for us at the moment, given the needs we have for root and branch changes within the sport.

 

I can be persuaded but hope that others may have even better solutions and that by debating them here we can start to develop the organisation our sport needs.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

[ 18 April 2002, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: waterman1013 ]

[Peter Waller]

Bruno, to a degree I think you are playing this one with a touch of mischief, however, forgive me if I am wrong.

 

You represent the trade, I trust that you look after the general interests of the trade as a whole. I have no wish to vote on trade matters, I am no longer in the angling trade.

 

However, I am an angler. When important matters, regarding angling that is, rear their head then I am naturally interested, and, inevitably, involved.

 

The MOU is a clear example. Because I come under the heading of an angler I now come under the heading of being one who has an 'understanding' with the CA, tarred with the same brush. Not a position that many are entirely happy with.

 

I believe, with a passion, that the decision to work with the CA on this matter is NOT in the best interests of angling. I believe, with equal passion, that no one, but no one had the right to agree, on the behalf of angling, that angling should be linked with the CA. I accept that some NAA representatives had a mandate from their members, but did anyone have a democratic mandate from angling?

 

Okay, so such a mandate does not exist, but it could. In the meantime, without that mandate the NAA, and the SAA, have a clear duty to look beyond the limited boundaries of their own membership. If the componant parts of the NAA, and the SAA, refuse to consider their actions in relationship to the wider needs of all 'angling' then clearly challenges will come from outside of the NAA, thus weakening the position, and credibility, of the NAA etc.

 

So tell me Bruno, what real right did the NAA have to commit angling, as a whole, to this agreement? The NAA was, however you look at it, acting on behalf of angling, not just its members.

 

The NAA has a right to represent its members, that has been made abundantly clear. But what of those who are not members? We are all anglers, why should one group decide for another? Okay, we have this rubbish about those who care will join the SAA or whatever. I care, with a passion, which is precisely why I have not joined the SAA, but have joined the RSSG.

 

Angling is an exceptionally broad church, but we are all anglers together. As fellow anglers we should look to the interests of our fellows, not just to the narrow, self interests of a minority group, as has happened in the past.

 

It boils down to sheer arrogance when people speak on behalf of others without having the common decency to have asked for that right via the ballot box.

 

If people wish to take the reins, so be it. But your clubs policies effect us all, please remember that.

[Newt]

waterman1013:

“America. Land of the free. Home of the brave. Totally democratic nation”

 

Oh, yeh, right.  I suggest you ask the blacks, Hispanics and the under-classes how they feel democracy works for them.  America works if you are white, in work and not long term ill.  If that is democracy then you and they can keep it. No offence to my American cousins, but the USA is certainly not the epitome of democracy.  Just ask the students who were in Chicago for the Democratic Convention in 1968.

Mike

Mike - sorry but the US is not and never has been a "democracy". Take a look at my earlier post about that.

 

I doubt that any country (or any club) with above 100 total adult populatation (members) could function as a democracy.

 

However, if we were a democracy, none of your examples of problems (that we do have) would make sense because in a pure democracy, if a majority dislike a particular minority, they can vote to oppress that minority and they will be in the right.

 

Also, you can't base too much of today's attitudes and behaviors on how we were in the late 60s. The fiasco in Viet Nam had the country more than a little crazy and very polarized.

 

Interestingly enough, I can remember an organization over here in the 60s that used language much like what I read here. They just used more words. You might be interested in taking a look at the original formation document for the Students for a Democratic Society - SDS which can be found

Here. But in 1968, increasingly divided by factional disputes, the SDS pretty much collapsed. They wound up with only a small faction known as the Weathermen that advocated violent revolutionary action.

 

BTW - the UK isn't a democracy either. Slightly different system than ours but basically a Republic with Royals.

 

[ 18 April 2002, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Newt ]

[phil hackett]

Can democracy work within angling?

I’ll start by saying it has too, without it, we have dictatorships or anarchy. And I have a problem with both ends of the spectrum, just in case you were wondering!

 

I cherish the hard won freedoms our nation has –

The right to free speech.

