|
Re: Ratifiability as an interest group
Marielle JANSEN
Sunday, 11 May 2003 14:33:22 +0200
Dear John and all,
John, you wrote: "The world needs a formula concerning the allocation of the weighting of the voting in a WP. This is the significant missing link for abolishing war or otherwise dealing with world problems. My current interest is in inventing more concepts that might stimulate the many conflicting groups to agree upon establishing and empowering a WP having enforcement powers."
The 'double link' between circles (or functional groups) in sociocracy, in combination with the principle of consent, provides a weighting of the votes at every level, from the local to supranational. The consent principle asks for arguments when an objection is made, which is not necessarily so in a case of veto, in which the underlying arguments do not have to become clear. The consent principle provides opportunities to learn from each other and to see things from different points of view. In this way deliberation takes place * before * decisions are made and not after.
This process asks for small, functional groups in which discussions can still be effective. Such a group can delegate tasks to its own members or to members of other groups, whether within or outside of their own organization, all according to 'decisions of policy' that they have set. When decisions have been ratified and thus made it into the implementation phase, sociocracy also provides a way of guiding and directing these processes.
Sociocracy is not a matter of the scales tipping either to the left or the right, but a matter of agreeing on decisions that are not opposed by anyone who must bear the consequences of such decisions. Unlike the present antagonistic political systems, sociocracy is designed for cooperation. And by the way, I'd like to say to Friedrich Haller that Schiller would probably have agreed that the consent principle is just fine tuning the veto principle, because the person who raises an objection is not seen as the 'obstructionist', but as someone who raises a point that others might have overlooked. The main point that Schiller must have wanted to make is that it is a terrible thing to just ignore people's views because they are in a minority.
John also said: "What counts most is Ratifiability. As long as it is a utopian document read by science fiction writers it has trivial impact."
I am not sure what you mean by Ratifiability. Are you referring to the production of a document and the 'chances of that document being accepted by national governments and/or the UN'? Or are you more concerned with the ratification of our own proposals within our own group? I guess it is the first, but in either case, the concept of 'domains of decision-making' will help us out. This, combined with the 'double link' is the key to subsidiarity and ratification on the appropriate level.
But that still leaves the question of 'The Powers that Be' unanswered. So perhaps the big question here, earlier asked in different words by John Bunzl and perhaps by others as well: "How can we connect a World Parliament to existing parliaments and / or to the UN Assembly?"
We can only do this by being well organized ourselves and agree on an internal ratification process for our own proposals and thus arrive at real decisions. We must also organize an election process for potential representatives to national parliaments and the UN Assembly (just to be prepared), and steer towards their official acceptance. Simultaneous Policy could play an important role here. I agree with Friedrich Haller that such representatives should have some political education to be able to deal with their task, so I endorse what he wrote about political academies.
Over the lifetime of this e-mail list, some proposals seem to have sunk into oblivion because nobody gives them a further thought. This does not mean the proposals were no good. Perhaps they were not worded very clearly, perhaps just misunderstood. Other proposals, that have been accepted, involve work to be done. Who is going to take responsibility for that work? Who sets the policy in this, our embryonic organization? To address this problem, we must use patterns that can be continued indefinitely in a logical manner.
That is why I propose: That each proposal gets an 'identification tag' of date, time and name of the 'carrier of the proposal'. By creating a simple chronological list, we can 'ratify' proposals by giving consent. Withholding consent means the proposal enters another (discussion) phase, leading to the original proposal being accepted or a modified version being presented (which then would have a new date/time stamp). Of course it is possible that the person who drew up a proposal finds there are so many arguments against it, that it is better to withdraw it altogether.
A chronological list of proposals could be published on the web site and participants could give or withhold their consent. Anyone who does not 'vote', is considered to have agreed. Groups or teams or organizations could make proposals collectively.
A parliament, per definition, is a place for discussion. Discussions on a global scale need a different facilitation process from those in a national parliament. If we are to organize something new on a global scale, we need to establish our own 'domains of decision-making' so that our own proposals can be discussed in the appropriate 'teams'.
If we want to get things right from the start, we must make sure that we have a process to agree on decisions of policy. (Or: "How to go forward"). Then, we must establish which are the tasks flowing from these decisions and then who is going to carry them out.
If we get these things right, we can grow into a true World Parliament and be of true service to the human race.
With kind regards,
Marielle Jansen
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]