Dressage Makes Good Procedure

Last week, I served the United States Dressage Federation at their annual convention.  Dressage is about horses, of course - especially, the English saddle type (as opposed to the stock or Western saddle).  The USDF represents all those people who live in the saddle and around horses - breeders, competitors, judges, trainers, and equestrianists - and who promote the sport of dressage.  They also represent all those magnificent horses under the care of USDF members.

Now, people who devote a large proportion of their free time working with horses must be a virtuous sort.  Horses, in my opinion, are the second smartest animal, but they are by far the most graceful of all.  This is an interesting combination.  In dressage, the smartest animal rides and directs the second smartest animal.  So far, so good.  The contradiction is that an animal like man may have great potential to be graceful, but is not naturally so like the horse.  Thus, a less graceful animal rides the most graceful animal.  The question is who is directing whom when it comes to gracefulness in dressage?  To me, it seems that it may be the rider who is trying to measure up to the horse.

In parliamentary procedure, we often see the animal man in his less graceful nature.  When I first arrived at the USDF convention, several delegates apologized to me in advance for the anticipated behavior of the convention.  Turns out that last year was a somewhat contentious one.  I often get these pre-apologies at conventions.  It seems that those who wish to hire a parliamentarian are aware that their organization can benefit from an improvement in order and decorum.  People are essentially people, however, and my experience has been that behavior in the deliberative assembly does not vary much from organization to organization.

So it was with USDF.  The convention went quite well from my perspective and it was what I expected from such a group.  The knowledge level of the participants was high on equestrianism and low on procedure.  (No surprise here, that the delegates would know more about something they do on a daily basis versus something they do once a year).  Many important decisions were made and it appeared that everyone was pleased with the results.  As parliamentarians, we cannot ask for more.  I was able to help an important and fruitful organization take important steps in governance over a two day period.  The delegates, officers, and staff returned home to do something much more important than motions, debate, and voting.  The quality of USDF is measured by what is done in the stable and the arena, not at the convention.

Still there are hypothetical questions that are floating in my clever mind.  If dressage is the graceful movement of horse and rider, and if the rider is more graceful on the horse in the arena than on foot in the convention, should horses be included in the convention?  Or, even more hypothetically, should the horse be a delegate?  Would parliamentary procedure improve in either case?

The latter case is out.  A group of horses convened in a large room would behave better than people, for sure.  There would certainly be less of a need to call the horses to order for being too noisy or for chatting.  Unfortunately, horses have a unique disability when it comes to voting, being able to respond only in the negative.  A chorus of "Nays" would be the limited response.  The great satirist, Jonathan Swift, would have been able to expound upon the ability of horses in the deliberative arena.  Readers of Gulliver's Travels will remember the land of the Houyhnhnms where horses were the superior creature.  It was a decision of the Houyhnhnm Grand Assembly that forced Gulliver to return to miserable England.  I am sure the decision was made by a majority vote of a quorum after reasonable debate, but Swift omitted such details.

The case of requiring delegates to be in the saddle is intriguing.  In general, do people behave better on a horse?  With USDF, I think the delegates would have admitted so.  With any other organization, we would be better served to teach delegates parliamentary procedure than to teach them how to ride a horse, at least in terms of getting through a convention.  I have tried to imagine the USDF convention with horse and rider serving as one.  A few things would go more smoothly.  A standing vote or division could be cleanly accomplished.  "All those in favor please move to the right of the arena, and all those opposed please move to the left."

Let me end on a serious note.  There are strong connections between the art of dressage and the art of parliamentary procedure.  When the rules are followed in either discipline, the results are better.  Dressage has its movements and parliamentary procedure has its motions.  Both come from a long history of tradition.  Both require much practice if proficiency is to be acquired.  Dressage teaches us a valuable lesson.  If participants in the deliberative assembly were to behave as if they were executing movements in the equestrian arena, things would go much smoother.  In his heart, every parliamentarian should appreciate the art of dressage.