[Pil-pc-oceania] PPP

[pacific-edge]

On 8/7/07 10:02 AM, "kerry dawborn" <kdawborn at bigpond.com> wrote:

> I'm a bit concerned about the speed at which things regarding the idea
> of a PPP are moving - I think it's easy to overlook the fact that
> whatever is done regarding something as big and public as a permaculture
> involvement in politics is going to affect and reflect on the entire
> permaculture community, and the way it is perceived, and continues to be
> received, in the wider community.

I've written before about the potential that, were PPP to gain any kind of
prominence, it could influence public thinking on permaculture. The example
I raised was that existing inroads being made by permaculture-trained people
into local government could be damaged.

Staff in local government are required to be politically agnostic, ie. not
publicly promote any particularly party in their work. Association with
permaculture could become a barrier to getting their practices over to the
public. Just speculation at the moment because formation of a party is a
long way off.

Another thought - were PPP to become a dominant voice in Permaculture, what
would the effect be on PIL as a representative voice?

> Personally I would like there to be far more reflection and discussion within
> the Australian community before taking the idea of a PPP to the international
> community, or before other steps are taken.

How is it to go international? Should not a political party be more of a
national thing and act regionally on issues affecting particular places? How
does an international party sit with permaculture's tradition of localism?
Not even the Greens saw it necessary or relevant to set up an international
party although there are Green parties in a number of countries.

PPP would have to register in each country in which it planned to set up.
PPP may be illegal in countries without democratic tradition.
 
> right now it feels to me as if a few people have just decided
> for the rest of us to go for it and are doing so in a manner that
> seems to completely ignore the principle of small steps, observation and
> reflection that is at the core of permaculture design methodology.

Kerry's question is a relevant one about due process. The idea I picked up
from the initial announcement and subsequent discussion is that the decision
was made to go ahead with PPP. This online discussion was a consequence of
that and signifies that the national body of permaculture practitioners wish
to deliberate the idea before the party is actuallty registered.

Provocative question: do permaculturists have an 'El Supremo' mentality and
has decision making in permaculture devolved to governance by decree and
proclamation? Can one leader, prominent and deserving of the title that he
is, take an initiative with the potential to affect a significant number of
others?

Legally, there is nothing to stop anyone in permaculture taking such action.
Morally, the proposition would be debatable.

Someone wrote that Bill had been considering the formation of a political
party for some time. Then he decided to act and the idea caught the
imaginations of a few people attending a single Permaculture course and that
this will be followed-up in Melbourne in October. Are these people new to
permaculture? Do they have any understanding of its history, its implied
ideology or the participatory processes implied in its Second Ethic?

Permaculture has depended upon the initiative of people taking action where
they live. Usually, the scale of those actions was local so any damage would
not impact upon the collective body of permaculturists. The PPP, however, is
national and this raises the question as to whether Permaculture can depend
any longer on inspired but perhaps hurried initiatives as its primary means
of operation when those initiatives have the potential to affect the
national body of permaculture pratitioners.

My understanding is that policy development has been invested in a single
person - Bill Mollison. Where's the input by others? Will this be invited at
the Melbourne meeting? Usually, the opinion of a group arrived at through
deliberation is superior to that of a single individual.

> I can understand that there may be a sense of urgency because we have a
> federal election on the way, things in the world are worrying and it will be a
> while before there's another federal election.

If Bill and his PPP suporters anticipate contesting the federal election,
well, sorry to say so, but it's too little too late in terms of developing
policy, setting up decision making processes and getting the public's
attention and campaigning.

I understand that PPP has been registered as a business name. Is someone
working on a constitution? How will the party be governed? How will it be
structured? Will there be branches throughout the country? What powers will
they have? Or will there be one central body that governs by diktat, by
order or decree imposed by someone/ some clique without popular consent?

If decision and policy making power is invested in one person or a small
cabal of close supporters, then does it - in structure though not in
policies - become just a little reminescent of another party started by a
red haired woman from Wollongabba? Even the Vote for Fern Party might be
more democratic.

It's probably because the idea is new that there's the public manifesto to
explain the rationale for a PPP.

> but the speed at which a relatively few people seem to be moving with this,
> without broad and deep reflection and a level of consensus within the
> permaculture community as a whole, is making me feel that they are *not
> *reflecting what I feel permaculture is about, and are not likely to build
> something that I can stand by... I have serious doubts about whether or not I
> could bring myself to vote for or support a permaculture party developed in
> the way things seem to be evolving at present.

Like Kerry, I think a great many pemaculturists would not vote for a PPP
because they see other parties, like the Greens, being more effective. You
can call a party 'permaculture' but you shouldn't assume that all
permaculturists will vote for it. There are many who are 'green' in attitude
but they don't all vote for The Greens.

These comments are simple responses and wonderings and should not be
interpreted as a criticism of Bill or anyone else, nor necessarily
signifying opposition to a PPP.

...Russ
 
> cheers,
> 
> Kerry Dawborn.
> 
> Martin Naylor wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>> 
>> You may as well see what groups around the world think - and direct
>> them to
>> the PRI forum for discussions...
>> 
>> Hey and you're a U2 fan too!
>> I like a lot of music the greatest band ever is The Moody Blues
>>  
>> i sent one to permalearnersuk at yahoogroups.com
>> <mailto:permalearnersuk at yahoogroups.com>, I'll track a few more down,
>> if anyone as a list it would save a bit of time
>> Martin 
>> 
>> 
>> Business men drink my wine Proud men dig my earth
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited
>> storage on all webmail accounts. Find out more
>> <http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html>.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pil-pc-oceania mailing list
>> Pil-pc-oceania at lists.permacultureinternational.org
>> http://jasper.cmsarchitects.com/mailman/listinfo/pil-pc-oceania
>>   
> _______________________________________________
> Pil-pc-oceania mailing list
> Pil-pc-oceania at lists.permacultureinternational.org
> http://jasper.cmsarchitects.com/mailman/listinfo/pil-pc-oceania