Not my interpretation of democracy either...
we have assumed that the Shell vote was democratic, partly I guess because the
involvement of the Electoral Reform Society (PLC!) makes it look as if they have
"approved" the procedures. AS far as I'm aware, their involvement is only at the
stage of counting votes... the production of the ballot paper and the production
of a list of those eligible to vote are down to the RGS... neither of these, I
assume, has been what I would think of as democratic.
First, the ballot paper clearly identified one side of the argument with Council
and the other as opposition to the Council's position. This meant that the vote
was taken by some to be for/against Council and not to do with the issue
(Shell). An impression further substantiated by the "third box" (the 'leave it
to Council' box). This is not my idea of democracy.
Second, in order to "win" the vote, we would have to have achieved over two
thirds of the vote. Not my idea of democracy.
Last, the figures say that there was a 58% turnout. (For = 1,590; Against =
4,309; total votes cast = 5899). The number eligible to vote must have been
about 10,000, leaving 3,000 'members' of the Society ineligible to vote -- so it
wasn't just Neil (Smith) and Brendan (Gleeson) who did not get ballot papers.
Again, not my idea of democracy.
[Should I assume that associate members are amongst those ineligible... i.e.
younger (and possibly more sympathetic) members of the RGS...?]
It is going to be a struggle to change this organisation.
Some further ideas for action.
First, some symbolic actions: we could ensure that Greenpeace is nominated for
the Coporate Medal (I think Shell got it last year)... and that Ken Saro-Wiwa is
nominated for an appropriate Society medal (Founder's Medal...?).
Second, more practically, we could make sure that the new ethical guidelines
which the Society is drawing up are rigorously applied. This would be another
way to put pressure on Shell (and their like) using frameworks established
within the RGS. I would like to see Council *publish* its ethical reviews and
open them up to public scrutiny. It should certainly do this NOW for Shell. This
would provide us/anyone with the opportunity of challenign the basis of the
decision, presenting new evidence as required. This, I think, would have
material consequences.
Lets see if we can't bring heads and hearts into some kind of harmony
(schizophrenia notwithstanding), Steve
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|