Talk:Bahá'í administration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Elections 2 Character of Baha'i Administration 3 Hierarchy vs. Holarchy 4 criticism 5 Structural Adjustment 6 Diagram

[edit] Elections

Here are a some quotes from Shoghi Effendi and the Univeral House of Justice to clarify the guidance on Baha'i administration. While no local or national spiritual assembly is perfect, this is what Baha'is are aiming for. I'm not sure that long quotes are suitable for the article, which is why they are being copied here.

Character of Baha'i Administration

In "The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah", Shoghi Effendi states:

• This new-born Administrative Order incorporates within its structure certain elements which are to be found in each of the three recognized forms of secular government, without being in any sense a mere replica of any one of them, and without introducing within its machinery any of the objectionable features which they inherently possess.

The three forms of secular government to which the Guardian refers are Autocracy (rule by one person), Aristocracy (rule by the best people) and Democracy (rule by all the people). Referring again to these three forms of secular government, the Guardian writes, later in that same document:

• Whereas this Administrative Order cannot be said to have been modelled after any of these recognized systems of government, it nevertheless embodies, reconciles and assimilates within its framework such wholesome elements as are to be found in each one of them. The hereditary authority which the Guardian is called upon to exercise, the vital and essential functions which the Universal House of Justice discharges, the specific provisions requiring its democratic election by the representatives of the faithful -- these combine to demonstrate the truth that this divinely revealed Order, which can never be identified with any of the standard types of government referred to by Aristotle in his works, embodies and blends with the spiritual verities on which it is based the beneficent elements which are to be found in each one of them. The admitted evils inherent in each of these systems being rigidly and permanently excluded, this unique Order, however long it may endure and however extensive its ramifications, cannot ever degenerate into any form of despotism, of oligarchy, or of demagogy which must sooner or later corrupt the machinery of all man-made and essentially defective political institutions.

(Letters of The Universal House of Justice, 1995 Dec 02, Email Discussion Group Concerns) Occamy 20:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of Baha'i Administration

• ...the the purpose of Baha'i administration is primarily to lend strength and directive to the teaching work and to promote the establishment of the Faith. It should never be regarded as an end in itself but purely as a means to canalize and make effective a spiritual vitality generated by the Word of God in the hearts of the believers. (From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Australia, November 12, 1973. Lights of Guidance, Page: 2)

Qualifications for Membership

• It is incumbent upon the chosen delegates to consider without the least trace of passion and prejudice, and irrespective of any material consideration, the names of only those who can best combine the necessary qualities of unquestioned loyalty, of selfless devotion, of a well-trained mind, of recognized ability and mature experience. (Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 88).

Duties of Elected Representatives

• The duties of those whom the friends have freely and conscientiously elected as their representatives are no less vital and binding than the obligations of those who have chosen them. Their function is not to dictate, but to consult, and consult not only among themselves, but as much as possible with the friends whom they represent. They must regard themselves in no other light but that of chosen instruments for a more efficient and dignified presentation of the Cause of God. They should never be led to suppose that they are the central ornaments of the body of the Cause, intrinsically superior to others in capacity or merit, and sole promoters of its teachings and principles. They should approach their task with extreme humility, and endeavor, by their open-mindedness, their high sense of justice and duty, their candor, their modesty, their entire devotion to the welfare and interests of the friends, the Cause, and humanity, to win, not only the confidence and the genuine support and respect of those whom they serve, but also their esteem and real affection. They must, at all times, avoid the spirit of exclusiveness, the atmosphere of secrecy, free themselves from a domineering attitude, and banish all forms of prejudice and passion from their deliberations. They should, within the limits of wise discretion, take the friends into their confidence, acquaint them with their plans, share with them their problems and anxieties, and seek their advice and counsel. And, when they are called upon to arrive at a certain decision, they should, after dispassionate, anxious and cordial consultation, turn to God in prayer, and with earnestness and conviction and courage record their vote and abide by the voice of the majority, which we are told by our Master to be the voice of truth, never to be challenged, and always to be whole-heartedly enforced. To this voice the friends must heartily respond, and regard it as the only means that can insure the protection and advancement of the Cause. (Shoghi Effendi, From a letter to the Baha'is of America, February 23, 1924: Baha'i Administration, p. 64).

