"Section 5
No
police force in A.A.? An analysis of passive behaviour
A
common argument advanced to avoid responsibility for taking action
with regard to a group’s Tradition four violation is that there is
no “police force” in A.A. We do not judge, there are no
prosecutors or courts. There is no human power of authority. This
argument is also used as a defence and an excuse to justify
Traditions' violations and anti social behaviour.
Whilst
there is no police force as such, this avoidance of responsibility is
largely due to a misconception concerning the freedom granted to the
individual A.A. member in Traditions One and Three. This same freedom
is not granted to the group under the exception to group autonomy in
Tradition Four.
“In
AA, the group has strict limitations, but the individual scarcely
any.”
(Bill
W. AA Grapevine February 1958 - Language of the Heart pages 222-225).
The
misconception also appears to arise from the following sentence in
Concept Twelve, warranty five. This is often taken out of context and
misinterpreted as “There is no police force in A.A.”
“Always
remembering Group autonomy and the fact that A.A.’s World
Headquarters is not a police operation, the most that can be done in
most cases is to make an offer of mediation.” (Concept 12 warranty
five)
It
can be understood that in this context this guidance is directed at
Headquarters; and in the concept it is made with reference to severe
internal disputes between groups which pose some risk of attracting
unwelcome public attention; and that it is not a function,
responsibility or authority of Headquarters to police such matters.
This concept bears no relationship to the concept of delegated
responsibility and authority of trusted servants in Tradition Two,
and their “right of decision” to carry out their elected duties
according to A.A. Traditions. As demonstrated by Bill W. with the
“alarming poser” and the “trusted servants” who faced Chuck
D. in 1958. They judged a situation, decided to make an
uncompromising stand on Tradition, and then took appropriate action;
using their “Right of Decision” as stated in Concept III and
their final authority in concept X.
“This
means that we ought to trust our responsible leaders to decide,
within the understood framework of their duties, how they will
interpret and apply their own authority and responsibility to each
particular problem or situation as it arises. This sort of
leadership discretion should be the essence of the “Right of
Decision” (Concept III)
“The
principle of ultimate authority runs clear through our structure.
This is necessary, because all our service affairs and activities
have to lead up somewhere for final responsibility. Ultimate
authority is also needed so that each worker or service
classification of servants knows where and who the final boss is.”
(concept X)
“This
‘right of decision’ should never be made as an excuse for failure
to render proper reports of all significant actions taken; it ought
never be used as a reason for constantly exceeding clearly defined
authority, nor as an excuse for persistently failing to consult those
who are entitled to be consulted before an important decision or
action is taken.” (Concept III)
It
can be understood in Tradition Two, that the spiritual power of “but
one ultimate authority” is delegated to the human powers of
responsibility and authority, exemplified in the latter half of the
sentence “our leaders are but trusted servants;” and amplified in
the Twelve Concepts for World Service. Though there are no police,
there should nevertheless, be an actual force to Tradition Two if it
is operating healthily, and when trusted servants and statesmen are
fulfilling their responsibility and their duty as active guardians of
our Traditions and of our fellowship.
This
force for unification, and forces, “the ties that bind us together”
are described by Bill W. on page 3 of “A.A. Tradition How it
Developed.” Also described is the force for disintegration, “which
would rent him apart” and forces which “would divide us if they
could”. When applied, the genuine force for unification is powerful
enough to rupture “deacons,” as illustrated in Tradition Two.
“A
few haemorrhage so badly that – drained of all A.A. spirit and
principle - they get drunk. At times the A.A. landscape seems to be
littered with bleeding forms.” (Tradition Two, Twelve Steps and
Twelve Traditions page 137-139).
“So
long as the ties that bind us together prove far stronger than those
forces which would divide us if they could, then all will be
well………But A.A. unity cannot automatically preserve itself,
like personal recovery, we shall always have to work to maintain it”
Bill W.
In
order to maintain A.A. unity, the power of “but one ultimate
authority” in Tradition Two is trusted to be applied with a will
and by our statesmen and trusted servants:
“And
at times the Conference will need to take certain protective actions
especially in the area of Tradition violations. This action, however,
need not be aggressively controversial at the public level. Let us
now consider some typical situations that may often require
Conference consideration and sometimes definite
action……..Individuals, sometimes outside organisations may try to
use the A.A. name for their own private purposes. As A.A. grows in
size and public recognition, the temptation to misuse our name may
increase. This is why we have assigned to our Conference a protective
task in respect to such conditions. The Conference is as we know the
‘guardian’ of the A.A. Traditions. There has always been some
confusion about this term ‘guardianship’ perhaps we should try to
clear it up. ………….Privately, however, we can inform
Traditions violators that they are out of order. When they persist,
we can follow up by using such other resources of persuasion as we
may have, and these are often considerable……..we shall have to
rely mainly on the pressures of A.A. opinion and public opinion……
And to this end we shall need to maintain a continuous education of
our public communication channels of all kinds concerning the nature
and purpose of our Traditions……….. Whenever and however we can,
we shall need to inform the general public also; especially upon
misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous. This combination of counter
forces can be very discouraging to violators or would be violators.
