(no subject)
Kirith wrote:The problem is doubly difficult in alliance built around a leadership council mechanic. Democracy may work great in a static environment where most of the membership is happy, but it sucks balls when things are rough and everyone has divergent ideas on how to go forward. It gets even worse when basic membership gets antsy and wants to know what the leading council is thinking and talking about so that they can give their two cents (and its usually worth that much too).
...umm... NO.
For a democracy that constitutes more than say... 15 people (I did not pull that number out of my ass) requires actual democratic processes. It's not enough to say, "Fairy dust! Democracy! Voila! Happiness!" You need to actually create a stake to be held, create a conduit for representation, create a deliberative process, and create an execution model.
The problem with a "leadership council mechanic" isn't that everyone has divergent ideas on how to go forward. Dealing with that is the entire point of democracy. Or Machiavelli. Take your pick.
The problem the Pax Federation had wasn't their idea of leadership. It was their execution of it. People suck at democracy. You have to teach them.
...umm... NO.
For a democracy that constitutes more than say... 15 people (I did not pull that number out of my ass) requires actual democratic processes. It's not enough to say, "Fairy dust! Democracy! Voila! Happiness!" You need to actually create a stake to be held, create a conduit for representation, create a deliberative process, and create an execution model.
The problem with a "leadership council mechanic" isn't that everyone has divergent ideas on how to go forward. Dealing with that is the entire point of democracy. Or Machiavelli. Take your pick.
The problem the Pax Federation had wasn't their idea of leadership. It was their execution of it. People suck at democracy. You have to teach them.