Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00381)

To whom it may concern,

Regarding the proposed change of electors for the PTS position

For me the obvious solution to the problem that the membership is not sufficiently 
informed about candidates is NOT to restrict electorship to those who are supposedly 
informed and thereby transform the TS into an oligarchy, but to make a better effort to 
communicate any and all relevant information to the membership and thereby expand its 
original democratic nature. It seems to me so self-evident that when confronted with the 
choice of restricted electorship or expanded information-sharing, the latter is the way to 
go.

I'm also opposed to the proposed change on principled grounds, because the proposal 
does not respect the unique souvereign status of each individual member, but treats them 
as merely members of a national sub-group. It will disproportionally dilute the voting 
power of any member belonging to a big section, like the American or Indian, and 
disproportionally increase the voting power of any member belonging to a small section, 
like the Norwegian. This is a form of collectivism and discrimination. I am first and 
foremost an individual Theosophist, not a Dutch Theosophist nor an American 
Theosophist. My membership in any of these sections is in this regard to be treated as 
merely a contingent fluke of history.

On top of all this, the proposal reeks too much of a transparent opportunistic effort by the 
Algeo-bloc that lost the last election to skew the PTS voting procedure in favor of itself, 
because it carried more sections than Radha, who had the popular vote, and would 
therefore increase its chances of winning the next time around. With all respect: Nice try, 
guys. 8^)

In short, I'm opposed because the proposal seems to be in its intent and effect oligarchic, 
collectivist, anti-democratic, anti-individualist, discriminatory and opportunistic, for it 
seems to be based on a low respect for the intelligence and souvereign individuality of the 
majority of TS members.

The counter-proposal would be that if there is a contested PTS election there will be at 
least a 3 month period in which freedom of speech will reign supreme and any and all 
members and candidates can campaign to their hearts' content through any and all means 
of communication. The only rule would be that all candidates will be provided a web site 
on which they will have to post all of their background, public announcements, policy-
proposals and speeches and that all these documents will be fully blogable with comments 
by members only and in accordance with generally accepted standards.

Yours daringly

Govert Schuller