Sore Losers?

Sore Losers?

Ok. So I get that the new Exco of AWARE is radically different from the old Exco. But what I do not get is why a group that talks about democracy and wants there to be a flourishing civil society, would act contrary to their own cherished views. This Operation Leper seeks to basically make life difficult for those who do not belong to their camp.

I may not agree with the new leadership at AWARE, but to be honest they won fair and square. AWARE had no rules or by-laws that prevented new members from running. They also do not have a compulsory voting system. The new leadership just managed to get more of their supporters out than the old guard. So now the losers cry foul and say that there was an “outrageously illeberal, undemocratic, and unprincipled takeover of AWARE.”

This is the problem why I dislike bleeding heart liberals, but prefer the pragmatic left-center. Liberals are all for free speech and democracy until it turns out that you get to criticise them and oust them from office. Then suddenly its only free speech and democracy for “intelligent” (basically like-minded) people.

Yeah I’d like to know why the president-elect walked out, seeing as how she could have stayed and perhaps prevent the young turks from ruining the place. But I digress.

The main point is that the election was not undemocratic. Snouts were counted and the turks had more snouts than the old guard. I cannot see how it was unprincipled since there were no real rules with regards to who could run in AWARE. Illiberal, maybe. But then again I still don’t know what the leadership of AWARE will be doing. They can have personal views, but sometime as a body they may make decisions that may not reflect their personal beliefs.

I also do not get how this goes against the idea of a civil society. Wikipedia defines civil society as (taken from LSE):
“Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women’s organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.”

I also don’t get what the problem is. If AWARE is meant to promote women’s views, then I think that there’s always going to be a bunch of views out there. Feminism is not a unified front, just like every other ideology. Also if the issue is over the issue of GLBTQ, then I think opposing the young turk exco makes no sense. While AWARE has previously been friendly towards the pro-GLBTQ position, it’s still not AWARE’s primary contituency. There are plenty of women issues to take care of, before worrying about sexual orientation.

So back to my main point. If people really respect democracy and due process down at AWARE, then all this yelling and shouting seems a little hypocritical to me. It’s not the fault of the young turks that they were better organised and got out the vote. The old guard got complacent. The members got complacent. They let those they disagree with in. But it was not a coup, and the ballots were not illegally stuffed. The young turks played by the rules and got the votes they needed to win.

In the end, I think that those who are saying that the election results somehow were wrong, fail to be true democrats and respect the fact that this happened because they were sleeping at the wheel. So in truth, perhaps these so called “civil” society advocates are really “uncivil.”

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27521.1