Does anyone believe that there should be a world-wide hierarchy of double-linked sociocratic The Delibrative Democracy Consortium (DDC)u is an alliance o... More?
There definitely are. They don’t perceive the Big Brother implications of this because of consent and double-linking. If an organization, through its double-links can object to the decisions of the world-wide organization, there is no possibility of establishing a dictatorship or placing limitations on that organization. The implications of this kind of thinking for a democratic society, and for sociocratic ideas becoming mainstream are significant.
Since a world-wide organization would have to consent to the circle below it becoming a member, however, this control is not necessarily operable. If an organization wants to extend itself, it would logically follow that the only position it could take is:
You can join us if you are operating sociocratically. If as an organization we need to change or develop, you will become part of the consent process that determines that — but first we have to determine that you are sociocratic according to our standards.
This is a reasonable requirement. One must consent to those with whom they are to make consent decisions. Consent doesn’t work without that agreement.
The problem arises at the point of saying who is sociocratic and who is not.
Some believe that if an organization wants to call themselves sociocratic, they should be certified in the same way that consultants are certified. They understand the ability to trademark “sociocracy” is impossible — one can’t trademark an idea. Nor can one limit the use of a word that has been in use since 1851.
The three-triangles symbol will be trademarked and groups/individuals will have to be certified to use it.
Categories: Leadership and Self-Organization