From: Steve Zielinski 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Al,
That is right on the nail.  Very well said and to the point.  
 Democracy doesn't guarantee results but it does, as humanly possible, 
give an opportunity for all to express themselves, the right for a 
monority to be heard, and the right of the majority to carry the vote.  
The mix and welling of ideas can then provide the grease by which 
policies are made and conclusions drawn.  The process is maintained for 
the good of the individual, as well as the group.
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Al and Masha Sten-Clanton wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 
n
> > 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 
lind.
> > We have to maintain our integrity, but we absolutely must keep our eyes 
n
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
+----------------------------+
|  Steve Zielinski  (N8UJS)  |
|      stevez@ripco.com      |
+----------------------------+
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------