Trump’s election victory has reawakened concerns about whether the checks and balance essential to America’s democratic institutions will hold.
I believe that credit union’s unique design for member-onwer governance offers a helpful example of the fragility of democratic oversight.
As the chasm between credit union’s original destiny and today’s performance and compliance shortcomings grows, purpose and practice may appear further and further apart in the public’s eyes.
Nowhere is this chasm greater than the failure to encourage member-owner participation in the formal annual meeting elections. Additionally, in daily communications rare are appeals to the special role of being owners versus messages common in all financial customer appeals.
Here are two recent observations on the delicate nature of democratic processes. And why credit union’s example might influence our perception of how political democracy functions.
America-An Experiment
A personal story. When I was in grammar school, our history book was titled, “The United States of America, An Experiment in Democracy.”
I froze. I got goose bumps. I was 8 years old. An experiment? I knew enough that some experiments worked, and others didn’t.
It felt like the bottom fell out. All sense of permanence left.
That day was life-changing. I have never seen this country the same since. (source: unknown)
The Transfer of Power
“The genius of democracy is its self-correcting nature. But the problem, of course, is if the person (or persons) being elected into office is (are) the kind of threat that intends to disrupt this happy self-correcting logic of democracy.” ( Daniel Ziblatt, co-author of How Democracies Die)
How do these observations about national political concerns apply to credit union’s democratic model?
Richard Rohr comments: We quickly and humbly learn this lesson in contemplation: How we do anything is probably how we do everything.