Leaders - Page 2

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Sorry, but I do not believe that it is 'human nature' (however you define it) that one wants/needs a leader. I do not want or desire a leader, just as gaulois said.[/QUOTE] True, on a person to person basis it isn't universal. But when you take a large population, heirarchies always assert themselves. If we took a random sample of, say, 100 people and put them on a deserted island some form of "government" would appear [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I do not believe there is something 'unnatural' to our humanity. I would also submit that this 'could' be a large factor in the reason why we have among the lowest voter turnout in the western world and why virtually every current democracy in the world has declining voter turnout-especially among young people. People are rebelling against an autocratic system. [/QUOTE] If people rebel, and dismantle this system, we would just replace it with another one. We've done it many times throughout history [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Even in the animal kingdom we see large percentages of species and individual animals who have no leader, and in fact spend the majority of their lives in solitary. While some 'pack animals' have a 'leader', usually it is a leader very different from the sense we know it. [/QUOTE] True, some animals lead solitary lives. But I was referring specifically to the ones we share the closest bonds to, Chimps, Gorillas, Baboons etc...I've been studying their behaviour in biology and anthropology here at University, and I am astonished at how much we behave like them. And they, like us, have complex social arrangments and class systems. With certain groups or individuals wielding more power than others. Our behaviour is linked, and always will be, to our evolution. Humans are very predictable animals.

One of the struggles we face is that which exists between the 'pre-consciousness' (reptile, etc.,) portions of our mind and the 'conscious' portion. Having achieved consciousness, it is often difficult to respect the fact that there are areas of our behaviour that have nothing to do with 'consciousness', being rather hold-overs from those times prior to our achieving consciousness. All parts of our behaviour served a beneficial purpose at some pont in our evolution from single celled creatures. However, what may have been beneficial behaviour, in the optimum survival strategy sense, for a creature within our ancestry. may be counter-productive in current times. Unfortunately, we've used 'consciousness' to rationalize certain of these these behaviours as serving some logical or beneficial purpose, e.g., the individual who aquires resources far beyond their need or ability to consume is in some way worthy of admiration or merit, rather than representing relic behaviour that serves no productive purpose in a 'conscious' human society. Similarly, as discussed in the thread <a href="http:www.vivelecanada.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=21&showtopic=2131">A new Canadian economy</a> the requirement many believe for a 'leader' may not be same as was desired, needed, created, at an earlier point of our evolution. However, we may not of fully realized this yet. I have company, so the above is a bit rushed. I'll expand upon later. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

It's interesting that this came up as I just watched a documentary on orangutuans. The main thrust of the doc was that even in the primate world there are considerable differences from one 'tribe' of the same species to another. This one focussed specifically on a group of orangutuans in Africa, which basically was a completely non-violent, non structured 'anarchous' group. To use your example of 100 people on a desert island, I certainly wasn't saying that no structure of any kind would exist, but I tend to think that it's far more likely that if the 100 people were of reasonable intelligence that more of an anarchic form of government would exist. To meet basic needs one needs access to water and water protection, food, and shelter. Now why would we assume that some permanent leader needs to exist? If I was among the hundred I would make the case for a democratic structure where everybody gets a vote on things we 'need' to agree on, and apart from that, no government need be necessary. For example, in getting food, whoever among the group has experience in obtaining food (if enough weren't naturally available) they would organize that function. Those with skills in other areas would organize those functions while explaining why they think they should be accomplished, and everybody else would vote on whether to accept it. The function of leadership in a primate society is not actually leadership, among howler monkeys for example, a dominant male will 'take over' and kill all the existing offspring so as to eliminate competition. Almost never do we actually see the dominant male of primate species do any of the functions we associate with leadership. He doesn't 'motivate' the others, doesn't 'organize' food distribution, or usually even share. This is not leadership, it simply means he can kill all others who are weaker and those who must live in his shadow either get by as best they can, or in most cases they leave and attempt to take over another group. There are many examples of large scale anarchic structures, such as the israeli kibbutsim movement of the 40's and 50's, pre-franco Spain was largely a successful 'commune' until nazi's helped wipe it out. There are currently many 'new' religious orders whose monasteries operate in this leaderless manner, and there are virtually hundreds of such communities which historically had a similar form of government. If you look at, say a citizen's initiative movement in the states, you will note a complete lack of 'leaders', there are spokespeople for both the pro and con side, but as it is an election they have no real power to implement their position, only to ask the voters to implement it for them. This, I believe, is 'true' democracy, and perhaps what is most likely in the future is that those who want a leader will go in one direction and those who don't will go in another.

