Democracy or Patronage

  • Thread starter Phil Hackett HC/PCPL with Pride
  • Start date
P

Phil Hackett HC/PCPL with Pride

Guest
Should they be run on democratic lines under a members participatory system, where each member gets a vote to elect the committee and officers, any major changes to the body, sets out in a constitution just what the committee can change, and what they can not.

Or should they be run under a patronage system, where the committee and officers emerge from some process unknown to the members and in perpetuity. Making all decisions for the membership, with only soundings ever taken from them to facilitate the decisions making process.

Your thoughts and views as ever people are most welcome.
 
B

Baz

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
544
Reaction score
1
Location
Warrington
They should be run on democratic lines, and are supposed to be, but even then a clever bit of fudging can turn things the opposite way.
All voting should be done through the ballot box, and not by a last minute block vote so the meeting can be closed and the bar opened.
 
GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
I've been part of organisations (as both member and manager) of both types of set-up, democratic and autocratic, and there are pros and cons for both.

Democracy is the fairest set-up but autocracy is much more efficient. Things move on from being discussed to actually being done, rather than leading to yet another meeting that goes nowhere. Even with democratically run clubs there is usually one dominant officer who has the last word making it an autocracy in all but name.

Autocracy need not be intolerant and oppressive if the manager(s) are fair minded and have the best interests, rather than self interests, of the organisation, at heart.
 
R

Ron 'The Hat' Clay (ACA-Life Member)

Guest
Some of the earliest single species associations were not run on democratic lines at all. I am thinking here of the early carp associations.

The Monk will be able to confirm that one of them was run as a "Benevolent Dictatorship". I was a member of one of the early carp groups.
 
P

Phil Hackett HC/PCPL with Pride

Guest
Ron you blabbed around the question and didn't answer it.
 
Peter Jacobs

Peter Jacobs

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 21, 2001
Messages
31,030
Reaction score
12,200
Location
In God's County: Wiltshire
From my experience I think that the smaller clubs/organisations can be run effectively on an autocratic basis, however when the membership starts to grow then a democratic system has to be adopted.

Typically, a relatively small like-minded group can operate simply with one or two of its 'members' controling events.
Larger groups, clubs or organisations face different problems, not the least of which is the disposal of (considerable?) funds generated by the members, therefore democracy should be adopted.

Constitutional issues and/or issues that affect the membership as a whole, or indeed issues that affect the visibility of the group need to be debated, discussed and voted upon with a majority deciding.

I fail to see how a club that requires membership dues can sucsessfully operate under autocratic criteria and even begin to satisfy the majority of the members.

That said, if you join an organisation that has autocratic government then you have accepted the principles by paying your dues and becoming a member.

Personally, I would not be interested in joining any group, club or association that is run along autocratic lines.
 
W

Wolfman Woody

Guest
Committees should be elected democratically and they should consist of an odd number of members, 3 is too many.

Committees are bodies that keep minutes and waste hours.

Most anglers that would join a club are not interested in the management side anyway, they joined it to use the facilities, that's all. Anyone that is interested in the management side had better be watched as he's cooking up a conspiracy.

If more than 2 members are ever found talking together, disperse them as they too are cooking up a conspiracy.

If you want help or information from the members use the "mushroom method", keep them in the dark, feed them a load of sh*t, and something will come through.

Trust no-one. Keep friends close and enemies even closer. Keep your back to the wall.
 
B

Big Swordsy :O)

Guest
For fishing clubs...Autocrasy rules! as long as they are my rules!

No seriously, commitees that are elected can be a waste as people who are popular but inept can be voted into power(See HM Govt for examples)

better is the patronage system that utilises both experience and aptitude over popularity and personality.

But

The commitee should still reflect the popular opinions of its members and should always keep an eye open and its ear to the ground rather than bull-doze measures through that have little popular following.
 
R

Ron 'The Hat' Clay (ACA-Life Member)

Guest
Sorry Phil I got side-tracked by a business matter.

As Graham says, democratically run organisations can take time to reach decisions, too long in many cases. Some benevolent dictatorships whave worked well in the past.

Woody would have made a good Obersturmbannfeurer in the SS.

:eek:)
 
GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
Let's put it this way, if the design of the FM home page was decided by debate followed by a democratic vote we would still be without a home page this time next Christmas.
 
S

Steve Pope 2

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
Pleased to see the majority response so far!

As long as the committee never ever loses sight of it's responsibility to the members, the " Benevolent Dictatorship" is the way imo.

In the case of the BS, there are fourteen on the committee, all completely capable of understanding a situation before coming to a decision, not one is a "yes" man.

There will always be those, both members and committee members who will not always agree with decisions that are made, that's how it is.

Those with passionate convictions will stay and fight their corner and will endeavour to change opinion, others will leave and snipe from the sidelines much like a woman scorned.
Those are the types of person that I personally have no time for.

That's me in my true colours.
 
J

jason fisher

Guest
im all for one man one vote as long as im the man with the vote.
 
M

Matt Brown

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I used to be all for complete democracy in all walks of life, but my mind has been changed after experiences of campaigning for BMX tracks and Skateparks in the Doncaster area.

Having good debating skills is completely separate to having good ideas and loyalty to the people you represent.

I would rather have selfless, smart people in power regardless of how they achieved the position they were in.

The other problem with democracy is that is can take ages to decide anything and sometimes, if everybody can't be satisfied, a good idea can fall by the wayside.

I used to go to meetings to decide whether we should have more meetings! Often the cost of all the meetings would far outweigh the cost a facility we were campaigning for.

The danger with an autocracy is that the people in charge think they have the right to do what they want - they they always know best.

Of course there's a balance somewhere and in the case of fishing clubs I think it all depends on how many are willing to get involved and how well those in charge are doing.
 
W

Wolfman Woody

Guest
"Woody would have made a good Obersturmbannfeurer in the SS."

Not at all, I said the Committee should be DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED and he (singular) probaly would then be a benevolent dictator as he should listen to what members want.
 
F

Fred Bonney

Guest
Me?
I'll just go with the flow.
or, which ever gives the fastest answer,so steady Ron,they may be after you!

Whatever,I'm off to bed,night night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top