Democracy within Grand Lodges.

I have over the years noticed a lot of static and interference with regards the apparent lack of democracy within specifically the UGLE.

The topic had always intrigued me when I was a member as half of me thought I might prefer to have some influence, my voice heard, lack of democracy emasculates the population, one man one vote, taxation without representation is tyranny, no man is free till he is equal to those that rule etc etc.

And the other half of me took the practical approach. Too much consultation by the "management" leads to delays, conflicts between groups that have no idea of the bigger picture, lobby groups having too much influence.

You only need to sit through the risings in any Lodge, or discussion of "any other business" to come to two important conclusions:

There is already far too much bureaucracy generated by both Provincial and Grand Lodge, (the paper trail is endless) and it is rare for the Secretary to disclose all the individual correspondence as received in its entirety so a vote can be taken on each issue.

Have a look around the room next Lodge meeting as the "inbound / outbound mail" is read out. Numbed silence. Watches being consulted. Indifference is rapidly overtaken by abject ennui.

If it became a matter of actual debate (ignoring for a minute the reason for Lodges is not to discuss correspondence) and then a vote, would consensus be achieved swiftly? Or would it echo the scenes witnessed at many a GP committee meeting that even the topic of whether there is time for a coffee during the session causes so much to and fro banter, nothing is resolved within a reasonable time (hypothetical example). The WM should not have to gavel more than once for the same point at an informal committee.

Going back to why Lodges meet: Within the work undertaken, where in the ritual does it say that to improve yourself a vote has to be taken on every petty issue that arises within the national / provincial structure? Freedom of inclination / spirit is a relative concept, even within a total democracy.

So my question is: Should Lodges take into account the clamouring of the politically correct "idealists" (for want of a better word) that think something is missing if such event don't occur? Should Lodges be consulted about anything from the use of buildings, who appears in which magazine, right the way up to voting on the members of the executive at Provincial / Grand Lodge level?

Or is that just pandering to a small minority that often are not involved in the process at any level but just want to meddle?

The other side of the coin is, currently the present system gives individual autonomy to Lodges on most things. In fact, as private Lodges they can ignore most directives regarding charity disbursements, attendance at various functions (but not of course Provincial Grand Lodge convocations or summons to Grand Lodge Quarterly events). They can, if brave enough, even refuse the allocated GO for the year. Certainly they can choose the nature of the ritual that is worked, the annual choice of officers and how many candidates will be admitted and when.

Does it actually matter who is Grand Master or who is on the GL executive? Does it make a tuppence worth of difference to "freemasonry" as it is practised within the UGLE that they are there by appointment, not election? Is it really anyones business what strata of society they come from or what faith system they believe?

If in fact full democracy is the only way to be free, how many would actually decide that dull debate is not why they are there and vote with their feet? And how many would continue to attend once they have heard the member with the loudest voice or the biggest gut give their same opinion over and over again?

There is always of the course a route for comment, suggestions or even displeasure to be registered. Informal chat with Prov officers in the bar, a letter to the Provincial Secretary via Lodge Secretaries, or a quiet word in the ear of someone that can speak informally to someone higher up usually gets a message across. Representation from Lodges can be voted on in Lodge so that a collective point can be made through the channels if something is deemed important across the board. And to be fair, notice is often taken.

So, does "freemasonry" survive the apparent indignity of the UGLE not being democratic? Would members be any more free if they were allowed to vote on every matter concerning the "bureacratic" side of the UGLE?

