Rules and Culture Yuan Tianpeng I began to translate Robert's rules of procedure at the end of 2005 (Editor's Note: Pocket Manual of Rules of Procedure written by American Henry Martyn Robert), and began to try practical promotion activities in 2007. In the past five years, what I have heard and thought about most is the "dispute between rules and culture". Recently, after the publication of my new book "Operational Democracy" co-authored by Kou, it has aroused widespread concern. At the launch conference and seminar of the new book, I also emphasized that this book shows the detailed process of my team and I promoting Robert Rules in Nantang Rural Cooperative, in order to reveal the idea that we should use rules to promote the maturity of "citizenship" in turn and reshape culture in turn. Culture and rules are big topics, and it is even more difficult to talk about them together, so we have to start from the small things around us. I recently went to Guangzhou to give a lecture, sat down for lunch at noon and talked about Robert's rules of procedure. When I raised my hand to move chopsticks, I found two pairs of chopsticks at hand. My mind didn't turn around at once and I asked, "Why two pairs of chopsticks?" The host quickly explained that a pair of chopsticks is male, and added: "It doesn't matter, in fact, we are not too strict." My mind quickly turned from the Radish Rule (edited by China Robert's Rules of Procedure) to the chopsticks, and then quickly turned back to the Radish Rule. On the other hand, I asked them with great interest: public chopsticks are public chopsticks. Why should we add the phrase "actually, we are not too strict"? Doesn't this also mean that "rules are rules, execution is execution, and rules are just decoration"? Why do people think it's embarrassing to stick to the rules? Everyone laughed happily. This reminds me of an interesting story my friend told me. My friend lives with my parents-in-law One day, when I was about to eat, my father-in-law suddenly mentioned that the dining system is actually a good thing. When the food is served, everyone has an empty plate. What kind of food to eat, how many meals to eat, divide them into their own plates with public chopsticks, and then eat separately. How hygienic! My friend agrees, but his reason is that sharing meals can help him control his appetite, otherwise eating at home will ruin his health. His wife didn't object. She showed her support with a new set of plates. His mother-in-law looked unhappy and said, "What does the family eat?" ? My friend must be a practitioner of Robert's rules of procedure. He politely asked his mother-in-law to explain her objection, but she didn't say anything. What are the benefits of not eating together? It's nothing. It should be like this. Is there any harm in asking for separate meals? There's no harm. It's not good anyway. No matter how much you ask, you won't say anything, just act like "you are not reliable at all" My friend has to say that since there are motions, secondments and debates, we will try our best to express different opinions. Now no one wants to speak any more. You can vote. Friends, his father-in-law and his wife all agree. When asked about the objection, his mother-in-law didn't respond. The affirmative is the majority, and it is passed. The meal was divided that night and the effect was good. Then my friend went out for a few days. When I went home for dinner again, I found that the idea of sharing meals seemed to have been forgotten by everyone. He asked, "What about the meal sharing system we agreed on?" As a result, his mother-in-law said with "Let's just say you are unreliable" eyes: "What meal? I have packed all my plates for you! " My friend paused and looked at my father-in-law, who smiled at a loss and bowed his head to eat without talking. My friend had no choice but to go directly to get the food. So my friend asked me, what should I do in this situation? I told him that this is an absolutely typical example! If all decisions are made in this way, they will disappear, and no matter what rules, no matter what voting, no matter what democratic system, they will fail! What shall we do? My slogan is "Never get angry, never give up"! Controlling his emotions, he smiled and said, "Alas, I was worried that I was full. Control quantity! " "Then find yourself a plate and share it. Remember, don't do it Don't make people think that you are doing it for others. You're just doing good for yourself. This is called starting from yourself. Maybe my father-in-law will join me next time, and maybe my mother-in-law will think there is nothing wrong with sharing meals next time. But this incident brought me more than that. Democratic deliberation has an essence-"debate first, then vote", which aims to give different views, especially those of a few people, an opportunity to express their demands and reasons. But what if you give her a chance and she doesn't express it? Similar to "What is a family meal? "This kind of argument is really confusing: from the tone, the reasons for opposition are very good, but when you think about it, you don't say anything. Is it her "axiom" that the family can't eat together? Is this something that she doesn't need to explain? Is her inherent thinking at work? On the other hand, you ask her, is there any harm in sharing meals? She can't say it either. Maybe she's just avoiding the word "fen" and there's no way to know. Another essence of democratic deliberation-resolutions made according to proper rules must be resolutely implemented even if they don't meet our own wishes, because I abide by the rules-is very lacking. Our customary slogan-"the minority is subordinate to the majority"-is actually very misleading: my minority is not a "person" who obeys your majority, and it has nothing to do with "person", but what we decide is "thing". I just follow the rules we agreed on and admit that the result obtained according to this rule represents the