-- Occamy 19:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be an idea to remove the reply to the critics because... they're all kind of obvious. -- Tomhab 22:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Character of Baha'i Administration

The quote referring to the British parliament on the Character... section has been deleted because in this context it implies Baha'u'llah preferred parliamentary democracy, which is not the case. Baha'u'llah writes of the importance of kingship too, which is not democratic in nature:

• "Although a republican form of government profiteth all the peoples of the world, yet the majesty of kingship is one of the signs of God. We do not wish that the countries of the world should remain deprived thereof. If the sagacious combine the two forms into one, great will be their reward in the presence of God.". Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, page 28

In any case, the Baha'i Administrative Order in its current early form is not identified with the future world government foretold by Baha'u'llah and outlined by Shoghi Effendi in a letter written on his behalf:

• "As regards the International Executive referred to by the Guardian in his "Goal of a New World Order", it should be noted that this statement refers by no means to the Baha'i Commonwealth of the future, but simply to that world government which will herald the advent and lead to the final establishment of the World Order of Baha'u'llah. The formation of this International Executive, which corresponds to the executive head or board in present-day national governments, is but a step leading to the Baha'i world government of the future, and hence should not be identified with either the institution of the Guardianship or that of the International House of Justice." Shoghi Effendi 17 March 1934 letter to two believers; Peace, page 193; also Lights of Guidance, page 321. --Occamy 09:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hierarchy vs. Holarchy

The "hierarchical" structure of local-national-global, or hierarchies of scope are not, strictly speaking, simplified political hierarchies, but Holarchies [1]. They are microcosm-macrocosm levels. Additionally, while authority flows from the top, funding flows from the bottom up, as does "power" in the sense that Spiritual Assemblies cannot really do much on their own without active participation of the generality of believers in their area of scope. I'm not sure how to represent this, or if it's even possible to do so without confusing the issue, but hierarchy is loaded, and it implies certain aspects of the relationships - some of which are true, and others of which are untrue. -- ChristianEdwardGruber 17:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Errrrrm, but doesn't the authority lie in the people of any democrasy too? Anyway perhaps word it "heirarchy (strictly speaking holarchy)"? I really have never heard the term before -- Tomhab 19:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit new to the term, but it seemed to me to fit the structure within structure of the Assemblies. Anyway, as to authority lying with the people... that's the point. In democracy, authority derives from the people, and power acretes from the people. In the Baha'i system authority derives from God to the Universal House of Justice, where power (used by Shoghi Effendi more in the mechanical sense, IMO) accretes from individual initiative and fund participation to the LOCAL spiritual assemblies, which then support the National which supports the Global. While there are short-cuts here (ie, an LSA or an individual can give to the international funds, or serve at hte world center) the main movement of money and power is from the bottom to hte next stage up. Modern democracies are usually federalisms of some kind, and money goes from the citizen to the state at the highest level, which is then doled out to smaller units like states/provinces, or cities. In the above way, democracies are often electoral autocracies, because they take resources and express law in such a way as to mimic kings. They're just a collective king. I think the US might be an exception, because I don't know if states and cities collect their own income taxes (for example), or whether the IRS collects it and gives a portion to the states. -- Christian Edward Gruber 20:21, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

[edit] criticism

I removed this:

Critics

Criticisms include:

• The Bahá'í election process reduces the level of democracy since the delegate does not know whom Bahá'ís in his or her area would prefer as National Spiritual Assembly members and the Bahá'ís have no knowledge of who their delegates voted for. The individual believers therefore have no direct say or input in who, at the national and worldwide level, leads their faith. These critics contend that this lack of accountability means that the public and voters:
  • cannot voice their candidate preference to their delegates or national representatives
  • do not know who their delegate or National Spiritual Assembly members voted for
  • has resulted in increasing fundamentalism in the Bahá'í administration. [2].
• Although no nominations are made, the incumbants and individuals appointed to prominant Bahá'í offices may be seen as effectively nominated due to their larger exposure to the public.
• Some feel the balance between the autocratic and the will of the Bahá'í voter as described in the Character section above is tilted too heavily in the autocratic direction.

