Wise integral governance of, by, for the whole… ?

I’ve recently struggled with how to integrate
the separate theories and visions of
wise democracy
and
inclusive multi-sector, multi-stakeholder, multi-scale
networks as an emerging form of governance.

I’ve come to believe…

… that traditional powerholders should not be on top….
… that bureaucrats should not be on top….
… that experts should not be on top….
… that stakeholders should not be on top….
… and even We the People should not be on top.

No one should be on top.

What should be on top – that is, what should govern our shared public affairs – is wisdom that emerges from informed, generative conversations among appropriately diverse people and perspectives, including especially people affected by and involved with the issues or areas we’re talking about. There should be equity and transparency and answerability that support the ultimate goal, which is…

to evoke and engage
the wisdom and resourcefulness of the whole
on behalf of the whole.

Out of that principle can come wise integral governance OF, BY, and FOR whole communities and systems. Since we can manifest that in different ways, there are many approaches we can and should explore and experiment with. Together these would constitute radically new, wiser, and evolving forms of wholesome self-governance.

I’m curious. What do you think? What comes up for you when you read this? I’d love to engage with your responses in the comment section below, where our public dialogue could benefit everyone.

Coheartedly,
Tom

*** * * * * * *
We have two days to raise $1801!
Your donation today can be DOUBLED!
* * * * * * ***

Summer 2017 Co-Intelligence Institute Fundraising Campaign note: So far 52 people have supported us with $8283. Join them in supporting our work. Our target is $25,000. As you can see, we can use your support. Please donate now. It will make a big difference and your donation is fully tax-deductible in the U.S. We have a matching grant that will double any donations – including yours! – up to a total $5000 before Sept 15th. We have $1801 yet to raise for that matching grant!

________________________________

Tom Atlee, The Co-Intelligence Institute, POB 493, Eugene, OR 97440
Calling forth the wisdom of the whole for the wellbeing of the whole
Read

Please support our work. Your donations are fully tax-deductible.
________________________________

8 Responses to "Wise integral governance of, by, for the whole… ?"

David Sawyer says:

September 13, 2017 at 5:54 pm

No one should be on top – true. In fact, in a true collaborative effort across sectors and systems, there IS no top. Because the network structure is horizontal, more like a solar system than an organizational chart. Which of course you and your readers know. What we’re really talking about here is power. How power is used or misused in networks. In a network the power paradigm is different – not power over or against, but power for, with, among, and within. That’s a shift in our understanding of power that many of us have been observing for decades now. Finally, even though no one is on “top”, leadership is still essential in a multi-stakeholder collaboration. Even more essential actually, and it must be practiced much more skillfully than in an organizational context, where positional authority exists in the org chart. My colleagues and I at Converge are on the steepest learning curve of our lives trying to build, repair, and sustain these kinds of networks. You can learn more at http://www.converge.net. In particular, the blog post How to Make Complex Collaborations Work has our “current best thinking” on all this. And to be clear – this is not a sales pitch. God no. This is an attempt to share what we’re learning with other principled change makers around the world. Like you. – david

Reply
1. Tom Atlee says:
  
  September 14, 2017 at 8:13 am
  
  This is great, David! I’m curious if you are seeing – in the networks you are working in/with – the kind of increasing integration of players and issues that has the potential to become a new form of governance (that includes and transcends government)? It seems you are powerfully engaged in helping these emerging collaborations work. Are you aware of any community of practice or explicit network of people doing THAT work? Do you know of any players that are seeing this larger phenomenon (including increasing interconnectedness AMONG diverse networks, generating networks of networks) as an emerging form of societal governance (the competence of which is being enhanced by players such as you and your colleagues last Converge)? And, finally, if this is an emerging form of governance, how do you see its dynamics relating to the less networked logic of democracy, e.g., the We the People ideal of peer citizen power and problem solving?
  
  Reply
Martin says:

September 13, 2017 at 5:59 pm

i agree overall. I think there should be mechanisms for a small group to make decision but a larger group to approve them, like the indigenous war councils (muskogee??) where there’s an inner council of men debated going to war but the women could remove any speaker from the circle as they wished. even experts sometimes go too far in one direction and need correction. our processes are currently disasterously distorted by wealth & media.

Reply
1. Tom Atlee says:
  
  September 14, 2017 at 8:36 am
  
  So true, Martin, re the systemic distortions of our politics, governance, economics, etc. I tend to think of them as distortions of the society’s collective capacity for whole-system intelligence, generating collective stupidity and folly. Although I suspect most indigenous societies used council circles, I believe the indigenous councils you are thinking of (for both war and peace decisions) were innovated by the Iroquois Confederacy or Haudenosaunee. The Wikipedia article notes that “Traditionally, the Clan Mothers appoint leaders, as they have raised children and are therefore held to a higher regard. By the same token, if a leader does not prove sound, becomes corrupt or does not listen to the people, the Clan Mothers have the power to strip him of his leadership.” An interesting division of labor – one that was (for some reason!) not adopted by the U.S. Founding Fathers when they adopted so many other Haudenosaunee innovations, from caucuses and taking turns speaking to the very idea of confederacy itself. Although I think we now have the (potential) capacity to have wise peer collaborations across all differences (including gender), it is definitely provocative to imagine what would happen if the Haudenosaunee gender-based division of power were practiced in modern Western societies! Finally, I agree with your thinking there should be “mechanisms for a small group to make decision but a larger group to approve them” as one potent design principle for a wise democracy. See https://www.wd-pl.com/microcosm/ for an interesting application of it.
  
  Reply
Bhav says:

September 14, 2017 at 1:52 am

I feel like I was heading in the same direction with this article, what do you think? http://www.iofc.org/leadership-medarbetarskap

Reply
1. Tom Atlee says:
  
  September 14, 2017 at 7:51 am
  
  Yes! Spot on!! Now our question is: How do we extend this What Is Right? conversational leadership question from community and organizational navigation to addressing our planetary predicament (and opportunities!)? Who should be in those conversations? What systemic designs and cultural assumptions and practices would enable (and ensure) such conversations to happen ongoingly, as a matter of course? And what could we do to enable THOSE transformations to come about in the best manner? Time is unfortunately short. My tentative approaches are contained within the post above (and its links, and their links…). So many of our models and methods are so potent! but applied to such relatively small realms (corporations, NGOs, communities) because that’s where people’s attention is and remuneration is common. But what if our “clients” are the earth and future generations? How do we proceed? (I’m slipping a bit into our fundraiser, but the question is more broadly relevant here.)
  
  Reply
John F Reed says:

September 14, 2017 at 9:45 am

Idealism is great yet the path there is quite another matter..

Reply
1. Tom Atlee says:
  
  September 14, 2017 at 3:24 pm
  
  Definitely true, John. Yet just as theory and practice can interact to the benefit of both, so can idealism and action. My wise democracy pattern language, being a design catalogue, is an effort to provide action guidance rooted in the ideal of wise self-governance. Check it out at https://wd-pl.com. Of course we have to DO action in order to shift the systems, stories, and behaviors that need shifting! I’m hoping to develop a “community of practice” around the WD-PL materials. On the other hand, inclusive networks are already emerging all over the place; in their case our idealism is intended to guide our efforts to help them become a new, more wise form of collaborative governance. It’s worth a try, at least, don’t you think?
  
  Reply

* * * * * * * We have two days to raise $1801! Your donation today can be DOUBLED! * * * * * * *

Related posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*** * * * * * *
We have two days to raise $1801!
Your donation today can be DOUBLED!
* * * * * * ***