[pp.int.general] What is democracy in a party

[Anouk Neeteson]

I give comment inbetween the lines,

On Dec 29, 2012 12:04 p.m., "Zbigniew Łukasiak" <zzbbyy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Carlito <carlito at subvertising.org> wrote:
> > So, if the majority expulses members and stop new subscribers you will
always have the same "controllers" ad vitam.
> >
> > IMHO this seems not being a "democratic organization" (the first rule
should be alternance of government)
>

When democraticly is decided not to change government then it is democratic.
Back to ancient greek philosphy, demos+crates=dictatorship of the majority,
but it is the least bad option logical next to anarchism.

> In my opinion the alternance of government is only an indicator of
> democracy - if there is no government (i.e. no board in this case) you
> can still have a democracy.
>
> From wikipedia:
>
> Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have
> an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy
> allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or
> through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and
> creation of laws.
>

Continueing, here lies the magic whether democracy works badly or not at
all:
representative & proportional voting. What happens with the minority that
'lost' their vote? Were the rights of the minority taken into account with
the voting proposal? Etc.
What often happens is that the claimed proportional  representative is
actually 'politicised' into a representative with a mandate, what makes him
a delegate!!!
That is also why LQFB is unsuitable for voting! Please understand also the
differation between voting for what to vote for (LQFB) and the actual
voting!

> With a permanent Liquid Feedback assembly you can have a system that
> meets the criteria above.
>

No, using LQFB for voting or as an organisation is UNETHICAL. (relates to
e-voting). It is a tool for preparing what and how is voted on a subject in
consideration with all minorities (theoreticly), nothing more, nothing
less. A knife is a tool, how one uses this is another matter (this is not
an accusation towards PP-IT!).

> Even if the organisation was not changing at all and stayed the same
> few persons all the time - that would still not really interfere with
> the definition above.

Agreed

>
> Of course if a party (of the size of practically any of our pirate
> parties) wants to play any serious role it needs to grow and evolve.
> It cannot be a closed system.  But growing is not a requirement for
> being democratic.
>
> That said I have my own set of concerns about internet voting and
> Liquid Feedback in particular - but this is a subject of another
> thread already.

The tools are the tools, the problem lies in the use of it (ethics&the
ideal)
Pragmatism (ReaLity) and the ideal (imagined).

I already tried to point out in earlier threads the importance of
(re)defining the PP core principles/values and relate that effort to this
IMHO. And yes, it is all about growing as  an organisation and my advise
generally, embrace the 'internal' opposition. Nobody 'likes' the police as
a comparison but most of us agree that they are a necessary evil
(instituted violence) what sets the difference with anarchism.

mrNatural

>
> --
> Zbigniew Lukasiak
> http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/
> http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20121229/c1c78fc3/attachment.html>