Good points Michou, and it's clear you have a passionate belief in them, so I know I can't 'change your mind'. Others readings these posts though might not be so dogmatic. I agree with the thrust of your points, but not the underlying ideology. The idea that people are 'sheep' does not bear close scrutiny (IMHBRO)<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> Look at, say, the referendum in 1992, people in polls displayed considerable knowledge of the issues. Most people tended to support it initially, partly because it took so long for the government to actually release a printed copy. That people 'seem' to exhibit the behaviour of sheep in not true. The states are even less like that than canada. But let's take the last election for example, one which had far reaching consequences. The impression by both sides that was given was that this was an election of momentous importance for the country and was so close to call that it was imperative that people get out and vote. Yet turnout was still only 62% of the population. Almost half see the presidential election as a farce, and in truth when you look at the two politicians there was actually little they disagreed on. And of course, it's well known that a vote for a third party is a waste of time. Canada in most cases is very similar. Unlike the states though, there are no issues which canadians get to vote on, and in fact can't even vote for the particular person but rather the party. My point here is that in Canada, where life is relatively better than many places in the world, and most people work longer hours than any in the western world, what are the options? That sheep-like behaviour may seem evident if we assume that like sheep, people follow blindly in the direction of their leader. They don't. People are using marijuana at unprecedented rates, people speed all the time, and if you remember when photo radar was being brought in over a decade ago in Toronto people were driving so close together so that pictures could not be taken of their plates. Coming from the maritimes I can tell you that it is even more extreme. Fishermen will take over riding offices when aggregious acts are taken, which resulted in serious concessions being granted the maritimes in employment insurance. It also explains why most MP's spend very little time in their constituency offices. On a broader scale, the most obvious example is Quebec, which frequently votes on whether to separate-hardly sheeplike behaviour. If you do a search on NGO's in canada you will find more than you can count. These organizations exist to challenge governments behaviour and their success is attributable to the millions who donate to them since most receive no government funds. That no large scale government overhaul exists is a testament to the fact that 'people' have no way to implement them. Even we on this website have substancial differences in 'how to go about it', so you can imagine the average canadian who hasn't the time nor inclination to get involved.

I just wanted to mention that I was one of those who you would see as 'sheep'. Politics didn't even enter my rader until a year and a half ago. That there was a different way of going about governing hadn't even crossed my mind. In school it is not taught and as I said earlier, there is virtually no mention of political systems other than to denigrate the american ones in our media. There is occasionally a story on PR but that's it. I loved that chinese proverb I read on here about 'life being good when the emporer is far away'. When you are getting by, it's far easier to pretend the government doesn't exist, which is another way people avoid the autocratic system. So have a look at polls and don't buy into this 'sheep' analogy. If you read 'no logo' the best line is the quote on the first page "the surface seems calm, but underneath, it is already on fire" (or something to that effect)

Yes, there's a little bit more before I go to work. I must admit that I do not understand your point about 'self preservation' and this dichotomy business. I think if a person becomes more knowledgeable about an issue then that will make them more 'sensible, caring', etc., and if not caring then the 'average joe' would be far more caring about people in his community than a 'leader' or in most cases, a bureaucratic department. In gaining knowledge of issues I'm assuming those characteristics exist already to a degree, if not, then why would we even hold elections? We are taught that we are supposed to have knowledge of these issues and then elect whichever party best supports them. In fact, especially in Canada I could start a different thread where I could make pretty strong arguments to the fact that even those politicians at the top of the heap are not leaders, but merely followers of their corporate masters. And within corporations you will quickly see the CEO point out that his power is restricted and that boards of directors and investors call the shots. So there really is no visual leadership so much as a 'system'. In the states where practically everything can be voted on in states which have referenda we see more of a communal voice. The states certainly aren't a monolith, most are in fact rebelling against recent moves by the federal government, as are counties, yet the power rests with the feds. In canada we are somewhat different in most political respects. We have a small population which was always 'topped up' with immigration whenever there was a labour shortage or labour unrest. We existed primarily as a resource for others, particularly during wartime. Our three governments, if you read, are all 'pro business' to some extent yet different business interests hold at the local, provincial, and federal level. To change this agenda requires work that has never actually changed in canadian history, yet sometimes has altered. If you read history though, you will find that virtually ALL change in canada came from communal activism, and not by some leader's voice. In fact, if you really look at leadership it has typically worked in the other direction. During the depression of the thirties thousands of british columbians jumped on the railroad and headed to ottawa to demand jobs, the railroad workers supported them, and in fact didn't even charge most of them. Since most canadians were poor, they pretty much supported them. Where we saw leadership was in the PM RB Bennett, who had to mobilize a force against these "communist conspirators". He showed real leadership by stopping the trains in Regina where he had RCMP waiting for them to kick the hell out of them. This format can be seen in some form or another from Trudeau's actions on separatist's, to Mulroney's tirades against unions and Chretien's tirades against protestors and environmentalists. Leadership is needed to mobilize the normally compliant and somewhat understanding population and turn them in hard core supporters of government position. This is easily apparant in reading about virtually every war canada has fought or participated in. It is usually successful because the 'people' in opposition do not have a single leader and because their voice is ignored by the press.