At a worldwide level no Universal House of Justice member has ever been voted out, and in recent elections, it has become common for the vacancies to be filled by the members of the International Teaching Centre. Since this board is appointed by the Universal House of Justice, it has been suggested that the Universal House of Justice elections have been reduced to a process of self-appointment.

Response

It is worth noting that the selection of religious leaders by other than direct election is common. The first presidency of the Latter Day Saints is attained by seniority in the appointed board of Councelors. The Pope is elected by cardinals appointed by the Pope. In each of these cases, and in the Bahá'í case, believers contend that the selection process is divinely directed. But mimicking flaws in other religious orders has never been the intention when the Bahá'í Administrative Order was drawn up by its founders. Their intention was to improve upon these systems as suggested in the 'character' above, where the ills of autocracy are to be eliminated by balancing autocracy with the strengths of democratic rule.

It is obviously POV and needs to be re-worked. There needs to be references too. Cuñado - Talk 20:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This section feels like another Dawud classic: find some blogs and cut-and-paste them into a "Criticisms" section which no Bahá'í related article can live without.

Seriously, the whole section lacked sources, so yanking it is fine with me. MARussellPESE 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how any article on Baha'i elections could be considered NPOV if it doesn't refer to the issue of incumbency and information-poor elections. I would like to see some of this section included, albeit as a NPOV description of the features of the Baha'i system. I suggest it is included under the Campaigning section. I'll have a think and see if I can propose some text for it. AndrewRT 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Dawud's edits have always been no valid sources. He got almost all his information from web blogs which are mostly just people complaining. I think it can be mentioned with better writing and a solid reference. Cuñado - Talk 17:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but I think it's important to assume good faith and abide by no personal attacks. By focussing on our common goal of an accurate and neutral article we can avoid turning this into a competition of agendas, which is what it sometimes feels like to me. AndrewRT 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the Baha'i contributors to these articles are trying hard to edit in an NPOV way; Wikipedia is a wonderful opportunity for Baha'is to apply their principle of "independent investigation of the truth". Picking up on the incumbency issue, i.e. "...no Universal House of Justice member has ever been voted out...", it really is a non-issue and a red herring, insofar as the House of Justice is concerned. Unlike political parties, which are voted in and out by electors according to partisan political and economic factors, International Conventions elect House of Justice members on the basis of individual suitability. Someone elected in his forties is likely to be just as suitable when he is in his sixties, so there is no real reason for voters to elect someone else, especially when Baha'is are assured in their Writings that the House of Justice (i.e. regardless of membership) operates under the protection of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. And concerning membership of the International Teaching Centre, I have not seen any denial that its members are among the most brilliant and selflessly devoted Baha'is; i.e. the House of Justice is selecting ITC members on the basis of their qualities rather than "self-selection". One point that is overlooked by sceptics is the unique relationship between House members: where else would you find nine powerful personalities working intimately with each other over decades without them splitting into cliques? I have heard retired House members Ali Nakhjavani and Douglas Martin refer several times movingly about the deep brotherly love that characterises the relationship between House members; this may be a tough fact for sceptics to swallow. The electoral process is not perfect: for example, should electors afflict another five years of crushing responsibilities on someone in his late seventies? But participants in multiple International Conventions will agree that the maturity of voting and consultation at the five-yearly gatherings improves significantly each time. --Occamy 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

---

In my experience most criticism of the Bahá'í electoral process, whatever direction it comes from, usually boils down to "the Bahá'í system differs too much from generally accepted democratic principles, so it must be deficient." As it appears we may delve into this deeply, I'd like to present these selections that highlight the distinction between the Bahá'í electoral process and those found in politics. (Apologies for the length, but it's difficult to edit down for length without sacrificing content on this subject.)

This link is to the complilation of Shoghi Effendi's writings on Bahá'í Elections. This is a must-read to be fully informed of the characteristics and distinctive views of the Bahá'í electoral process.

This is oft-quoted and representative:

We see therefore that we must do two things — Shun politics like the plague, and be obedient to the Government in power in the place where we reside."

