Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00482)

Anand,

I think on that you are quite right. This is a good point. I dont think there is a possibility or the majority of the members of the GC to approve the proposed change to rule 10. At least I want to believe that. If they do so, it will cause many problems.I dont think that only members would leave if they approve such change,  I also believe that some Sections may even break their link with Adyar because of it. The members who propose such a change are in fact playing with fire. 

Erica



----- Original Message ----
From: Anand <AnandGholap@gmail.com>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 10:25:23 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Electing the PTS


There is one big problem in current constitution. Present constitution
gives full rights to the General Council to change any rule. Because
of that it is possible for the GC to take so big decision as to
disenfranchise members even without consulting members. It is
dangerous to give the General Council so many powers. There should be
restrictions on the powers of the General Council. 
Certain important changes should require referendum i.e. voting by the
members of TS. For example in constitution itself there should be rule
that "any change in the procedure of the election of the President
shall require referendum and approval by minimum 65% members"
Similarly in all most important matters constitution should make
referendum necessary. Such rules should be there in the constitution
itself.
This will keep some control over the General Council. 
Even now there is great danger. If many members of the General Council
become greedy, they might try to disenfranchise members of the TS and
enjoy limitless power for themselves. It can become a condition like
Pakistan where some officers at top like General Musharraf destroyed
democracy in Pakistan and then he gave himself limitless powers for
unlimited length of time. 
Members of the TS must try to bring about changes in the constitution
so that rules themselves will make referendum necessary for most
important changes in the constitution.
Best
Anand Gholap

--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Govert Schuller" <schuller@.. .> wrote:
>
> Thanks, MKR.
> 
> To a lesser extent the question is also regarding motivation: on
whose or what's behalf did 
> these proposals come from? The idea being that the proposals were
made intentionally or 
> not, as stategic policy changes on behalf of a sub-set of the TS. My
list of possible 
> candidates and evaluations is the following:
> 
> 1) A higher principle of fairness moved the proposal. Possible
> 
> 2) The GC, as it will gain considerable power. Very possible
> 
> 3) The Algeo-bloc, to insure future electoral success. Very, very
possible
> 
> 4) The ES as it will gain considerable power as most GC are part of
the ES. Seriously to be 
> considered. 
> 
> 5) The membership. Not impossible, but improbable.
> 
> The obvious 'winner' seems to be 3), with possibly the GC and ES
throwing their weight 
> behind it.
> 
> I think that the GC can not be the body to decide about the proposal
because of the 
> obvious conflict of interest. Though it might not be in the
international by-laws, I think 
> that the proposal, if not withdrawn because of the current outrage,
will have to be 
> submitted to the entire membership as a referendum and only to be
passed by a super-
> majority of 60%. If not, I will ,like Katinka, vote with my feet. 
> 
> Govert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, MKR <mkr777@> wrote:
> >
> > Well said, much better than anyone else has responded so far. We
all should
> > be involved and vigilant because we are not privy to what is
cooking behind
> > the veil of secrecy, if past is any indication, nothing should
surprise
> > anyone.
> > 
> > As I have said repeatedly,  but for the Internet, we would not
have known
> > none of the facts we know today. Thanks Internet.
> > 
> > mkr
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Govert Schuller <schuller@>wrote:
> > 
> > >   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
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

    

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]