Considering we have gone for so long with "leaders". they are not going to disappear. They are probably even more critical than they ever were. Their role is clearly changing. Many things we use to do with leaders will no longer require them while many we use to do without leaders will require one. That is evolution.

I don't think that's true. I'd like to know of one political decision that couldn't be far better made by referendum than our current system. Societies change, that's true, but it certainly isn't evolution. Canadians (the ones that could vote) had far more political powers in the 1800's than they do now. There were two referenda in the first half of the 20th century, and only one in the second half. 2500 years ago Athens and other greek states functioned as almost complete democracies, and there is considerable evidence that a large number of native cultures did the same. This clearly isn't 'evolving', but devolving. Germany had a system of government close to canadas until Hitler took over and turned it into a nightmare. Societies change every which way, there is no orderly evolution or devolution, there is just change-sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. As I stated earlier, I do not believe our politicians to be 'leaders'. There hasn't been a single new federal initiative in Canada in over a decade except for the gun registry which, as we've seen, has never become federal because provinces refuse to abide by it. Ever since Kyoto was thrust upon us (and I'm not going to debate it's pros and cons just remind you that we had absolutely no say in it's adoption), we've seen next to no initiatives except for CMHC offering a ten percent discount on windows (and you can be the window manufacturers had plenty of warning to raise their prices by ten percent). If you ever watch politicians nowadays, there is virtually never any analysis of what is currently being done. Changes in programs are always 'planned out for our future' and specifics run generally over ten years. Issues only become imperative because there is no leadership. In Toronto they are building a water tunnel without an environmental assessment because 'that would take too long'. In fact, I suggest that's how our politics functions, politicians ignore things long enough til they become critical and either the private sector or some draconian change must be implemented what could have been resolved if it was looked at earlier. Clearly Toronto has a massive problem with homelessness, when's the last time any legislation was passed on it?

marcarc: my point was really about the roadmap to DD and whatever a DD "leader" would look like. We are here today and we know where we want to get to (at least a few interested on Vive in DD). How do you get there?