Author	Message
M Perrott	Posted 29/06/2009 00:22:25
Master Group: Forum Member Last Active: 21/12/2011 00:19:49 Posts: 339, Visits: 2,530 573	I have over the years noticed a lot of static and interference with regards the apparent lack of democracy within specifically the UGLE. The topic had always intrigued me when I was a member as half of me thought I might prefer to have some influence, my voice heard, lack of democracy emasculates the population, one man one vote, taxation without representation is tyranny, no man is free till he is equal to those that rule etc etc. And the other half of me took the practical approach. Too much consultation by the "management" leads to delays, conflicts between groups that have no idea of the bigger picture, lobby groups having too much influence. You only need to sit through the risings in any Lodge, or discussion of "any other business" to come to two important conclusions: There is already far too much bureaucracy generated by both Provincial and Grand Lodge, (the paper trail is endless) and it is rare for the Secretary to disclose all the individual correspondence as received in its entirety so a vote can be taken on each issue. Have a look around the room next Lodge meeting as the "inbound / outbound mail" is read out. Numbed silence. Watches being consulted. Indifference is rapidly overtaken by abject ennui. If it became a matter of actual debate (ignoring for a minute the reason for Lodges is not to discuss correspondence) and then a vote, would consensus be achieved swiftly? Or would it echo the scenes witnessed at many a GP committee meeting that even the topic of whether there is time for a coffee during the session causes so much to and fro banter, nothing is resolved within a reasonable time (hypothetical example). The WM should not have to gavel more than once for the same point at an informal committee. Going back to why Lodges meet: Within the work undertaken, where in the ritual does it say that to improve yourself a vote has to be taken on every petty issue that arises within the national / provincial structure? Freedom of inclination / spirit is a relative concept, even within a total democracy. So my question is: Should Lodges take into account the clamouring of the politically correct "idealists" (for want of a better word) that think something is missing if such event don't occur? Should Lodges be consulted about anything from the use of buildings, who appears in which magazine, right the way up to voting on the members of the executive at Provincial / Grand Lodge level? Or is that just pandering to a small minority that often are not involved in the process at any level but just want to meddle? The other side of the coin is, currently the present system gives individual autonomy to Lodges on most things. In fact, as private Lodges they can ignore most directives regarding charity disbursements, attendance at various functions (but not of course Provincial Grand Lodge convocations or summons to Grand Lodge Quarterly events). They can, if brave enough, even refuse the allocated GO for the year. Certainly they can choose the nature of the ritual that is worked, the annual choice of officers and how many candidates will be admitted and when. Does it actually matter who is Grand Master or who is on the GL executive? Does it make a tuppence worth of difference to "freemasonry" as it is practised within the UGLE that they are there by appointment, not election? Is it really anyones business what strata of society they come from or what faith system they believe? If in fact full democracy is the only way to be free, how many would actually decide that dull debate is not why they are there and vote with their feet? And how many would continue to attend once they have heard the member with the loudest voice or the biggest gut give their same opinion over and over again? There is always of the course a route for comment, suggestions or even displeasure to be registered. Informal chat with Prov officers in the bar, a letter to the Provincial Secretary via Lodge Secretaries, or a quiet word in the ear of someone that can speak informally to someone higher up usually gets a message across. Representation from Lodges can be voted on in Lodge so that a collective point can be made through the channels if something is deemed important across the board. And to be fair, notice is often taken. So, does "freemasonry" survive the apparent indignity of the UGLE not being democratic? Would members be any more free if they were allowed to vote on every matter concerning the "bureacratic" side of the UGLE?
	REPLY QUOTE LIKE 0
Terry	Posted 29/06/2009 04:44:07
Master Group: Forum Member Last Active: 08/01/2011 05:46:01 Posts: 586, Visits: 765 748	Mark, I'm not sure that this answers your post, but who said Grand Lodge, local lodges are democratic, from where I sit they are not, however "freemasonry" certainly proclaims democratic notions Regards Terry Tamworth 652 Australia
	REPLY QUOTE LIKE 0
dp	Posted 29/06/2009 10:42:36
Past Master Group: Forum Member Last Active: 08/01/2012 18:59:22 Posts: 1,082, Visits: 3,065 1,259	Mark, The bigger this system the less the people at the bottom have to do with what goes on at the top. That is the way it is. Generally we could not vote or pay too much attention to the basic things as nothing would ever get done. As you say though the majority of things in real life have little or no effect on our Lodge so who cares. However if something happens that we as a lodge feel strongly about the we are very vocal. This is I think a good balance.
	REPLY QUOTE LIKE 0
M Perrott	Posted 29/06/2009 20:44:20
Master Group: Forum Member Last Active: 21/12/2011 00:19:49 Posts: 339, Visits: 2,530 573	Terry (29/06/2009) Mark, I'm not sure that this answers your post, but who said Grand Lodge, local lodges are democratic, from where I sit they are not, however "freemasonry" certainly proclaims democratic notions That was the point I was making. "Democracy" does not feature in some Regular Grand Lodges, and yet there is still full freedom of inclination in most matters. As far as the work in the Temple goes, I suggest that those issues that are not decided by the general membership (hierarchy, honours, financial matters) are ones that are irrelevant. There are no shackles on the ankles of those erecting a fine and perfect edifice. Perhaps I am wrong, I would be interested in hearing otherwise.
