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

[Carlito]

Da: Zbigniew Łukasiak 

> 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)
> 
> 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.

Yes you can, unfortunately IMHO PP IT doesn't.

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

Yes you can have it but unfortunately IMHO PP IT doesn't.

Following Wikipedia's definition we should first of all define who are these "eligible citizens" (that will be part of the democratic process). 
If we talk about a State, is all about citizenship: the citizens vote. Simple.  
In a private organization like PP IT is totally its own business. That's why the PPI must control if there is a democratic structure behind. 
In other words it's all about rules and procedures: what you write in the Statutes/Bylaws. 
IMHO, if you are so crazy to put there Liquid Feedback as unique binding organism you have to carefully write superb rules and procedures to ensure the democratic process. 

So let's analyze the PP IT's rules and procedures, from my point of view of course.
The rules for new memberships are that only few Pirates have the right to certificate new ones. 
When I first read it (and voted it) I thought: "Wow, nice, kind of democratic, isn't it?" 
But as soon as you become certificator and your certifications are too many, the LQFB admin stops the process for "take over danger". He calls his friends, propose (and win) the suspension of certifications and if you protest/shout too loud they censor you from al the mailing lists and propose (and win) for your expulsion. 
This is also a paradox and totally suicide-strategy because as soon as you are an influent person (that could help the party growing) it goes without saying that you are also a good certificator (!!!). 

Are you still convinced this is a democratic organization? 
Please Note Zbigniew: This is not an ironic/sarcastic question: 
I strongly believe that these mad processes must be experienced in first hand to be deeply understood. 

Best,

Carlito