Under these conditions they soon find their deviations to be
unprofitable or unwise………………. Feeling the weight of all
these forces, certain members who run counter to A.A.’s Traditions
sometimes say that they are being censored or punished and that they
are therefore being governed……” (Concept 12, warranty five).
No
police force here, but clearly there exists a genuine ‘force’,
and a ‘power’ against Tradition violators, in order for them to
“feel the weight of all these forces;” but this is only when
there is a willingness on the part of those who are trusted and
delegated to apply these forces. Conference delegates are there to
lead, but final responsibility and authority lies with the statesmen
and trusted servants leading the group conscience. This demonstrated
by the Toronto intergroup and the trusted servants who faced Chuck D.
in 1958.
When
ultimate responsibility and final authority are acting in unison, and
when they are uncompromising in stating adherence to the principles
of A.A. traditions; and when this is implicit from the top to the
bottom of the service structure; then this when the actively powerful
and unifying force of “but one ultimate authority” in Tradition
Two becomes fully operational.
“The
main principles of Tradition Two are crystal clear; the A.A. groups
are to be the final authority; their leaders are to be trusted with
delegated responsibilities only” (Concept I)
“…All
of this is fully implied in A.A.’s Tradition Two. Here we see the
‘group conscience’ as the ultimate authority and the
‘trusted servant’ as the delegated authority. One cannot
function without the other” (Concept X)
“Hence
the principle of amply delegated authority and responsibility to
‘trusted servants’ must be implicit from the top to the bottom of
our active structure of service. This is the clear implication of
A.A.’s Tradition Two” (Concept II)
“Trusted
servants at all A.A. levels are expected to exercise leadership, and
leadership is not simply a matter of submissive housekeeping”
(Concept VII)
“The
principle of ultimate authority runs clear through our structure.
This is necessary, because all our service affairs and activities
have to lead up somewhere for final responsibility. Ultimate
authority is also needed so that each worker or service
classification of servants knows where and who the final boss is.”
(concept X)
“This
‘right of decision’ should never be made as an excuse for failure
to render proper reports of all significant actions taken; it ought
never be used as a reason for constantly exceeding clearly defined
authority, nor as an excuse for persistently failing to consult those
who are entitled to be consulted before an important decision or
action is taken.” (Concept III)
This
is why Headquarters is not a police operation and why there is no
police force as such, because all A.A. members are responsible, and
at all levels. It can be seen however, that if delegated
responsibility and authority is not implicit from top bottom of our
service structure and if the majority of statesmen at group level are
part of a “tyranny’ of apathetic, self seeking, uninformed….
majority.” (Concept V), then the “but one ultimate authority”
of Tradition Two will not be fully operational, and those forces
which would divide us if they could, become stronger.
For
example, if a situation were to occur such as the one encountered by
the trusted servants with Chuck D in 1958 at intergroup level today;
and where trusted servants were neither supported by implicit
responsibly and authority, of the statesmen and trusted servants
within A.A. groups, and the service structure; through intergroup,
Conference, board, and regional recommendations; then their delegated
authority would be diminished. There would be little stand against a
“tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power”
(Concept V); and little protection from “tyrannies great and
small.” (Concept 12 warranty 6).
"When
bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by
one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
(Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents. Edmund
Burke)
In
those intergroups experiencing strained relationships with some of
their groups, there might well be some people in service who can
identify with Edmund Burke’s statement. The one ultimate authority
in Tradition Two can only hold A.A. unity so long as the good men are
willing to associate in their combined responsibility and delegated
authority. This is implied in concept V:
“Throughout
his political speculation De Toqueville insisted that the greatest
danger to democracy would always be the ‘tyranny’ of apathetic,
self seeking, uninformed… … … majorities” (Concept V)
In
other words:
“All
that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing.”
It
can also be understood that there would be little stand against a
“tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power”
(Concept V) if trusted servants serving at levels from intergroup,
region to Conference delegates were not supported by responsible
statesmen leading the group conscience at group level.
“The
A.A. groups today hold the ultimate responsibility and final
authority for our world services……..The groups assumed this
responsibility at the St. Louis Convention in 1955.” (Concept I)
“I
am responsible. When anyone, anywhere, reaches out for help, I want
the hand of A.A. always to be there. And for that: I am responsible.”"
Comment:
“But
A.A. unity cannot automatically preserve itself, like personal
recovery, we shall always have to
work to maintain it” (see above)
(our emphasis); or to put it another way: “Faith without works is
dead”
James
2:14-26 (New King James Version) (for the Christians among us)
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