	REPLY QUOTE LIKE 0
Iain	Posted 29/06/2009 21:31:02
Master Group: Forum Member Last Active: 17/11/2011 12:26:40 Posts: 588, Visits: 770 674	It is up to the individual brother how democratic he wants things to be, If he wants every word of any correspondence read out before he votes on it then that is his choice and if the request is made by a brother in open lodge then i dont see that it can be ignored or rejected. People being creatures of habit will quite willingly go along with the norm in any lodge to the extent they will sit and say nothing rather than being accused of rocking the boat and eating into FB time. Here we encourage all our brethren to speak openly on any matter whether it be from GL , PGL, or from our own lodge, If we run over by an hour or so to resolve an issue SMIB I think what is more of an issue is for individual lodges to encourage all brethren to take an active part in things rather than sitting silent and letting things run. Cheers, Iain Dumbarton Kilwinning Lodge No 18
	REPLY QUOTE LIKE 0
jjs	Posted 29/06/2009 22:49:49
Journeyman Group: Forum Member Last Active: 17/06/2011 17:13:52 Posts: 158, Visits: 185 188	Bro.Perrott (do you object to Bro?) Politically Correct is a term used to describe Cultural Marxism but the media find it catchier so... Democracy’s strength is that it allows the Wisdom of Crowds and prevents a group or individual without much talent—or even sanity, being left unrestrained and invade Russia or something. It is not a coincidence that the most successful societies are democratic. What is really needed is good management and administration to deal with routine but the” Demos” to hold them responsible and be able to change them if necessary. Even if this is very indirectly. “The Wisdom of Crowds” by the way is the title of a very interesting book I can recommend.
	REPLY QUOTE LIKE 0
M Perrott	Posted 29/06/2009 23:12:50
Master Group: Forum Member Last Active: 21/12/2011 00:19:49 Posts: 339, Visits: 2,530 573	It is most curious that you chose to use the title Bro. in both threads I am participating in, but have not used it before to other posters. It is not a title I answer to, or Brother, especially on forums. No matter. Thank you for your interest in this topic. I have read that book, and several others on the subject, including "The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World " But the issue remains, can "freemasons" work within the Temple despite the apparent lack of "democracy"?
	REPLY QUOTE LIKE 0
Alan Campbell	Posted 29/06/2009 23:28:51
Past Master Group: Forum Member Last Active: 04/02/2012 12:02:46 Posts: 1,247, Visits: 2,228 1,391	Obviously i can't speak for UGLE but what i witness in my lodge is democracy. Yes there are those who are asked to rule but everyone has a say in how it's done. As a master of a ldoge in GLoS everything is proposed and seconded by the brethren of the lodge, if there is a counter proposal then it goes to a vote in open lodge. At provincial level it is the same, also at provincial level each lodge is allowed to nominate there own representative for an office, this is then voted on. Each lodge should be represented at provincial, all our past masters,the RWM and his wardens are members of provincial, so if the lodge wants something discussed than that is taken forward by them. At Grand lodge level each provincial Grand master is a member of Grand Lodge and he is our voice at that level. Each individual lodges RWM and wardens are also members of Grand lodge and are entitled to attend and vote on the business at hand. As i said i can't speak about a system that i am unfamiliar with but looking at the above how much more democratic can we make it. How mu
	REPLY QUOTE LIKE 0
M Perrott	Posted 29/06/2009 23:36:38
Master Group: Forum Member Last Active: 21/12/2011 00:19:49 Posts: 339, Visits: 2,530 573	Alan Campbell (29/06/2009) Obviously i can't speak for UGLE but what i witness in my lodge is democracy. Yes there are those who are asked to rule but everyone has a say in how it's done. As a master of a ldoge in GLoS everything is proposed and seconded by the brethren of the lodge, if there is a counter proposal then it goes to a vote in open lodge. Thanks for that Alan. I think you would find that UGLE Lodges have to vote on who will be Master each year. The ballot, if there is more than one nomination apart from the SW, is secret and three balls are needed to change the usual pattern of accession. Some Lodge choose a show of hands when there is only one name for promotion. Once the Lodge is Tyled, do you breathe any easier knowing the Grand Master has been voted in, or is it irrelevant to the nights proceedings?
	REPLY QUOTE LIKE 0
Alan Campbell	Posted 29/06/2009 23:47:36
Past Master Group: Forum Member Last Active: 04/02/2012 12:02:46 Posts: 1,247, Visits: 2,228 1,391	M Perrott (29/06/2009) Alan Campbell (29/06/2009) Obviously i can't speak for UGLE but what i witness in my lodge is democracy. Yes there are those who are asked to rule but everyone has a say in how it's done. As a master of a ldoge in GLoS everything is proposed and seconded by the brethren of the lodge, if there is a counter proposal then it goes to a vote in open lodge. Thanks for that Alan. I think you would find that UGLE Lodges have to vote on who will be Master each year. The ballot, if there is more than one nomination apart from the SW, is secret and three balls are needed to change the usual pattern of accession. Some Lodge choose a show of hands when there is only one name for promotion. Once the Lodge is Tyled, do you breathe any easier knowing the Grand Master has been voted in, or is it irrelevant to the nights proceedings? Our lodges are the same Mark, each office is voted on every year and if there is more than one nomination then it is voted on. Once installed that brother then becomes the lodges representative at provincial and grand lodge. I don't know if i understand your second question, would i breathe any easier? If it is the lodges decision as a group to install someone other than the WSW then so be it. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened, it usually results in fall outs though.
	REPLY QUOTE LIKE 0

The Freemason Forum

Democracy within Grand Lodges.