Sunday, January 17, 2010

Case in point

Yesterday's links:
In order for any kind of party or, indeed, any institution with a democratic base to exist, it must have an organization that delegates tasks. As this bureaucratic structure develops, it invests a small group of people with enough power that they can then subvert the very mechanisms by which they can be held to account: the party press, party conventions and delegate votes. "It is organization which gives birth to the domination of the elected over the electors," (Robert Michels) wrote, "of the mandataries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organization, says oligarchy."
Today's headlines:
He's called Michael by his friends, Iggy by irreverent pundits, Iffy by his critics.

But to those who work most closely with him every day, the federal Liberal leader now goes by yet another moniker: Mr. Ignatieff.

And, by the way, they have to wear professional office garb while they're at it.
Donolo, who'd seen first hand the success of the more structured approach preferred by Chretien, told Liberals the leader's office needed to establish some defined lines of authority.
Donolo set about creating a more traditional, heirarchical organization chart and a more professional atmosphere, starting with the more formal work wear and manner of referring to the leader.

No comments:

Post a Comment