At the risk of becoming very unpopular I'll only mention this one more time. These ideas are my own, I am not an expert on anarcho-syndicalism. Direct democracy, I believe, is easily attainable in our own society, thanks to our democracy which accords us more freedoms than most in the world. Say we want direct democracy. More, specifically, since this is something I've already started work on, say I want to bring about direct democracy. How do I do it? First, history shows there's no point in trying to initiate this as the federal or even provincial level. Not that it isn't feasible, just that there are significant forces at work against any change in the form of our government. Remember, proportional representation was in our past, and has been 'promised' by politicians since 1984 (Chretien when running against Mulroney). The only thing a politician responds to is pressure. So it's simple, run as a local councillor. Not as a local councillor who will make all decisions for the ward, but one who will distribute the relevant information and count votes. This involves several skills at the outset, such as organizational skills, etc. However, the point is to not do it alone, since it a people's movement. People who can get involved are students, seniors, anybody with spare time. There are some places where this is ideal, namely smaller communities and ones with a more democratic history. There is no one simple way to do this, every person has their own ideas. There really isn't the space here to outline all of them. The point is that when and if such a ward exists, one of the main points is to let the country know. I'm currently working on a book on it: what it is, why we need it, how to get it, that sort of thing. The municipal level is the best place to start since there are none of those 'minority rights' issues which make direct democracy sticky at the outset. There are also relatively few decisions to make at this level. The converse of this is that obviously its that much harder to get voters interested. Typical turnout is only around 30%. However, with more people usually running you also need fewer votes to win. I have a few ideas on getting people interested, the first is making the system realistic. Again, this is up to the particular skills of those running. I possess none of these skills so am attempting to learn them over the next year and a half until the next election. What would make it far easier is if there were a 'support' group, or organization of like minded people running in different areas who could share skills and brochures, etc. I am not a people person, and always have been far too sensitive, so it's so much easier running on an 'idea platform'. My job is essentially to make sure every person knows exactly what is involved in direct democracy and why it's necessary. If they do not agree, that is not my responsibility. As I said before, I got trounced the last election, but that was mostly because I never had time to campaign. However, to a certain extent in a case such as this, people get the government they deserve (I don't completely agree with that of course). The next time I will be the first to register for the election, which is almost a year in advance of the voting date, this gives me time to ensure every single person knows about it. I, of course, am not the only person doing this, there are many others across the country, however, most have made what I feel is the mistake of running at the federal level, where we 'know' that to vote such a person is to throw a vote away. My feeling is that if enough people run at the municipal level, then there will be a 'snowball' effect. That is presumptuous I know, but frankly the only other option I see is 'lobbying' government, which has been going on for 20 years with no changes. I wouldn't even wait for it to catch on to take it to the provincial or federal level. In fact if I won I think I'd resign just to run at the provincial and federal level. This is all idealism at this point. I am doing more volunteer work in the community to get better known and things like that. This is also why I'm working with my sister (a producer) on a documentary. When the election comes I want to have a library of audio/video/text information to allay any fears. So, again, I encourage anybody out there to look into this. As I've said, if some charismatic 'leader' came along and offered a system where I could actually vote on the decisions which affect me, I'd volunteer in his campaign. In fact one of the things I did in the last election was offer up my platform to any running politician who wanted it (no takers). Unfortunately, nobody else is doing it, so, it's either sit and gripe about everything and wait for the messiah, and get up off our asses and do it ourselves.

So your short answer to the roadmap question is to present oneself at the municipal level. My scepticism there is that there is already a fair amount of DD going on at the municipal level (and this site is about Canadian Sovereignty!). What about provincial and federal levels where there are greater needs for DD inspired solutions? Does one start a new political party such as the cincinatus initiative of Calumny or does one engage a party (like the NDP) in getting a whole lot more excited about DD, asking them where does it fit on their platform, what is their white paper, what is the roadmap, etc... As far as I can tell, there is polite talk lip service on DD but nothing more as it challenges the statu-quo envelope within which political parties operate.

Great comments, I really enjoy this thread, there's a lot of food for thought. You're right that there is a 'fair' amount of DD at the municipal level, but very little is of the actual 'exportable' type. In small villages where municipal structures exist you may have true representatives, but so far as I can find, Rossland, British Columbia, is the only municipality with citizen initiatives enshrined in a municipal constitution. I may be wrong on that, and I'd be interested in finding out any others. Having never been out west or spent much time in Quebec I know these are the typical hotbeds of grassroots activity. I have to eat a little crow here and admit that the whole charismatic leader comment rubbed me the wrong way because essentially I realize that when running for direct democracy I have to prove to people that I can create an efficient system, edit issues, count votes transparantly and organize volunteers. Essentially 'lead' people to direct democracy. The leadership role is anathema to the process but I admit, in running, one has to take on that mantle. Perhaps why I would like to meet some fellow ontarians interested in running is that it would be less focussed on an individual, but I don't know. I have actually found more independants running for direct democracy at the provincial and federal level. Here there are serious problems. First, just over half of the voting population votes, second, of those you have a fair number who do it as a duty and don't look at issues (voting one party because 'my father always did' and such things), third, the media is strongly against fringe parties and independants, such as the green party, fourth, you often have an election of fear, where the media hypes up certain issues. My wife voted liberal because of her perceived fear of the conservatives. Those who may support other parties may feel their vote is wasted when voting NDP, Green, independant. One of the posters cut to the chase and asked 'what is the way'. Excellent question. I have no answer but my immediate thought is that one can attack from various angles. First, join EVERY political party. You are much more likely to be listened to from within and there is no law, so far as I know, from joining many parties. I should practise what I preach, so I think I'll do that tomorrow AM. However, I doubt that will really accomplish my aim. I would join a direct democracy party in a second. However, it would have to be a direct democracy party, one whose emphasis is on letting canadians decide issues. The Green Party has many laudable programs and I voted for them last election, but they also have many that are downright loopy. They are the closest I've seen to a DD party though, even modifying some positions based on online voting. However, to me personally, I think the 'most' I can do is run municipally. If it so happens that I get good press and have community support then I would run provincially and federally in a heartbeat.