Democracies need democratic parties

[Patroklus Murakami]

One of the founding principles of the Citizens' Social Democratic Faction (CSDF) was that, since we are seeking elected office in a democracy, we should be internally democratic in every respect. This was why one of our first actions was to craft our charter almost a year ago, you can read it [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 3:30tcj42u]here[/url:30tcj42u].

Since then we have held weekly meetings, open to all, at which we have discussed CDS politics among ourselves and with representatives of all the other factions and of none. We are alone among the factions in having this record of constructive engagement with CDS politics, openness and transparency and consistency. We have held regular elections for officials within the faction with the position of Secretary-General passing from Moon Adamant, to me and then to Jon Seattle. I think this contrast well with CARE, for example, where Michel seems to exercise almost dictator-like control over his party. It would be inconceivable, for example, for anyone in our faction to resign from the RA and then insist, with no discussion or debate, that no other member of the faction would be able to take the seat. This is what Michel did at the time, the relevant thread is [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 2:30tcj42u]here[/url:30tcj42u]. (Fortunately, our Constitution provides guarantees for voters against this kind of arbitrary diktat and CARE voters were represented in the RA subsequently by other members of the faction).

The CSDF election manifesto was formed through an iterative process of discussion at two CSDF election meetings, a number of email interactions and was drafted largely by myself (under instruction from the meetings) with contributions by other CSDF members. How were the other faction manifestos developed? Was it in such an open, democratic fashion?

[Flyingroc Chung]

Here's the DPU process!

A: Hey, it's election season again.

B: Yeah, someone needs to write a manifesto; any volunteers?

C: Too busy.

D: Too busy.

E: Too busy.
...
Z: Too busy.

[after a few weeks]

A: Ok, anyone wants to run for office?

B: Too busy.

C: Too busy.
...
[another few weeks pass]

D: Ok I will.

SC: Too late.

E: That was fun, let's do this again next time.

[Dnate Mars]

[quote="Flyingroc Chung":3c9c3frf]Here's the DPU process!

A: Hey, it's election season again.

B: Yeah, someone needs to write a manifesto; any volunteers?

C: Too busy.

D: Too busy.

E: Too busy.
...
Z: Too busy.

[after a few weeks]

A: Ok, anyone wants to run for office?

B: Too busy.

C: Too busy.
...
[another few weeks pass]

D: Ok I will.

SC: Too late.

E: That was fun, let's do this again next time.[/quote:3c9c3frf]

Yeah, but we won't let that happen again. Bad timing is all it is.

[Flyingroc Chung]

[quote="Dnate Mars":ynqxxmpm]
Yeah, but we won't let that happen again. Bad timing is all it is.[/quote:ynqxxmpm]

Just think of it as having 6 months to campaign for next term!

[Beathan]

FR and Dnate -- that doesn't just sound like a democratic process, that sounds like a Democratic process.

IRL, like Will Rogers, I am not a member of an organized political party; I'm a Democrat.

Beathan

[Sonja Strom]

-- six months later --

The DPU process gets into action!

A: Hey, it's election season again.

B: Yeah, someone needs to write a manifesto; any volunteers?

C: Too busy.

D: Too busy.

E: Too busy.
...
Z: Too busy.

[after a few weeks]

S: OK, I'll do it.

A: Ok, anyone wants to run for office?

B: Too busy.

C: Too busy.
...
[another few weeks pass]

S: Ok I will.

[Flyingroc Chung]

Speaking of which, Sonja, we should be drafting a by-elections manifesto

[cleopatraxigalia]

What is that about?................omg?

I like it though,

Pat : attack anyone faction I see

faction pat attacks: attack each other

Pat: ... i like it, but i wanna write meanie things again

darn, ( pat kicks his dog)

---------------------------------------

[cleopatraxigalia]

oh .. i forgot to say

write meanie things about MMEEEE pat.. Please????? please!

[Beathan]

This is the part I find interesting --

It would be inconceivable, for example, for anyone in our faction to resign from the RA and then insist, with no discussion or debate, that no other member of the faction would be able to take the seat. This is what Michel did at the time, the relevant thread is [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 2:30tcj42u]here[/url:30tcj42u]. (Fortunately, our Constitution provides guarantees for voters against this kind of arbitrary diktat and CARE voters were represented in the RA subsequently by other members of the faction).

Of course, in Pat and the CSDF's defense, I understand that the CSDF resignation, which was accompanied with a Michel Manenian order that no CSDF person fill the seats, was done through the "democratic" process of having been discussed at a CSDF meeting. However, that meeting was attended by a mere fraction of the CSDF voters (at least in terms of first preference in the last election), so it is disputable whether the CSDF's decision was democractic, rather than a suicidal disenfranchisement of its own supporters.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan

Nice try at a smear but you're going to have to work harder than that (You guys really are shit-scared about how much support we have, aren't you? Those 24 first preferences in the January election must really have put the wind up you. It was really clear how little support you actually have in the CDS. Ah well, I digress. Back to the main feature....)

Am I supposed to be embarrassed by what I wrote when Michel threw a hissy-fit and resigned from the RA? I stand by every word. "It would be inconceivable, for example, for anyone in our faction to resign from the RA and then insist, with no discussion or debate, that no other member of the faction would be able to take the seat."

It is inconceivable because we are a democratic party. We're the most open, transparent democratic party in the CDS. We've held weekly public meetings for two years. We have a charter setting out how the faction is to be run. When was the last time any of your factions held a public meeting? How are your factions run? People in glass houses.....

