Theos-Talk Archives (July 2010 Message tt00031)

As one of the Candidates, I felt it might be OK to make some response to 
MKR's posting.  Personally I am quite willing to have open discussion on any 
topic relevant to the future.

The internet is a useful tool, but it does have some limitations.  The 
interchange of ideas in this discussion group has all too often declined 
into slanging matches, due often to initial misunderstanding of the use of 
words.

In my opinion, which may or may not be "humble" :-) we should at least try 
to stick to the rule, normally enforced in formal debating, that arguementum 
ad hominum is not admissible. I am, let me hasten to add, lest we already 
get into misunderstanding, not referring to the current point of discussion, 
but to the use of email as a means of theosophical communication in general. 
I am making this point as it may explain, if not in some minds excuse, the 
apparent reluctance of some leading TS members to interact in discussion 
groups.

Incidentally I was not aware that the Rome Congress was being streamed live, 
thanks for that info.

I do rather question the suggestion that there should be "campaigning" for 
the administrative positions in the TS, whether at the Section level or the 
International.  Definitely there should be information provided about the 
Candidates, and they should be ready and willing to answer any questions 
about what they hope to promote in the position for which they have offered 
to serve.  But the vigorous self-promotion required in Political campaigns 
seems very far away from the ideals of selfless service that we hope inspire 
any who seek positions in the TS. Certainly denigration of other Candidates 
on any excuse should be seen as unacceptable.  If health is generally 
thought to be an issue, then there should be a constitutional requirement to 
include a medical certificate with the Nomination form, not have it used as 
a campaign tactic.

I would suggest that before offering oneself for one of the higher offices, 
one should have done enough work in the Society to be known reasonably 
widely in the constituency involved.  In our local (New Zealand) situation, 
two of the three Candidates have given talks in most if not all of the 
branches over a number of years and the third is certainly known to at least 
one or two members in many of the branches.

As to the secrecy of mailing lists, surely this is in the interests of 
members, not of potential or existing Candidates for national/International 
position.  It it not the case that accessibility of the Candidates to the 
members is more desirable, from a Democratic point of view, than accessibly 
of the members to the Candidates?