Democracy - Can it Work?

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Mike,

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Going back to your thread, some more thoughts from myself.

 

Angling officers, or those representing bodies of anglers are by and large, usually elected at their respective organisational AGM's. Whatever the term their "office" runs, alters from organisation to organisation but three years is pretty much the norm from those that I have been involved in.

 

Once elected to represent anglers, most organisations have within their constitutions, certain rules that give elected persons the remit to represent them within their terms of office. As is usually the case, if any one person, or persons, have a problem in the way that their elected officers are representing them, they have the democratic right to question either their acts or performance in relation to their representation throughout the year at the organisations AGM. Again, this democratic opportunity to ask questions is either available within the AGM's agenda under "any other business" or by asking, in writing to the organisations secretary, to have an item or slot placed on the AGM's agenda to discuss this eventuality. Throughout our land, hundreds of thousands of different angling organisations follow the same sort of rules. This is democracy, of an angling nature, being demonstrated year in, year out, in a totally acceptable, traditional form on a MASSIVE scale.

 

But; Once elected representatives set out to represent those who have elected them in the democratic way, there is no physical, or indeed accepted way whereby any said representative holds the duty to consult memberships on everything they do on their behalf. No one, including myself could reasonably expect that to happen. If they did, nothing would ever get done and those trying to either represent, or those being represented, would all soon get very frustrated.

 

There are times though, when I honestly believe that a wider perspective from memberships should be saught on important issues. In domestic politics, this perspective is gained from having a national referendum. Yes I know. Just how many of those have we had in the last 40 or so years, but such a thing IS in place if deemed as required as the nations democratic right.

 

Going back to angling politics, and Mike Heylins topic, lets look at the SAA for a moment seeing as Mike is its secretary. Most, if not all single species group SAA reps are on-line. Apart from Keith Barker, all of the SAA officers are on-line and many many more within the SAA umbrella are to. Now in certain "rare" cases, because that is what they are, rare, the SAA has the opportunity to gauge opinions from within its own organisation extremely quickly via email. And in rare cases, where an issue IS deemed important enough for a wider consultation to take place within the SAA organisation over and above those attending meetings, more collective opinions should be saught in my opinion.

 

Mike has spoken about "consensous" agreements. To be fair, and to be truthful, a lot of business within SAA is very much on-going stuff whereby concensus agreements work perfectly well within meetings. Even so, on matters deemed as more, or far more important than the norm, that might just involve wider implications for views and opinions coming from their own membership to be heard, I do feel that more consultation could take place.

 

One has to remember that sometimes, meetings are poorly attended. Mostly, it is the real driving forces that come to meetings regularly. This is not a negative view, because such things are a reality within angling. To much work in other angling area's prevent many from attending regularly and I suppose those that do attend regularly who themselves are massively over stretched, feel a sense of duty to keep things moving as best as they can. So, probably because of this, things are not seen as democratic as they could or should be.

 

Democracy is very much a two sided thing. One cannot get it, or partake of it, unless they themselves are involved in its process. Likewise, those elected from within it, hold the ultimate responsibility to uphold its priciples in order to protect and preserve it. Not an easy thing in angling to ballance when one considers that far to few are actually involved in working for angling and far to many are prepared to look the other way when comes the time to actually do something for angling which involves taking part in its democratic process at political levels.

 

Mike seems to me at any rate, to have some strange ideas about democracy. And no folks, this is not me having a pop at Mike, just me saying that I think his thoughts on democracy are strange to my own.

 

Democracy I suppose means many things to many people. To me, democracy's ultimate dept is owed by all free speaking, free voting nations to those that lie beneath row upon row of bleach white headstones in war cemeteries around the world. Through their fears, their anguish, their bravery, we have in some instances been given, or have preserved the very thread that binds our societies, gives our freedoms and fuels our hopes.

 

Where ever democracy flies, be it within angling or daily life, it will always soar as high as an eagle.

 

And does democracy work? Sleep soundly. Sleep safe. Because those around the world who dont have democracy, wont. Not until of course, they have it.

 

And does democracy work in angling? Mostly. But it can be made to work better. And to make it work better, you have to be part of its process. Having said that, I dont mean in the form of the pupular "singing from the same hymn sheet" doctrine all of the time. Agreeing for the sake of a unified stance come what may is not what democracy is all about. Not to me at any rate.

 

Now and again, a song sung out of tune can actually be quite good for the choir. And make the congregation inside the church sing even louder. If you get my drift.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Alan Pearce]

Lee, I like your last paragraph.

 

Alan.

[Zinky]

Trent-Bore!!! Come on get yourself a life.

Life is to short for all this. Chill out smoke pot.

Elton Fantastic Image.

