In response to Sherri's lamentations on "democracy" in her town, I began
to wonder if American deomcracy is not a system designed to avoid
complexity. The chaotic boundary may come to us in crisis situations, but
in the normal course of events, does the system encourage change or even
an open consideration of the merits of a particular case? I don't think
so.
And, while I do vote, I find it pretty unsatisfactory. Voting is between
two choices that have been managed so that there is only marginal choice.
Choosing _real_ fundamental change is not an option. Choosing a new
direction based on the merits or fairness of a situation is excluded.
It appears to me that the fathers created a system that marches very, very
slowly, that avoids the chaotic boundaries, and that as a consequence
tends to be a bit conservative. They were, on the one hand, brilliant in
creating a non-monarchy that people would allow to rule them. Their
system, with major, major overhauls (blacks, women, non-propertied men now
vote where only 5% or so of adults could vote in the original conception)
has survived, and is strong. That is not to say it is perfect.
It is a bit like capitalism. It has lots of problems except when you
compare it to all the alternatives.
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc 76234,3636@compuserve.com
1. Challenge the process. 2. Inspire a shared vision. 3. Enable others to act. 4. Model the way. 5. Encourage the heart.
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>