Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00413)

Hi Pedro,

It seems that your post tends to be more analytical and a little less 
political. You say that the nature and timing of the proposed 
amendments should be examined objectively, but it seems that in a 
same time you are not willing to attribute to their proponents any 
genuine concern and any goodwill in regard to the current situation 
in the Theosophical Society. You consider their exchange of opinions 
and decision to act in a unified manner as a conspiracy and their 
statements as attacks. Do you not think that such a perspective is 
rather bias?

Be no mistake. In my comments of the proposed amendments I expressed 
my opinion that the motion of certain amendment is an attempt to 
solve the situation in the TS (which the proponents see as un-
democratic) by short cut and that the amendment would entirely 
disrupt the subtle balance of power as determined by the TS 
Constitution. I also share the opinion that the chosen way was un-
democratic and I see it as an act of despair which actually brought a 
lot of damage to all who would like to see some democratic changes in 
the TS.

But if TS officers accuse each other of being un-democratic then 
there must be some basis for this overall conviction. 

The question is who can heal this situation? Are current TS officers 
willing and capable to begin to act in a democratic way? Are they 
willing to listen to and give opportunity to members who are willing 
to participate in the creation of renewed Theosophical Society? 

Firing from all guns does not show this willingness! 

You can launch at this very moment a discussion about the new TS 
policy and plan of work for the next Presidential mandate!

Best regards,
Anton



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Pedro Oliveira" <prmoliveira@...> 
wrote:
>
> The nature and the timing of the amendments to TS Rules proposed by 
> Betty Bland, John Algeo, Tran-Thi-Kim-Dieu and Wies Kuiper should 
be 
> examined objectively. When someone, who was a candidate in a 
> Presidential election and soon after the results are declared, 
> launches attacks at a sister TS Section (Indian) and at the 
> international Executive Committee, which is appointed by the 
General 
> Council, it becomes clear that that person has not accepted the 
> election results. 
> 
> The next step was Algeo's attempted formation of a "caucus" within 
> the GC. He obviously never consulted the Chair of the Council, who 
is 
> the President, about it. He unilaterally attempted to form a lobby, 
> with the help of his supporters, within the Council. His contempt 
for 
> the constitutional authority of the President again shows that he 
did 
> not accept the results of the elections, which were determined by 
the 
> vote of the majority of TS members. 
> 
> Bland-Algeo-Dieu-Kuiper's decision to propose substantial 
amendments 
> to the Rules of the TS very soon after a bitterly fought 
Presidential 
> election, including the termination of direct voting by members in 
> the Presidential election, is one of the most astonishing acts of 
> political violence in the history of the Theosophical Society. And 
it 
> is not difficult to see that the hurry to do so is directly 
connected 
> to the notion of Algeo's perceived majority within the General 
> Council on the basis of the number of nominations received by him 
> before the elections. I say "perceived majority" because it becomes 
> evident that any General Secretary who votes for such proposal 
would 
> be betraying the trust of his or her own members, after all the 
Rules 
> of the Society provide for the democratic election by members of 
> Lodge/Branch officers, General Secretary and the international 
> President. As a General Secretary is elected by the members why 
would 
> he or she deny them the right to elect the international President?
> 
> The Bland-Algeo-Dieu-Kuiper proposal, if successful, would 
certainly 
> disrupt and destroy the very fabric of brotherhood without 
> distinctions which has been the foundation of the TS from the 
> beginning. For brotherhood implies and includes self-expression, 
> freedom of thought and freedom of choice. It is, as one teacher 
> said, "the only secure foundation for universal morality." A 
society 
> in which its members cannot have a say in the election of its 
> President can never be a brotherly society. It may be a regimented 
> body, but it can never be a body of seekers after truth.
> 
> In his Inaugural Address (February 1953), N. Sri Ram wrote: "The 
> Society is even already a unique organization. There are so many 
> National Societies, each autonomous. Each Lodge, each member is 
> autonomous ? or should be. There is freedom for each and all, and 
> there ought to be also a complete openness of mind. But how are 
these 
> Sections and Lodges held together? Not by rules and constitution. 
> What is to prevent their breaking away and declaring their 
> independence, as did the various parts of Alexander's empire after 
he 
> passed away? The only thing that holds this world-wide organization 
> is the life which flows through the Society and the response which 
> the members all over the world make in their freedom to the impact 
of 
> that life." 
> 
> 
> Pedro Oliveira
>