Please hit Delete button before your Democracy sends all the traffic away to Here

[Leon Roskilly]

Bear with me for a bit

 

Back in the early 60's, the US Navy conducted an experiment in propaganda.

 

They took a class of cadets, and a lecturer introduced them to a proposition.

 

He forcefully argued the proposition and warned that those who opposed the proposition had some interesting arguments. These he presented and effectively demolished.

 

In the afternoon, the same lecturer addressed the class again, and told them what he had told them earlier was in fact untrue, and the opposite was the true position.

 

The cadets would not accept that, and argued with him, using the same arguments that he had presented earlier.

 

What that demonstrated was that most people, when they are presented with an reasonable argument will adopt that as their position, and having adopted it will defend it, closing their ears to contra arguments, and seeking to gather whatever reinforcement of their initial position they can.

 

This exercise demonstrated the value of getting in first with a 'propaganda' strike.

 

It also means that anyone taking an initial position, perhaps based on the scantiest of knowledge, is going to find it difficult to revise that opinion when other people, with other arguments confront that opinion.

 

We all become wedded to our first opinion, much like an Arsenal supporter will almost never switch allegiance and become a Liverpool fan, or a catholic become a baptist or vice versa.

 

So, what has this to do with this thread?

 

Democracy can be said to be working well when it is a system that delivers the right decision in almost all circumstances.

 

It can be said to be the best system when it delivers the right decision more often than any other system.

 

An essential for taking the right decision, is that the decision makers are fully informed of all the facts that affect the decision, including all secondary considerations. (eg Straightening a river gets the flood water away fast, but is a disaster for river life. The best decision for householders needs to be balanced with the best decision for anglers).

 

The best decision makers are those who are able to change their stance as new facts/arguments emerge (unfortunately the public don’t like that, they prefer to know where they stand. They distrust decision makers who spin like a top! Rule 1 for politicians in a democracy is to never answer the question, to explain the opposition standpoint and why that is wrong, and never commit yourself).

 

Those who are elected to take the take the decisions on behalf of others, need to be more fully informed than those who elected them to take the decisions. By and large, they will be, because they tend to live closer to the arguments and the information.

 

Where tensions arise is when a seemingly less informed electorate starts to question the decisions of their usually more informed representatives.

 

As demonstrated above, the human tendency is to take to the barricades and find the ammunition that best suits our original argument. The division grows.

 

Those close to the decision taking, having spent a great deal of time and effort trying to understand all the complex pros and cons, become exasperated with those who wade in (seemingly) from a simple position (Sod the wildlife, it’s our carpets that are getting wet!)

 

Whereas those challenging the decisions made on their behalf, see arrogance and feel frustration at having their views seemingly swept aside.

 

One thing I’ve learned, over many years, is that good decisions are rarely popular decisions.

 

Unfortunately, rampant democracy must always result in popular decisions.

 

Tight Lines - leon

[phonebush]

Leon,

Should have stopped while you were ahead. While it is true we can all be influenced by authority. There is no such thing as the RIGHT choice. Only informed choices. In the study you site, a bloke would be a fool not to defend authority. As I remember it, he stated in the morning session, "even if I say otherwise....". Example, the addage "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" has merit. Even if it is counter cultrural to your lifetime beliefs of a less expanded education.

Here in the states we cannot find fault with catch and kill, they are by far the majority taking advantage of a plentiful resource. Information allowing them to make a choice to C&R has worked (is working) far better than a moralistic, or legal "better than thou approach". Two informed opinions can both be right, opposite whilst co-exist. (I love that word, whilst.)

Only uninformed democracy's make "popular" decisions. The predominate key to democracy is homogenious education beginning at a young age. Your final statement only becomes true in hetrogenious groupings by class or ability.

Phone

 

[ 19 April 2002, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: phonebush ]

[phonebush]

While I am at it. Democracy (Federalisim) is a fortunate byproduct to the US successes. Far more important are geographic isolation, common currency, aquesence to a single language by all, access to free commerce (with "States Rights" the US more closely resembles a united EU) plus an astounding aray of transportation modes.

BY far however has been the absoult blindness of bias (a definition within democracy) in FREE public education including university. Everyone can go to school for 18 years at the expense of society if they choose. This is an often unnoticed difference with other democratic countries, even the UK

Unless an issue is relevant to "all the people" unregulated "informed personal choice" should govern. It is only when government of the people infringe on singular topics like fishing that trouble occurs

Obviously, I have conveyed a simplistic standard. Historically, it seems informed citizens (humans) have nearly always done what is best for the masses regardless of a the form of control imposed. We are thus far a successful lot. My glass is half full, hope yours is not half empty.

