The election of 2010 in UK is done. Those who have voted have cast their vote, but is the result reflecting the population of this Great Britain? It seems to me that the way the voting system is set up here is not rreflective of democracy. For example how can one party get 23 % of the vote and get 57 seats in Parliament and another party 29% of the vote and get 258 seats in Parliament? It really puzzles me how this can be called democracy? When we chose people to make choices for us do we really have a voice?
In my Church on a local level we are also involved in electing leaders for the next 2 years and here to we have a committee to select the “nominating” committee who finds leaders and officers that are then asked to serve. Thankfully the committee are committed to embrace the broadness and diversity of the 800+ congregation of 60+ nationalities, but the questions remain is it democratic? The Nominating committee is carefully put together and represents the church a cross gender, age , ethnicity and worship preference. The ultimate decision, a list of proposed leaders by the nominating committee is sent back to the congregation to vote for or against. so the congreagation has the last vote which is as it should be.
On a Global level my Church is this summer holding its Session to elect global leaders both regional and worldwide, and also here there are 2400 delegates from every corner of the world who will vote on leaders and thereby the direction of the Adventist Church. Having been at previous sessions I find it amazing how those delegates are chosen, all chosen from leadership positions, and no grass root election of who will be a delegate takes place. Its pretty much a majority of church administrators. Looking from the press room down on the delegation body it has been very evident that the delegates are an elderly group 60+ males. This despite the Adventist church being over 60/70% female and more than 50% under age of 35. Proportionally representation? Not when the majority of the church is not represented. When we dont even get to chose people to represent us and to make choices for us do we really have a voice?
SO Im left with pondering the question of : who decides and defines who get to choose and elect leaders? And how do we know they are the voice of the people/congregations if the congregation hasn’t voted?
The church election model is build on the American principal of representative democracy rather than on the popular vote. There are advantages and disadvantages to both models. The representative model means that you have elected delegates at a local church level you represent you and conference and union level in those elections. Those committees then represent you in choosing delegates for the world church session. If you have done the right thing in getting more youth and females in at the local level then you are more likely to see them represented higher up. The popular vote has its advantages but would introduce more politicking ….
Proportionate voting – like that term better than popular vote as it describes what it means, rather add (negative) value to something that might happen – doesn’t normally introduce more politicising. It, however, brings it out in the open – that is true!
But I would prefer political deals in the open to back room deals and boys clubs (very present in SDA). This is what representative “democracy” creates.
Furthermore it has an uncanny way of dividing people into two parts (lib vs con, republican vs democrat). This invalidates the principle of representation, as you have to select people based on this division to represent you in matters unrelated to the divide…
This obviously isn’t made any better when the representation is performed in several iterations, as is the case with the GC nominates. It makes me wonder if this is the reason for some very archaic principles regarding women and ordination in the SDA church?