My readers might wonder, with some justification, why a man so committed to Rotary for over half a century dares to condemn it. The answer to that puzzle might lie in the fact that the man has discovered some more facts about Rotary to disillusion him and dare him.
This story is a factional account, a charming fusion of facts and fiction of the wind of change in Rotary, which is already blowing at the Club level, but need to blow at the highest level, especially in the governance of Rotary and at Rotary headquarters in Evanston. It arises out of my firm belief that we are not only judged by the good we do, but also how we go about it. I wonder how to write derogatory articles about a world-wide service club, an organisation that does a lot of good work in the developing world, especially in Africa and Asia, and revered all over the world, if for that reason only.
I take a leaf from the life of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. The former brought the mighty British empire on its knees with his philosophy of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, which in English means ‘non-violence’ and ‘path of righteousness’. The British did not know how to deal with this new phenomenon; their police force, which they had mobilised before, lay helpless; they simply did not know how to deal with people who offered no resistance, despite lathi-blows.
The latter ended the unjust and vicious Apartheid policy, where a man is judged by the pigment in his skin, after being imprisoned for 27 years by the tyrannical apartheid regime.
This factional novel is meant to remove the cobwebs from more than a century-old organisation. It might have been right when Paul Harris started the world’s first service club in 1905, but it can’t be right in the 21st century, in this age of transparency and when hierarchy is being challenged in all spheres of human activity.
This is the factional story of a woman who apparently did not violate any rules of Rotary, but left them severely bent to her advantage. She eventually crashed the glass ceiling and bagged the highest prize in Rotary, which is the fictional part of this novel.
The climax is also a result of the author’s fertile imagination. They certainly provide enough dramatisation at the end, I hope.
In this connection, I appreciate and recognise how much Rotary does for the have-nots and the down-trodden in our community, and I also know that many people, especially in the developing world, fall in this category, but I still object to various issues in Rotary.
It is high time that a Rotarian, instead of being sycophants and cheer the previous speaker, would be more critical in exercising their right to do so.
I also wish to state at the outset, that I have had my fill of Rotary positions and that I have climbed in Rotary as high as I wish to state at the outset. It is not a question of ‘sour grapes’ either.
The following are the issues on which I do not agree with Rotary. I realise that there is a gentler way of solving this problem. For example, I could take it to the Council on Legislation, Rotary’s parliament, which meets every three years. But the whole Rotary Board is sitting there guarding their perks and privileges like a hawk.
I doubt if any Rotarian in his or her right mind would dare to upset his own apple cart. There is a lot of campaigning going on during the Council on Legislation, and the Directors are watching every move to see that their perks and privileges are not trampled in any way. I should know because I have represented my District twice.
As an example, I can tell you what happened at the two resolutions which were completely unpalatable to the Board of Directors, sitting and staring at the Rotarian, with fire in their eyes, who had the courage to sponsor that resolution, which had obviously irked them.
Of course the two resolutions, one that the trustees must be elected rather than be proposed by the President or someone on his behalf as is the practice now, did not see the light of the day. The other proposed resolution had something to do with the selection of a Ripper (a person who represents the Rotary’s president on district conferences).
It must be more equitable; currently the President or someone on his behalf decides who would be a Ripper and which District he or she would represent the President. This procedure must be open to revision, because it is lopsided and iniquitous; some get to represent the President every year while others do not get a look-in.
The Ripper’s role is significant because the Ripper represents the President and he is treated like royalty. It must be, for the first picking goes to current directors and in descending order to past directors and then to trustees, among others. The PDGs are last in the queue.
There was an attempt to make the procedure more equitable, but an Italian past President spoke against it and the battle was lost thereafter. No one has dared to raise the issue again. To my knowledge, nobody has tried it again.
Further down in this forward, my readers will see what happened to my article, already published in the Sunday Nation, when I sent it for publication in the Rotarian.
Apart from the rudeness I suffered, it was done in the most undiplomatic manner, and I got a feeling that Rotary does not like dissent, especially in this way.
The account of the episode is interesting and is worth reading. One of the issues it proves is that Rotary does not like any sort of dissent.