The right to vote for whom you like without fear of intimidation for doing so.

The right to information off the public register.

The right to challenge decisions that you personally or collectively don’t like.

The right to opt-out of society if you wish, to list just a few.

Don’t think for one minute that I think that everything in the garden is rosy because I don’t. There is much in the UK’s democracy that could be improved, such as a bill of rights and a written constitution, true accountability of politicians both nationally and locally for starters.

However, I’m straying from the point, which is angling democracy. So how do we improve on what we’ve got?

It has been outlined above in other posts what we have at the moment therefore I needn’t go into detail about it.

So below I’ve attempted to set out a framework that I think could improve matters. It isn’t perfect I fully accept that, but it’s an attempt to stimulate discussion and ideas. As IMO all we’ve had so far is a rehash from previous threads, by the usual suspects.

 

I would make it very clear, what I write relates to clubs, association, organisations only.

 

Committees

That all officers posts are elected positions, including those for minor positions, press officer and the like. All officers are elected annually at an AGM by the members present.

 

The date of AGM of each year must be notified nine months in advance to the membership by advertisement in the body’s newsletter and/or magazine.

 

All nominations and seconding for officers including those for minor positions must be forwarded in writing to the secretary no later than one week prior to the AGM.

 

Where no nominations are put forward, nominations can be taken at the AGM.

 

Field specialists can be seconded on to the committee to give advice to the committee but can only vote on subjects relevant to their discipline.

 

The committee will keep accurate record (minutes) of the proceedings of all its meetings.

Any member wishing to inspect the minutes has the right to do so at any general meeting.

 

EGM’s

Can be called by the committee and/or a request by 20% of the membership.

 

Standard stuff I know but needs re-enforcing.

 

The body’s Constitutional Duties

 

All officers will work within the confines of the constitution.

All officers will take forward decisions made at an AGM.

All decisions ultimately within the body can be made by a vote and a simple majority. However, it will be incumbent on the body to attempt to reach a consensus view to negate the need for a vote.

 

It will be a constitutional duty on the body to undertake an annual satisfaction survey of its members and will include a section on their views on issues that are important to its members but not pressing.

This could take the form of a tick box system, e.g., Very satisfaction, satisfaction, dissatisfied, etc and include such things as -

Are you satisfied with the issues the committee has taken up on your behalf?

What type of issue do you think the committee should come back to the members for a mandate?

 

Important but not pressing issues could include-

 

Abolition of the rivers close season

The cost of the annual EA license fee

Should the committee be pressing for a ban on the socking of a particular species into still/running water?

What issues do you think the body should be taking forward in the next 12 months, etc.

 

Member should have the right on written request to ask for issues to be included in the next survey.

The survey should act as a guide to the members thinking but not take precedence over decisions made at the AGM.

This may be new to angling but it ain’t rocket science, its been used in the consumer world for years now.

 

For the above process to work it has to be seen to work by the membership. The more it’s seen to work, and that their views are being taken on board. The more members feel included and the more likely they will participate in it.

 

So it’s now over to you!

[chesters1]

if its the uk your reffering to there is no such thing as " free speech " in this country infact what was regarded as " free speech" has now been so p.c.ed

that even to call a " spade a spade " has race relations people quivering.

we cannot vote for whom we please only the names on the list.

as for the right to challenge decisions you dont like

maybe, but i hope you only mean personnel ones ,try saying i dont like paying 60p in the pound petrol tax and it will fall on deaf ears.

you cannot "opt out of society" youl still pay your dues to the state and just try getting of the electoral role and cencus.

[waterman1013]

“Mike - sorry but the US is not and never has been a "democracy". Take a look at my earlier post about that.”

 

Yes Newt, I saw that but had spent so long writing the post itself, I hoped you might forgive me the misuse of the term democracy in the light of Lee’s use of the word to describe political America.

 

”I doubt that any country (or any club) with above 100 total adult population (members) could function as a democracy.

 

However, if we were a democracy, none of your examples of problems (that we do have) would make sense because in a pure democracy, if a majority dislike a particular minority, they can vote to oppress that minority and they will be in the right.”

