Episcopal Church Women

Issue 3 – Winter 2023
Dennis Clark, PPP
NECW Parliamentarian

This series of articles, under the byline “The Square,” is dedicated to the proposition that just as that tool was used by the ancient masons to construct edifices that would stand for hundreds, if not thousands of years, the same principle may be applied to other affairs of civilization. For purposes of these articles, I would propose that rules adopted by pluralist societies as small as only a handful (associations, clubs, etc.) to those of entire nations are built upon principles of fairness to all, as well as equal rights and treatment for the whole. History teaches this must be the case if a democratic society is to stand the test of time.

Just as the Coliseum of ancient Rome, the pyramids of the Egyptian and Mayan civilizations, and the Parthenon and temples of that first democracy, ancient Greece, rose from cornerstones made square by the builders, the U.S. Constitution stands as the oldest written constitution in the world today. This is a tribute to our founders who, nearly two and a half centuries ago, created a framework of government that has served as a bulwark against the forces of gluttony and greed, bigotry and hate, demagogues, extremists and anarchists. Those behind these forces, both at home and abroad, have sought to divide us as a nation throughout our history. I think it never hurts to remind ourselves that the acronym for the United States is US, We the People.

Perhaps the overriding principle of a democracy is the precept of rule by a majority of the people—or for societies (associations), their members. This truth is rightly tempered by the certain protection of those who find themselves in the minority. Under the Constitution those rights are stated in its first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

Throughout our history the Constitution, standing on the leveled principles of fairness, justice and liberty for all, has stood firm through economic upheavals, foreign wars, demands for broadened civil rights for those in the minority, even civil war.

However, there exists a thin line between the right of the majority to govern, without treading on the rights of the minority. This line does not extend to the infinite degree. That is, the wants, the desires, perhaps even the needs of every member may not be fully addressed to their liking. To do so would lead to anarchy. It would lead to society’s inability to progress, to govern itself, to melt down into what many call a tyranny of the minority.

General Henry M. Robert was acutely aware of this conundrum when he wrote in one of his three books on parliamentary procedure:

“The great lesson for democracies to learn is for the majority to give to the minority a full, free opportunity to present their side of the case, and then for the minority, having failed to win a majority to their views, gracefully to submit and to recognize the action as that of the entire organization, and cheerfully to assist in carrying it out until they can secure its repeal.”

Parliamentary Law
Gen. Henry M. Robert

From the time of Thomas Jefferson, this nation’s first parliamentarian, having authored Jefferson’s Manual, the first manual of procedure for the United States Senate, until today, each and every author of parliamentary manuals has embedded in their rules methods to prevent a minority of the members (especially fewer than one-third) from being able to bring the business of an assembly to a grinding halt simply because they can’t have their way. Many non-governmental societies, such as the NECW, use the latest version of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12^th Edition) as their parliamentary authority. In a later issue of this column we will explore the methods therein designed to protect the rights of the majority from those who seek to hijack a society’s ability to work harmoniously to achieve its objectives.

Meanwhile, in the halls of government from both sides of the aisle comes a new generation of faux parliamentarians who believe their way is the only way. Whether it is their philosophy of government, economics or perhaps even religion, they insist on imposing their oft-narrow will on the remainder of the society. As I type, a tiny minority of the U.S. House of Representatives has managed to bring the proceedings of that house, and thus much of the machinery of our nation’s government, to a standstill. In the U.S. Senate the current rules allow for a minority, as few as one member, to thwart the will of the majority. This is NOT patriotism; it IS tyranny, the very ideal for which they profess to condemn. Theirs is a philosophy that is wrong and wrongheaded and one which is destined, if not thwarted, to bring our democratic form of government to its very knees as the chasm between the political parties grows ever wider.

With so much turmoil rampant in the world today, this is not the time to have anarchy run amok in our halls of government. In fact, it is never time to allow for such. That way of thinking is not what this nation is about—it is diametrically opposite.

There are those who say we should not bring up this type of debate in “polite company” or in this case on the pages of a magazine dedicated to the teachings of Scripture. This parliamentarian believes, however, this is exactly where the debate must be joined; if not here and in like media throughout our pluralistic society, then just where will it be? How can we stand idle while the very foundations of our democratic way of life are under assault?

Who then is to decide the issue of whether a tyranny of the minority is the wave of a certain, uncertain fate of our collective society? The answer is, ALL of us will so decide, not just a few. WE the People decide by letting our elected members of the Congress and state legislatures as well as our friends and neighbors know that we want our country back. We want it back from extremists on either side of the political spectrum who reflect the views of a tiny minority instead of the vast majority. If not us, the People, then who? If not now, when?