(Hornby, Helen (Ed.) (1993). From a letter from Shoghi Effendi dated December 21, 1948 reproduced in Lights of Guidance, A Bahá'í Reference File, p. 445)

This is from the BIC and seems to me to offer a broad overview of the sociology of this system:

"In this regard, the Bahá'í community offers its own administrative system as a model for study. Bahá'ís attach great importance to cooperative decision-making and assign organizational responsibility for community affairs to freely elected governing councils at the local, national, and international levels. This hierarchy devolves decision-making to the lowest practicable level-thereby instituting a unique vehicle for grassroots participation in governance-while at the same time providing a level of coordination and authority that makes possible collaboration on a global scale. A unique feature of the Bahá'í electoral process is the maximum freedom of choice given to the electorate through the prohibition of nominations, candidature and solicitation. Election to Bahá'í administrative bodies is based not on personal ambition but rather on recognized ability, mature experience, and a commitment to service. Because the Bahá'í system does not allow the imposition of the arbitrary will or leadership of individuals, it cannot be used as a pathway to power. Decision-making authority rests with corporate bodies. All members of the Bahá'í community, no matter what position they may temporarily occupy in the administrative structure, are expected to regard themselves as involved in a learning process, as they strive to understand and implement the laws and principles of their Faith. Significantly, in many parts of the world, the first exercises in democratic activity have occurred within the Bahá'í community."

(Bahá'í International Community (2001). Overcoming Corruption in Public Institutions [3])

This is from the UHJ, and is fundamentally important in contrasting the distinctive views between Bahá'í and political elections.

"But occupation with the mechanics of Bahá'í Administration, divorced from the animating spirit of the Cause, leads to a distortion, to an arid secularization foreign to the nature of the Administration. Equally significant to the procedures for election — to further extend the example — is the evocation of that rarefied atmosphere of prayer and reflection, that quiet dignity of the process, devoid of nominations and campaigning, in which the individual's freedom to choose is limited only by his own conscience, exercised in private in an attitude that invites communion with the Holy Spirit. In this sphere, the elector regards the outcome as an expression of the will of God, and those elected as being primarily responsible to that will, not to the constituency which elected them. An election thus conducted portrays an aspect of that organic unity of the inner and outer realities of human life which is necessary to the construction of a mature society in this new Age. In no other system do individuals exercise such a breadth of freedom in the electoral process.

The equilibrium of responsibilities implied by all this presupposes maturity on the part of all concerned. This maturity has an apt analogy in adulthood in human beings. How significant is the difference between infancy and childhood, adolescence and adulthood! In a period of history dominated by the surging energy, the rebellious spirit and frenetic activity of adolescence, it is difficult to grasp the distinguishing elements of the mature society to which Bahá'u'lláh beckons all humanity. The models of the old world order blur vision of that which must be perceived; for these models were, in many instances, conceived in rebellion and retain the characteristics of the revolutions peculiar to an adolescent, albeit necessary, period in the evolution of human society. The very philosophies which have provided the intellectual content of such revolutions — Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Mill, come readily to mind — were inspired by protest against the oppressive conditions which revolutions were intended to remedy.

These characteristics are conspicuous, for example, in the inordinate scepticism regarding authority, and consequently, in the grudging respect which the citizens of various nations show toward their governments; they have become pronounced in the incessant promotion of individualism, often to the detriment of the wider interests of society. How aptly, even after the lapse of half a century, Shoghi Effendi's views, as conveyed by his secretary, fit the contemporary scene: "Our present generation, mainly due to the corruptions that have been identified with organizations, seem to stand against any institution. Religion as an institution is denounced. Government as an institution is denounced. Even marriage as an institution is denounced. We Bahá'ís should not be blinded by such prevalent notions. If such were the case, all the divine Manifestations would not have invariably appointed someone to succeed Them. Undoubtedly, corruptions did enter those institutions, but these corruptions were not due to the very nature of the institutions but to the lack of proper directions as to their powers and nature of their perpetuation. What Bahá'u'lláh has done is not to eliminate all institutions in the Cause but to provide the necessary safeguards that would eliminate corruptions that caused the fall of previous institutions. What those safeguards are is most interesting to study and find out and also most essential to know.

