--- Den mån 2010-03-01 skrev ashinpan <ashinpan@...
<As for (1), I think Sangha cannot be called a democratic institution. Because:
1. At Sangha functions (so-called sanghakammas) , the objection of a single monk can overrule the majority vote. (In other words, each monk carries a veto.) So any given function can succeed only if each and everyone present in the assembly gives their agreement.
Of course such regulations cannot be adopted in a lay society.>
The free veto (liberum veto) has actually been tried in secular society - in the Polish parliament from the end of the 16th century. "In the 16th century, no single person or small group dared to hold up proceedings, but, from the second half of the 17th century, the liberum veto was used to virtually paralyze the Sejm, and brought the Commonwealth to the brink of collapse" (Wikipedia); in some European languages, "Polish Parliament" still means chaos.
In non-secular lay society, I think it is practiced by the Quakers.
Använder du Yahoo!?
Är du trött på spam? Yahoo! E-post har det bästa spamskyddet som finns