Phone

 

[ 20 April 2002, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: phonebush ]

[Leon Roskilly]

After years of campaigning by anglers, the Fisheries Minister (convinced by the arguments put forward by anglers, through many meetings and much correspondence) is shortly to go to a European Fisheries Summit and win the argument that commercial fishing for bass must cease, in order to allow the greatly more beneficial exploitation (in both social and economic terms) of bass by the Recreational Fishing sector.

 

Unfortunately, before the summit, there is a general election, which has been fought on the basis of which party is best able to provide a properly integrated Transport policy.

 

Welcome the new Fisheries Minister.

 

‘Er, Sir John, what is a bass?’

 

‘I’m certainly not going to Brussels to implement the policies of my predecessor, tell those recreational chappies, whoever or whatever they may be to go take a…… er, further consultation is needed…… er…’

 

And all around Whitehall, so much hard fought policy founded on much more than Integrated Transport concerns is trashed

 

Except that mostly, our elected representatives are by and large figureheads.

 

The business of good government continues almost seamlessly in the corridors of power, by those who have walked the corridors for most of their careers and know where the files are kept.

 

Democracy? Maybe.

 

But that isn’t the way of it in angling organisations.

 

We don’t have a civil service.

 

When we get rid of Joe (because we don’t like the way he has taken the decision upon himself to cut back on stocking still water gudgeon) he walks - and takes with him all that is in his head.

 

He takes all of his files on the many, many issues that he’s addressed over the years (actually, they remain in his garden shed where the wife insists he keeps them), and he keeps his address book with all of those telephone numbers.

 

The new guy doesn’t even know where he must go to buy more still-water gudgeon, or how much to pay, or what’s happening about the contract to resurface the car park.

 

Democracy? Maybe.

 

Except, I’ve never known someone like Joe being voted out of office.

 

Of course everyone moans and moans, but not many are prepared to step forward to take on the job.

 

No when Joe goes, it’s usually because he’s had enough.

 

He’s had enough of the carping and sniping (and he needs the space in his garden shed) – so he take the decision, and he walks, and he’s replaced by someone who in all probability will not do the job half as well and will have to learn all over again to put up with the moaning and carping.

 

Democracy? No, but the reality of angling politics

 

Tight Lines - leon

[waterman1013]

Phonebush sums are part of my problem with democracy in Britain with the words "Only uninformed democracy's make "popular" decisions."

 

I fear that our popular media, on both sides of the political debate, simplifies the argument to such a point, as to produce a population which is "uninformed".

 

If we look at our recent political history, when Thatcher was popular with "Essex man" some of the most damaging decisions to our society, and its future, were made by government and supported by a large minority of the British population. Now with Blair we have the same thing happening and he is appealing directly to the same group within the population.

 

The fact that our national political leaders, from two sides of the political fence, can use this same group of electors (floating voters?) to drive policy, effectively disenfranchises the rest of us who may be more committed to right wing or left wing radical politics. IMO because we gear our political decision making to the needs of the 30% of the population which floats we nearly always end up with compromise decision making, often driven by either The Sun or the Daily Mail. And that seldom produces the best solution.

 

The same happens within the angling media.

 

Both of the major weeklies, which are really the key media in the angling news market, present news in a simplistic way, using the emotional appeal to write the headlines. This does anglers and angling a great disservice IMO.

 

Recently we have had the response to a common policy document on cormorants, agreed with all the major conservation groups, effectively misreported. The real story was that anglers and conservationists had been able to reach agreement on one of the most difficult areas of conflict between us. Not a perfect agreement perhaps, but an historic one when considering some of the battles which angling will face in the future and the need we will have for those same conservationists to understand and support our position.

 

The MoU with the CA was described as an agreement to "join forces". The headline and the first two paragraphs to that particular story are both wrong in fact and make the most outrageous claims. IMO geared to suit the stance of the editorial team and not to serve angling or the angling public.

 

The NFA and the PAA agree to combine their coaching schemes and instead of a positive headline and story, we get the "Sun" language of "Peace breaks out!". The fact is that the agreement was a seriously positive move for the future development of training and funding within angling but IMO it did not suit the publication concerned to be positive.

 

It is easier in this country to sell the negative image of there having been a "war" between the parties in the past.

 

A lot of my concerns in this are concerned with our approach to news. "Is the cup half full or half empty?" neatly sums up a prime difference between Britain and the USA. The USA is a positive place to be. Success is welcomed, opportunity is exploited and the Nation does well as a result. Their cup is always half full (and filling).

 

In the older continent of Europe, we demolish those who are successful, spurn opportunity and our economies decline slowly. Our cup is nearly always half empty (and emptying).

 

Our news management reflects this, or does it drive it? Whichever, we have a population which is uninformed and when it comes to decision making within the democratic system, I think we make some really juvenile decisions as a result.