We make these observations not to indulge in criticism of any system, but rather to open up lines of thought, to encourage a re-examination of the bases of modern society, and to engender a perspective for consideration of the distinctive features of the Order of Bahá'u'lláh. What, it could be asked, was the nature of society that gave rise to such characteristics and such philosophies? Where have these taken mankind? Has their employment satisfied the needs and expectations of the human spirit? The answers to such questions could lay the ground for a contrasting observation of the origin and nature of the characteristics and philosophy underlying that Order."

(The Universal House of Justice (1988). Individual Rights and Freedoms, pp. 5-7 [4])

These certainly don't even suggest a lock-step blind obedience to Bahá'í administration or institutions. Far from it. Clearly each individual Bahá'í is required to be an active, engaged and informed elector in their communities.

But neither is this system a "tweaking" of democratic principles and processes. Comparisons between the two, may be interesting, but the standard for Bahá'ís is the the writings.

"... inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, ... unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets."

(Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 3)

Ciao, MARussellPESE 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Structural Adjustment

Ok, the title of this comment is really just a personal in-joke, and a mild reference to the "Structure" section rework that cunado is doing. I just wanted to approve of the clean-up so-far, and suggest that we need to really work on referencing in this section. I'm as bad as the rest, and have added stuff without proper referencing. I'll try to improve that, but we can all improve. --Christian Edward Gruber 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram

Hey everyone, I noticed that the picture diagram of the administrative order was moved to the election "rulers" section. However, the scope of the diagram is much more inclusive in scope as it also includes the appointed "learned". Thus, its current placement may not be ideal. The diagram was designed to show the overview of the entire process. Perhaps it is better at the top as it was originally located. What does everyone think? Nmentha 08:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't like the image at all; it's way too detailed, and if it's going to be in the page, I don't think it deserves to be at the top because it doesn't give any quick information. It fits in the Structure section, but the current picture at the top of the Structure section, in my mind, is much nicer. -- Jeff3000 13:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the image because it doesn't convey information very well. I would like to get rid of it. Particularly, the part about the "stages of evolution" on the bottom left doesn't jive well with me. Cuñado - Talk 14:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not like this diagram that much either. However, it was the only one that I could find. I am actually not concerned about our opinions but rather about the visual learners who have difficulty understanding a complex system without some diagram. Therefore, I suggest that we find another diagram and until then use this one. Nmentha 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What about creating a new diagram based the slide 'Administrative Order' on [5]? Wiki-uk 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur regarding the current slide. Frankly, I think we should get rid of it even without a replacement. We could keep an external link to the source for those really interested.

The problem with the slide's diagram is that it's wrong. The House isn't subordinate to either `Abdul-Baha or Shoghi Effendi. The split between the two branches is immediately beneath Baha'u'llah. There would be dotted lines between the Guardian and UHJ. And while the Counsellors are junior to the Hands in the Learned branch, they are appointed by the House, so there'd be a solid line there. I have no clean way of diagramming this, sorry. MARussellPESE 23:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki, I couldn't see anything at that link. It looks all black. Maybe a browser issue on my side. Cuñado - Talk 01:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't see it either until I tried IE. -- Jeff3000 01:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, when will people learn that life is so much better as a Microsoft automaton? Now, if you would please pass the soma. MARussellPESE 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the way this is solved in Peter Smith's A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith? The title of the diagram on page 26 is 'Present structure of Bahá'í administration'. It shows only the UHJ with on the left the Institutions of the Rulers (NSA's and LSA's) for 'direction and administration' and on the right the Institutions of the Learned (ITC, Counsellors, ABM's and their assistants) for 'advice and encouragement'. Wiki-uk 12:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a good one for the present structure. I'd like to see it and one that includes Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, the Hands and the UHJ. MARussellPESE 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A new diagram has been added to the article now. With thanks to MARussellPESE for improving it. Wiki-uk 16:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I cropped out some whitespace. Note that you will have to reload the page's cache to see it correctly, otherwise it will be distorted. Hit ctr+shift+R at the same time. Cuñado - Talk 01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)