|
(2/2) World Parliament and Sociocracy
Marielle JANSEN
Thursday, 6 March 2003 13:22:54
ººº Abstract: A * consent round * is held, in which the chairperson asks each person individually whether they give consent to this particular decision or not. After the arguments are given, the other participants need to address the objection. So with sociocracy, democracy can change from: * One man, one vote * to * one man, one voice *. Because effective discussions cannot take place with too many people present, sociocratic circles are limited to a maximum of 20 - 25 persons. 8 levels can be organized from the household to the whole planet, each one of them composed of representatives from the immediately lower level and leaders from the immediately higher. Thus, everybody is represented in one place and they can move among levels, easily than in current democratic systems ººº
(This message is following * (1/2) World Parliament and Sociocracy * and * Introduction of Marielle JANSEN *)
Award system
The sociocratic award system makes sure that pays and loans are properly related to the company's turnover, while at the same time the turnover/pay/loan ratio is used as a measuring instrument to find where improvement or deterioration takes place.
Meetings
Sociocratic meetings add two elements to the usual format of meetings. These are an opening round and a closing round. The opening round is meant to create the opportunity for the participants to tune to one another, to make the change from their previous activities to the present and to express their expectations for the meeting ahead. After the administrative part, with the minutes of the previous meeting and setting of the agenda, follows the business part, in which the agenda is dealt with. In the evaluation or closing round, everyone gets the opportunity to say whether the meeting has met their expectations and to make remarks about possible improvements, the functioning of the chairperson, or any other kind of feedback.
Before making any decision of policy, a * consent round * is held, in which the chairperson asks each person individually whether they give consent to this particular decision or not. If consent is withheld by any participant, he or she must come up with the arguments. There is no room for veto in sociocracy. After the arguments are given, the other participants need to address the objection. This may result in a totally different decision or a slightly modified version. In this way, boycott of decisions in the implementation phase is prevented and creativity is enhanced. But most importantly: everybody's voice is heard. The situation can occur, that a participant's views go against the views of the organisation as a whole. In that case, of course, objections cannot always be accommodated. In such cases, a person may be asked to leave the organisation (if he or she had not yet come to that conclusion already). In that case, consent of the person involved is not required, because it would otherwise be impossible to exclude people from an organisation who do not fit in.
From a vote to a voice
So with sociocracy, democracy can change from: * One man, one vote * to * one man, one voice *. The democratic vote is limited to marking a box on a ballot paper once every so often. The sociocratic voice means taking part in discussions about matters that affect or interest a person directly. In democracy, ideas from the grassroots level have no formal way to reach the top. In practice, we find the following approaches for communication with politicians: write letters or articles, organise action groups or committees to hold protest demonstrations or other methods of influencing public opinion. Although political representatives in local, regional and national government usually try hard to be * approachable * (especially around election time), it is in fact an impossible task for them to keep in touch with all constituents.
Deliberation structure
Sociocracy proposes another structure for deliberation on public issues. In principle, every citizen is a member of at least one circle, based on where he or she lives. Because effective discussions cannot take place with too many people present, sociocratic circles are limited to a maximum of 20 - 25 persons. (This is not cast in concrete, though).
Now starting from the grassroots, if we organise society into sociocratic circles, we could have (at least) one representative from each household to take part in the * street-level * (level # 1). Local government should (ideally) provide the leaders of these circles. The leaders of the street-level, plus one (or more) chosen representatives from the street-level go to the * neighbourhood-level * (level # 2). From the neighbourhood, leaders and reps go to the district level (level # 3). From the district level we get to the town council (level # 4) and from there to the regional level (level # 5). Next is the national level (# 6) after which we can imagine a continent-level (# 7) and finally, the global level (# 8). In this set-up, everybody can have a place in at least one circle. It is up to the individual to take or leave the opportunity of taking part.
As representatives to the next higher level are chosen from within their own circle, people can move upwards or downwards, according to capacity, skills and knowledge. This is how the person who once was the bookkeeper of Endenburg Elektrotechniek became its managing director when Gerard Endenburg resigned.
Apart from this basic setup, people can organise themselves into other circle-organisations, along lines of interest or occupation, such as science, sports, arts, business, religion, etc. All these organisations, with their own goals and objectives, have members in the basic circle-organisation, who can present the case of their organisation to the appropriate level of government. Subsidiarity is no longer a problem in sociocratic decision making.
Practical obstacles
Building a world parliament would be easy theoretically, but of course in practice there are obstacles to be found. Such as: where should people meet? Those who are committed to a world parliament would, in the early stages, have to find their own place to get together, until the various governmental institutions would recognise the viability of the circle-organisation and would provide the venues for meetings. There will always be people who make their private homes available, but this can act as a barrier for some. Neutral ground is a better option, if available. One neutral place that has become readily available over the past decade is the internet. However, internet meetings are more difficult to conduct than * face to face * meetings, because certain aspects of communication are lost. Also, certain peoples would be under-represented if a world parliament would work through the internet only, because of poverty or restrictions in basic freedoms.
Any questions?
Sociocracy looks complicated at first, which is why it is rejected on first sight by many. They do not make the effort to get to the heart of the matter. Once the pieces of the puzzle start to show a picture, it becomes easier and easier to understand how the different * rules * form a coherent system of inter-related principles. I hope I have said enough to make you interested in sociocracy as a possible decision making tool for a world parliament. I will do my best to answer your questions, hoping it will lead to a global deliberation process that works! Please be considerate if over the next four weeks my answers may be rather slow, because I will be travelling.
With kind regards, Marielle Jansen
Baron van Tillweg 20 4033 GB Lienden, the Netherlands phone/fax 31-344-600034
WP21 Alliance Forum on a World Parliament for the 21st Century
E-mail : world-parl@forums.alliance21.org
Fax 1 717 264 5036
Information, inscriptions, désinscriptions: germa@alliance21.org
|
|
|
english ·original·
[FORUM]
[DISCUSSION]
[SYNTHESES]
[DOCUMENTS]
[CALENDAR]
[PARTICIPANTS]
[SUBSCRIBE]
[CONTACT]
[HOME]