From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
The reason for emphasizing democracy is simple:  when we make it work, it
is the best way to give the most people the most to say about what our
philosophy of blindness should be, what are the specifics that constitute
first-class status, who may be the best people to lead the way between
voting times, and presumably other things as well.  Atits best, the
democratic process is the vehicle equally available to every member of the
group in question to participate in collective self-direction.  We humans
are unlikely indeed to attain this ideal, but we certainly can strive for
excellence, for approximating it.
Democracy, even pure democracy, is not "mob rule," but ordered
decision-making.  If philosophy is of human origins, and if our starting
point is that all of us have equally the right to govern our own affairs,
then I think it follows that democracy must be more important han the
ascendancy of any particularly philosophy of blindness--or of most
anything else.
Of course, democracy gives no guaranty that decisions will be wise.  I
once heard the saying, "Democracy does not work; you must work it."  I
think democracy in some ways requires much more of the "average" person
than do other forms of governance, but its rewards are also much greater
if we give what isneeded.
No, not all opinions are equal, but we are all equal in the right to have
an opinion and in the responsibility to form it as wisely as we can.
These, at least, are some of my views.  I certainly claim no corner on
truth, only some opinions that I have tried to form with care.  A
democratic process that combines the ability to carry out the will of the
majority while protecting zealously the right of every individual to
participate as fully as anyone else in that process is the best way I know
of to prevent those who do claim to corner the truth market from
inflicting themselves on the rest of us.
Take care!  I appreciate your thoughtful message, though I disagree with
its thrust, because you've helped me refine my thinking another notch.
Al
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Jim Marks wrote:
> 
> 
> 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)
---------------