Does anyone here think CAP is a Democracy?

[sarflyer]

I am curious, does anyone think this is the case?   

[afgeo4]

Umm... do you want us to vote on it?

[Gunner C]

Umm... do you want us to vote on it?

I know you can vote with your feet.  Too many folks do.

GC

[sarflyer]

No, I don't think a vote is what I am looking for.  I try to listen to my cadets and work things out but occasionally we disagree and a decision must be made.  One they don't agree with.

Then "rumor control" tells me that people are going to quit if we do things a certain way.  I'm curious about how others might think about this.

[Eclipse]

Does anyone think it is?  Yes.

Is it?  No.

However you can't ask that question without some acknowledgment that unlike compensated services, CAP
is only able to operate at the benevolence of its members, so while its not a "democracy" per se, a consensus of respective membership is needed to actually get anything of significance accomplished.

Then "rumor control" tells me that people are going to quit if we do things a certain way.  I'm curious about how others might think about this.

If a decision is unpopular, but appropriate, and you have members quitting because of it, they are likely not assets to the program.

[tribalelder]

Not exactly. We vote, but only yes or no. 

We all do a personal cost benefit analysis about our participation level, and, once annually vote with our dollars about membership. Every time we show up we vote either for our missions and our CC's or both.  They're 'bundled'.  If our missions become unrewarding or irrelevant or our CC's become detestable, we'll vote for coaching little league or helping at the church bingo game or night school or HBO or remodeling the basement. 

[NIN]

I always tell my guys, "Look, I'm willing to accept input on a decision up until the point where the decision is made.  I will always try to do exactly whats in the best interest of the unit and our members.  If you wanted course of action A, and instead I have to decide we're doing course of action B, after the decision is made you need to "salute and execute."  Not everybody gets a vote, and the decision making process is such that I want to hear the dissent, but I'm not always going to be able to satisfy the dissent.  That's life. Deal.  If you don't like it, your choices are to a) Deal with it and carry out the commander's intent; b) continue to complain that your suggestions never get taken and draw fire from the boss; c) vote with your feet." 

I seldom get c, usually a, occasionally b.

[dwb]

Since we don't elect our corporate officers, nor do we elect representatives to elect corporate officers... I'd have to say the answer is a big ol' NO.

That said, a good commander should seek the input of his experts - whether they be peers, subordinates, colleagues, or superiors - when making decisions.  But that's not the same as democracy.

[RiverAux]

Nope, but a military auxiliary with strong oversight from its service can be effectively run with a whole lot of democracy -- CG Auxiliary.

[notaNCO forever]

 I try to give my cadets choices but ultimatley CAP is not a democracy I can still say we are doing this wether they want to ar not.

[afgeo4]

CAP is definitely not a democracy. It is a paramilitary organization with rank structure. The decision rests with commanders.

A good commander gathers information (feedback) from his troops and opinions from his officers, but makes the decision him/herself. That's the USAF way. That's the CAP way.

[JCJ]

Shack!

(for those unfamiliar with military aviation jargon, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shack)

Does anyone think it is?  Yes.

Is it?  No.

However you can't ask that question without some acknowledgment that unlike compensated services, CAP
is only able to operate at the benevolence of its members, so while its not a "democracy" per se, a consensus of respective membership is needed to actually get anything of significance accomplished.

Then "rumor control" tells me that people are going to quit if we do things a certain way.  I'm curious about how others might think about this.

If a decision is unpopular, but appropriate, and you have members quitting because of it, they are likely not assets to the program.

[jb512]

I also agree with most of these replies.  A good commander will make command decisions when necessary regardless of the rumor mill, but will try to get input from the staff when applicable.  After all of the ideas have been presented, the commander will choose the best course of action.

If someone decides to quit because of that, then that's ok.  We've had that happen a couple of times here, to the betterment of the squadron.

[bricktonfire]

no it more like a back-ward upside-down version of the military

[davedove]

That said, a good commander should seek the input of his experts - whether they be peers, subordinates, colleagues, or superiors - when making decisions. 

I would say it's the duty of commanders to get as much input as is practical before making a decision.  And it is the duty of subordinates to give that input when appropriate.

Once the commander makes the decision, everyone should carry it out.  Even at that point, the subordinates must speak up if the decision is dangerous, but otherwise should perform the mission as directed.