will of the whole. This is the minimum spirit of contract, because I know. We can only see whose fist is harder, whose wrist is stronger and who is stronger. This is the law of the jungle. The dining event shows that in our cultural environment, many participants are used to inherent thinking. Although they can't say what's wrong with new ideas, they just can't accept them. Faced with an open and fair decision-making process that requires their own initiative to compete, they don't know how to exercise their rights and will not compete fairly. However, after the resolution was made, they silently put it aside. A look, a joke or two, makes the decisions made by some procedural rules invisible, and what rules and procedures become as ridiculous as "prude". Don't think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill-some people will say, "Why care if you eat separately?" "Well, I can't say that this attitude is a bit cynical, because it is a kind of labeling and personal attack. I prefer to believe that they are out of an open-minded attitude towards life. But I want to say that even if it is as small as a mosquito, even if I am cutting it with a big knife, it is still a representative mosquito. Frankly speaking, this represents the cultural foundation we are facing: silence when we should claim rights, refusal when we should fulfill obligations, forbearance when we are weak, and outbreak when we can't bear it. I don't think my friend's mother-in-law has any malice in this respect at all. It should be said that this is her survival experience, even survival wisdom. In an arbitrary environment, since fighting for it or not is the same result, why advocate any right to speak before making a decision? Since you imposed it on me when I made a decision, isn't it an insistence on "justice" that I refused when I executed it? In the long run, the competition in advance becomes more and more unfamiliar, and the "infighting" afterwards becomes a habit, which is a kind of secret non-cooperation or even destruction. In fact, it is another kind of "power"-on the surface, you have the power to make decisions, but in fact, because I have the details of implementation, I have the "power" to implement it. This is the various "dislocations" we are facing. When the game is played, we obey; When it is executed, we play a game. What is our attitude when the resolution is not implemented? My father-in-law's intuitive reaction and habit is: because of my feelings, I thought, what's the big deal? If you don't abide by the resolution, you won't abide by it, and if you don't abide by the rules, you won't abide by it. For this matter, don't let people misunderstand that I am targeting others, and freezing the relationship is not good. We have never figured out how to distinguish "the right thing" from "the right person". We all know that we want the rule of law, not the rule of man. But do we further realize that in the final analysis, rules are implemented and enforced by people? However, it should be noted that this "person" is not only a few law enforcers who hold power, but even everyone in it. When someone doesn't follow the rules, does someone start the correction mechanism according to the procedure? This is the key to the establishment of rule culture, and it is also the key to whether rules can become rules. Rules are like runways. If someone crosses the runway, someone will pull him back. Once he gets back to the runway, no one else can interfere. This has nothing to do with any "person", which has nothing to do with what we used to call "political struggle, personnel struggle and internal friction". If this is a kind of friction, then this kind of friction is the normal state, "friction according to rules" is the most normal state, and it is abnormal without this kind of friction. Since it is a normal friction, when we do this, we must have a calm mind. We just do what the program asks us to do. I don't need to "beat" anyone. If we can make changes according to the rules of procedure, I am happy to make changes according to the rules of procedure, otherwise my request is just to get back to the track of rules, no more, no less. Therefore, each of us is responsible for the establishment of the rule culture. The rule exists in name only, and each of us can't escape the responsibility. Because we don't think people should make a mountain out of a molehill about many small things, and don't freeze the relationship, every little makes a mickle, and small mistakes lead to big deviations. Finally, when something big happened, I found that I couldn't tell what the rules were, so I had to "fight with people." It is for this reason that I told my friend that you should not ignore the failure of the resolution, but don't make a fuss. What you want is not to "defeat" your mother-in-law, but to promote a respect for the rules and a resolution made by the rules. You can show this through your own insistence on the resolution, and at the same time you can respect others for not implementing the resolution for the time being. Let your mother-in-law gradually understand the cultural differences and push for change with good expectations, just as you let your mother-in-law express her opposition in advance and tell the disadvantages of sharing meals. You think you respect the rights of a few people, but the other party may not feel it all at once. Changing the long-formed thinking mode and behavior mode requires our persistence and patience. Of course, whether the problem of meal sharing is public domain (public domain within the family) or private domain can be discussed. Distinguishing between public and private boundaries is also one of the most important issues in democratic deliberation, which we will discuss in depth next time. ■ (The author is a promoter of Robert's rules of procedure, and is the author of "Democracy in Operation-A Complete Record of Robert's Rules of Procedure Going to the Countryside") Input Editor: Li Qi.