 

No Newt, according to my definition of democracy the rights and views of minorities are respected by the majority, see the end of my previous post.

 

”Also, you can't base too much of today's attitudes and behaviours on how we were in the late 60s. The fiasco in Viet Nam had the country more than a little crazy and very polarized.”

 

Yes Newt but the perception of America from outside is still, for many, founded in the confused days surrounding ‘Nam, and Bush’s foreign policy seems just as confused to some of us now as fp did in those dark days.

 

”Interestingly enough, I can remember an organization over here in the 60s that used language much like what I read here. They just used more words. You might be interested in taking a look at the original formation document for the Students for a Democratic Society - SDS which can be found

Here. But in 1968, increasingly divided by factional disputes, the SDS pretty much collapsed. They wound up with only a small faction known as the Weathermen that advocated violent revolutionary action.”

 

Nice one Newt, you have sussed me out. I grew up in the sixties, spoke against ‘Nam, recoiled in horror at the killing of JFK and Martin Luther King, read Oz and International Times and now carry the guilt of a generation which failed to make radical change to our world. I was stupid enough to think only the USA could have an underclass, the blacks. I then did not even know what conditions were like in Northern Ireland for a very large minority, in a supposedly “democratic” country, the mother of parliaments. And now we are breeding another underclass, the economically excluded, which, for the most part, is ignored by the masses and politicians alike. That is until they take to the streets and start to disturb our tranquil land and ideas. The politically excluded are potentially even more dangerous to society and yet, even now, we continue to ignore them and their needs.

 

The SDS is a glorious pattern of imitation for those who espouse the democratic stance. Its very collapse into a form of revolutionary anarchy is indicative of the problems I foresee with democracy and society in the UK. Although why I worry I do not know. No one in this country seems to be debating the future of our political institutions any longer. I live in hope that the internet will achieve for the masses what popular politics failed to do then. Or perhaps revolution will change the planet for the better, our politicians seem incapable of effecting real change, and for me the art of politics is all about change.

 

”BTW - the UK isn't a democracy either. Slightly different system than ours but basically a Republic with Royals.”

 

Yes, again Newt. The problem is that most Britons think we have a democracy and as a result misuse the word.

 

Phil, you very effectively lay out the prerequisites for a constitutional structure to angling organisations but constitutionality does not of itself provide democracy. It provides for the rule of law but little else. Unless all members of a society participate in the organisations, discussions and vote then democracy fails. It fails because good men stand to one side and, IMO, refuse to do their duty. If we are to have a democracy we need to be active in its defence and to participate fully in the democratic institutions. The problem we have in Britain is that most now chose not to be involved in any part of the democratic process and then feel enabled to challenge those who are with fallacious argument, personal slanders and petty insults.

 

The media have a major hand in this degradation of society by pandering to the lowest common denominator with nearly every story they run. Just look at how AT treated the MoU and the false language they used to enflame the debate. They are now doing the same over the closed season debate. Such journalism is an insult to the reader, but unfortunately the reader has become insensitive to the reality because they are now so used to reading, and believing, without question, what is published in the press.

 

I would love to see democracy flourish but I doubt it will, or even can, in the present climate of debate in Britain.

 

All we can do is to continue to try to effect change for the better, in all avenues of life.

 

Chesters, all you have to do to get off the electoral roll is not fill in the forms. But why would you want to opt out of society. Would you not rather work to change it to your view of how it should be?

 

Mike

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Mike, Elton and all,

 

Mike, you say that I have sent you a copy of the RSSG's constitution in your post on AN.

 

This is wholly untrue. I have NOT sent you a copy of the RSSG constitution either during its drafting stages or in the final draft that is to go before the RSSG formation meeting on the 27th of April 2002.

 

Will you now please state exactly in time and date when it was that I sent you the RSSG constitution and in what form. Postal or electronic.

 

The drafted RSSG constitution is for those attending the final formation meeting to decide upon. Throughout the drafting process, several RSSG members were consulted but you, were definitely NOT one of them.

 

Lee.