From: Jim Marks 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
I don't understand the emphasis on democracy.  Democracies can and do go
bad.  Surely reasonable people won't support mob rule, the worst form of
democracy.  Representative forms of government such as we have in the
United States and in the Federation certainly have their faults, but they
do assure that good ideas float to the surface.  Moreover, democracies
don't guarantee full participation and representative governments don't
exclude full participation.  Methinks we are confusing means with ends
here.  The philosophy of blindness perpetrated by our organization is the
point, the ends we hope to achieve.  We don't gather to pat one another on
the back for being democratic or accountable; we work together to do
something about blindness.  The means of accomplishing this are multi-fold.
 No single way is best in our efforts to change what it means to be blind.
We have to maintain our integrity, but we absolutely must keep our eyes on
the prize.
And here's another thing to ponder along the same lines.  I am an
administrator of a student affairs department at a university.  As the
administrator, I can and often do elect to use different forms of
leadership.  Sometimes I act autocratically and independently.  Sometimes I
gather input from my staff and make decisions based on the input.  And
still other times, I put issues to democratic votes.  In other words, I
choose different means to accomplish what I feel are important ends.
Success is measured by the outcomes rather than the processes used.
Whenever I can, I try to include others as well as trying to nurture
understandings.  But sometimes this just doesn't work.  All opinions aren't
equal.  Now I realize volunteer groups such as the Federation are different
from the workplace.  But come on.  We need to spend most of our energies on
blindness and less on how we do things.  It seems that when we debate the
processes used by our organization, it should always fall within the
context of our mission.  The evaluations of the processes as well as of our
leaders can then be relevant and centered.
Take the resolutions process.  Is it more important to have good quality
resolutions or is it more important to give every opinion equal weight?  In
either case, equal opportunity is presumed because I see nothing which
prevents anyone from exercising their opinions.  Instead, the resolutions
process has been weighted to the favor of the leadership within the
organization.  The standards might be higher, but the opportunity remains
constant.  Finally, I must ask.  Has there ever been a resolution denied
which is truly in the best interests of first class citizenship for the
blind?  I doubt it.  And I think the stricter guidelines help us fulfill
our mission better than leaving the doors wide open.
Jim Marks
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------