We made our decision according to our democratic procedures as laid out in our charter. I had flagged to CSDF members for weeks previously that the personal attacks from your friend ThePrincess, along with the disruption of RA meeting by you and your NuCARE allies, was more than I could put up with and that I was thinking of resigning. So the membership of our faction knew what my intentions were and we had considered what to do in response, including a boycott. How are decisions made in your faction? Who authorised your assault on our Constitution? Who voted for you to attack and undermine the LRA? Who voted for you in any case? You were drafted in at the last minute when you scraped a second seat in the RA. I should imagine your faction is regretting that decision.

Beathan, I know you enjoy this kind of game but you're not very good at it. If you want to support NuCARE in the election try saying something positive about them rather than just slagging off the CSDF with a weak attempt to repeat my words back to me. After all, you're the supposed proponent of 'Simplicity' who just wasted the first half of the legislative session trying to foist a 700 page rule book on the RA! I considered going back to find all those posts you wrote during the judiciary debate about how shorter is simpler and more 'democratic' but life's too short for such silly games

[Cindy Ecksol]

Beathan

It is inconceivable because we are a democratic party. We're the most open, transparent democratic party in the CDS. We've held weekly public meetings for two years. We have a charter setting out how the faction is to be run. When was the last time any of your factions held a public meeting? How are your factions run? People in glass houses.....

Oh, my Pat! You certainly DO have a way of manipulating reality to suit your purposes! Those "weekly public meetings" are definitely NOT public....except for the parts that someone deems public. I can personally attest to this, as I attended the meeting where the decision was made for CSDF to leave the RA and was politely told (by Jon) after the first 20 minutes or so that the rest of the meeting was closed. And I understand that this is common practice on the part of CSDF ,that non-members are often asked to leave the meeting.

I'll contrast this to the first nuCARE meeting I attended, where you yourself joined us and were not asked to leave. And other nuCARE meetings where any av who happened to be around was invited to sit in on the strategy session.

I'll also note that it's uncommon for CSDF meetings to be publicized on the Events forum, and certainly no one has asked me to add them to the CDS calendar.

When it comes to "open, transparent [and] democratic" I'd take the nuCARE model over the CSDF model any day. Oh, and the DPU model too -- I myself plan to attend the next DPU meeting, and I'm sure I won't be unwelcome.

Cindy

[Patroklus Murakami]

Cindy

In two years we've held around 100 CSDF weekly meetings. They've been attended by members of every faction (Brian attended one recently) and no faction. We've asked non-members to leave for part of the meeting on about three occasions when we've been discussing an upcoming election or a sensitive decision like the one to resign our seats. I think that means that most meetings have been open, public meetings.

It's funny you should mention advertising. A cursory glance at the factions' sub-forums shows that we advertise our meetings virtually weekly. The other factions advertise their meetings intermittently, if at all. This is fine, weekly meetings are difficult to pull off. But please don't twist reality by trying to paint us as closed and unwelcoming. That may have been your isolated experience but, if you had attended virtually any other meeting it would have been a different story.

[Beathan]

Pat --

As I expected, you are latching onto a single distinction between the CSDF action and that of CARE (the CSDF meetings) and making a world of it. I note (and noted) this distinction -- and I concede that it is a real and important one -- but I think you are asking too much of it. The real problem with the actions of CARE and the CSDF is that: 1. it leaves supporters needlessly unrepresented, 2. it foments discord and division in the CDS, and 3. it hampers the working of government. These issues remain in any case.

Further, I don't know why, given my past skepticism about CARE and its progeny, you assume I am supporting NuCARE in the election. In fact, I am supporting the DPU. My own party included, the DPU is the only party to have stood above the fighting, disruptions and discord. The the members of the DPU have acted like adults -- more, like mensches -- and I think that they deserve the support of any citizen who wants to send a message that our political discourse needs a change in tone.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan

There is a world of difference between a dictatorial decision, taken by a faction leader without any consultation with the membership (let alone a vote) and in defiance of the Constitution; and a boycott, discussed as one option among others and agreed to by a democratic vote in compliance with the Constitution and the faction's own charter.

Does it leave supporters unrepresented? Yes, it does. But, with the way that you and NuCARE were behaving in and out of meetings, it was obvious that you weren't going to allow me (or any other CSDF representative) to chair meetings as LRA. We took a decision to resign our seats and not fill them thereby forcing a by-election. It's for our supporters to decide whether that was the right course of action. As one of our main antagonists I don't expect you to agree with us.

Does it foment discord and division in the CDS? No, not all. Part of the reason for resigning was to reduce the level of discord and division. We thought that by withdrawing from the RA we'd be removing ourselves from the firing line. As it is, you and NuCARE have continued to harrass us and won't let it go.

Does it hamper the working of government? Potentially. I don't think a meeting has been inquorate since we resigned. You've had problems posting transcripts of meetings in a timely fashion and you've been obsessed with process as opposed to policy for the whole of this term. But neither of those problems are our fault.

You seem to think that our decision to resign was part of some clever 'masterplan' and that there's some great advantage to us from acting in this way. We took the decision in sorrow as much as anything else and took a major risk by doing so. It's highly improbable that we'll gain back both of the two seats we gave up and voters may well punish us for the decision at the by-election and future general election.

We resigned because we thought it was the right thing to do and because you and NuCARE had made the RA intolerable for us. What did you expect us to do? Carry on preparing agendas, chairing meetings, doing all the follow up work afterwards and taking abuse week on week? I'm disappointed that you haven't learned anything from this situation and continue to find ways to have a go at the CSDF. What do you hope to achieve? Do you want to run us out of town (like ThePrincess)? We're here, we represent a substantial proportion of the CDS electorate and we want to get on with implementing some policies rather than obsessing about process like you have for the whole of this term. Let's get the by-election out of the way and then we can get on with doing that.