Chapter 21
This chapter was difficult to publish. The reason is that it involved criticizing the organizations which I belong(ed) to, and forces people who trust others to represent them to rethink that positions.
It is also difficult because I am personally involved, and this creates the inevitable risk that my view is tainted (even more than usual).
However, the chain of events is such that I believe that if this experience is not shared, the Aikido community will not learn from it and therefore the experience will be wasted.
In the most general terms the issue at hand is the following: I have filed a complaint with Dutch Aikikai (AN and NAF) about several connected issues: conflict of interest, intimidation, the infringement of my freedom of association.
Unfortunately, the people accused are the people that run these organizations. Therefore the conflict of interest.
Moreover, I have published this article because if the way my complaint has been handled: the people involved, discussed the wrong part of the complaints, agreed amongst themselves that they felt they had done nothing wrong, and decided nothing needed to be done.
Now, take the following example. If a female student complained that she had been sexually harassed by her teacher, it would not take a genius to realize that research can not be that the teacher decides what the complaint was, what has happened and then can dismiss the claim on the grounds that he has done nothing wrong.
In essence any good governance concerning complaints involves a clear and objective procedure which protects the less powerful person against the more powerful person. Good governance in general implies trying to avoid a situation where such a conflict of interest could be perceived.
In any case, due process would involve:
– Acknowledging reception of the complaint;
– Ascertaining that there is an objective procedure;
– Informing the person complaining of the procedure that will be followed and of the timeline involved;
– Appointing a group of objective people to form an objective body that researches the situation;
– A report from that body to both the person complaining as well as the persons accused;
– A ruling by the general assembly of the outcome, since this is the only body that stands above the board of an association
In my case I am not a female who was sexually intimidated. I am an active Aikidoka, who wants to contribute to the international Aikido community, and has tried to do so for almost 30 years. I have tried to be as open and democratic as possible, and step by step I believe that all of my actions meet democratic standards*. Therefore, I object to the way I was treated, but that objection has been stonewalled by the people that I have complained to, since they are the people about whom I have complained.
So, what has happened? I have been assistant general secretary of the IAF for some 20 years. In 2015 the general secretary indicated that he would definitely resign. As I was contacted by two countries whether I would stand as general secretary, I agreed to do so.
However, issues started well before that. Another Dutch Aikidoka had the ambition to stand for that position, and that should not have been an issue in any way. However, already in 2012, this individual was in a position to manipulate the process. He placed on the agenda of Dutch Aikido a proposal that the candidate from the Netherlands should be elected by Dutch Aikido. In itself this does not seem anything one would object against.
However, the intended consequence of this decision became apparent in the summer of 2014, when this individual had an informal meeting with the chairman of the IAF and informed him that I would be expelled from Dutch Aikido if I stood as candidate for a position in the IAF**.
This decision was discussed in the Directing Committee of the IAF, and the following conclusions were drawn:
– The IAF cannot object to any decision made by a member federation;
– The IAF cannot object to any member of the IAF proposing any active Aikidoka to stand for any function in the IAF;
– The IAF can certainly not give the power to one country to veto the choice of another country;
– Therefore, the decision of Dutch Aikido could neither be discussed by the IAF, nor could the IAF impose any consequences to that decision
In the DC we expected this would have resolved the matter, but it did not. And here the next issues arose.
As the mentioned individual was also member of the DC one would expect him to be bound by the statutes and rulings of the IAF. This appeared not to be the case. The ruling of the IAF was not communicated to the members of Dutch Aikido.
In fact, in 2016 the issues of electing a representative for the elections was placed on the agenda of Dutch Aikido again. No mention was made of the ruling of the IAF, but the individual involved did stand as candidate, demonstrating that the conflict of interest continued.
Now, within Dutch Aikido I did not close my eyes to what was happening. I had heard that one of the objections to my candidacy was that I did not have the support of Dutch Aikido and therefore was unacceptable as a candidate. So, I tried to show my good will towards Dutch Aikido by asking for their support to stand as a candidate. In that discussion two representatives proposed to approve both candidates. However, the meeting was immediately adjourned, the individual mentioned took his representative outside, and after the adjournment the proposal was taken off the table***.
Now, this would not have been Dutch Aikido’s finest hour, but the elections would take place at the IAF, and democracy would run its course: IAF members would choose who they wanted in office. It turned out not to be that simple.
In the weeks before the elections the individual accused decided to send an email to some members of the IAF, stating that he was the only candidate from the Netherlands allowed to stand as candidate. This can be explained in no other way than to create the false impression that my own candidacy was illegitimate****.
By this time my willingness to accept the manipulations had gone down to zero. However, I was talked to by several seniors in Aikido who raised the following point: “Even if you have a valid point, if you get into a conflict now you will damage the good reputation of the IAF and its elections, so please refrain from standing up for yourself”. As these were both my seniors and people I respect, and to some extent I share that vision, I sucked up my emotions and went to Japan with composure.
Then it became apparent that the playing field had been completely changed. The general secretary who had claimed he would resign, was now a candidate for chairman. The chairman whom I wanted to support had decided to stand down as a candidate. The new chairman had already composed a team of people with who he would work and presented a flyer with their names on it*****.
While it may not be nice to lose elections, it remains the right of the members to choose who they want, without having to justify their choice. So, I would have conceded gracefully, were it not for the final indignities.
It was reported to me that the elected general secretary was still making the public threat that I would be expelled from Dutch Aikido for having stood as candidate. When I returned home, I was informed that the elected general secretary has sent a question to the association I am member of asking them to justify how they had allowed me to stand as candidate.
So, I wrote a complaint. Which will be the issue in the next related chapter.
* I don’t object that others may see that differently, but a ruling on any such conflict of opinion would demand fair research.
** To my mind this constitutes the first demonstration of a conflict of interest (placing an issue on the agenda of Dutch Aikido with the intention of obstructing others to stand for a position in another association, when you aspire to fulfill that position yourself), and of intimidation (if you stand, I will get you expelled)
*** While perhaps technical to some, this is an infringement of civil rights: the freedom of initiative – to be able to make a proposal without being talked to, told off or forced by others to withdraw the proposal. This further constitutes intimidation (forcing another to take certain action against his free will). It further demonstrates conflict of interest (while the chairman had relinquished his chair to create a more objective discussion about his candidacy, he intervened in the procedure on exactly that issue, that it was not favorable to his chances of being elected)
**** While he was fully aware of the fact the IAF had negated that claim, this demonstrates both bad intent as well as further conflict of interest.
***** While this is in no way against the rules, the elections cannot be considered fair, if the conditions are changed in the days before the election.