 

If one reads American fishing mags, they are full of technical features on the biology of the fish, water structure and detailed techniques. We have nothing, that I have found, to compare in the European angling sector. Comparatively I think our anglers, generally, are far behind our American cousins in understanding what is happening under the surface.

 

That lack of understanding extends into the political arena, both nationally and within angling politics. Some claim to find the whole debate boring. It is my contection that they find it so because they are ill-informed by their media and in turn we are very poor at explaining the problems.

 

Our education system is only now getting to grips with teaching judgemental skills to all children. Democracy will be all the stronger for that.

 

I can remember thoughout the fifies and sixties national politicians claiming they wanted an "educated workforce". If they wanted it so much, how come it took them nearly forty years to even start the process?

 

"Democracy" did not deliver for the population of Britain then, because what we call is democracy is just not that.

 

Lee sums up the situation in clubs and societies well and I think he and I share a lot of common opinions on this, we just use different words to describe the issues. He and I both enjoy the debate. Others often assume that it is becoming personal. Don't you ever have noisy discussions with your mates at the pub?

 

I think this is a useful discussion because I am learning a lot from it, my position is changing as a result and I do not regret that it may be too intellectual for some. I have found the inputs from Newt and Phone to be elevating. I just wish we could have more of the same on other threads.

 

For the sake of regularity I will admit to sometimes putting extreme views to engender response from others. Newt caught me out. Nice one Newt.

 

Most who know me do not know my politics, those on the left think I am a fascist and those on the right think I am a commie, or at least extreme left. They are all wrong. I just love debate, it stretches the mind and opens new horizons.

 

The sun is just coming up and a new day is dawning. Why don't we all go out and enjoy it?

We can get back to this later.

 

Mike

[Leon Roskilly]

phonebush:

Leon,

Should have stopped while you were ahead.  

Phone,

 

Sorry for the confused post.

 

It happens when you are trying to gather complex thoughts, help to cook the dinner, iron the teenager's shirt, them drive him to pick up some friends and drop them all at the nightspot.......

 

What I was really trying to illustrate is how and when information is delivered can affect your future political stance.

 

The MOU!!

 

When the signing of the MOU was presented at the SAA meeting, it was presented along with all of the reasons and arguments as to why it had been signed, which after some debate led to a reluctant consensus.

 

Those not present at the meeting received just the information that the MOU had been signed, but none of the reasons for it's signing, and in the absence of other supplementary information and argument, naturally leapt to conclusions.

 

The way in which the information (and attendant information) was received, defined the starting points of the two distinct camps.

 

If those at the meeting had not been there, then I'm pretty sure that they would have been part of the anti camp.

 

Equally those that weren't there, if they had been, would have joined the reluctant pros.

 

Once the initial positions had been taken by parties in both camps, it was inevitable that they would dig into the trench that they found themselves in further, rather than cross no man's land to the opposing argument.

 

I guess that some of the attendant argument about 'joining in' was all about the (maybe)subconcious recognition of some in the pro camp, that the side of the argument you fell upon was all to do with whether you had been there, and had benefit of the 'full' information when making up your mind.

 

And that once a side had been taken by those not there, the same information presented after they had taken a decision to oppose (based on less information at the time), would not be as convincing as when it had been received with an 'open' mind (or lets say a blank mind!).

 

Only uninformed democracy's make "popular" decisions. The predominate key to democracy is homogenious education beginning at a young age.

 

That's very true, and relates to the earlier point by Mike, regarding 'Sun readers'.

 

(The Sun being one of our most popular daily newspapers, aimed toward the lowest common denominator, and read by all hot bloodied males for the sports coverage and the scantily clad models. Great political issues are usually summed up by catchy one liner headlines! )

 

However, regardless of education, those represented, usually don't have the same information immediately available as those who make decisions on their behalf, and will sometimes come to a different initial conclusion, which then becomes entrenched when the additional information does come to their attention. By then, they are much more ready to reject an argument contra to their already formed opinion, than to change their mind.

 

So a divide opens between the representers and represented, all as a result of what information and arguments were presented when the decision about which way to jump was initially made.

 

So, 'arrogant' ministers go one way, and 'ignorant' Sun readers the other.

 

Perhaps one day a computer will run the world more effectively and sanely

 

Tight Lines - leon

[phonebush]

Leon, All,

I LOVE British politic. Sometimes I wish we had lost the war. Then someone pokes me with a sharp stick in the eye and I wake up. The closest we get is the PBS/BBS program "The Prime Minister Speaks" or something like that. I truly do enjoy the understated zeal that seems to be a traditional part of your politics.

Phone, who has no business in this thread. FISH!