[www-features-ongoing] ALT: political alternatives--direct, participatory democracy

[Jay]

>>From: Matthew Williams <mw21@mindspring.com>
>>
>>Perhaps I misunderstood, but I was under the impression that in addition to
>>providing links to off site stuff, we'd be writing original content--which 
>>I
>>did below on direct, participatory democracy.

That's great.  

>(Could one of the folks who
>>initiated this project clarify what they had in mind?) Not that the links
>>are bad--the research that must have gone into digging them up is
>>impressive.
>>

I was picturing more a page of links than of full articles, envisioning the
alternatives page as more of a jumping-off point for people to explore a
variety of alternatives than a place where we ourselves provide the
analysis. That's my vision, at least.  However, analysis such as yours is
essential and I personally find it really exciting.  I think we could
consolidate it and use it as the direct democracy section of the feature
itself, placing further links leading to more information about direct
democracy throughout, and/or we could link to it after you post it to an
indymedia newswire.  

>>I would suggest adding to Jay's piece, probably in the "Living the
>>Alternatives" section, a link to the Movement of the Landless (MST) in
>>Brazil <http://www.mstbrazil.org/>. From what I know of them they're doing
>>some pretty phenomenal stuff--they're a national movement of landless
>>peasants who nonviolently seize unused agricultural land from the elite
>>landowners, set up farming cooperatives on this occupied land, set up Paolo
>>Freire-type schools, and are democratically organized. A Brazilian 
>>anarchist
>>who works with the MST told me that they have 3 million members and as far
>>as supporters go--they're more popular than the government.
>>

Definitely.

>>Any feedback on the essay below is welcome--particularly areas where it's
>>unclear, etc.
>>
>>Bread and Roses,
>>Matt Williams
>>

I'll check it out, as should everyone else.

Jay

>>****
>>
>>Direct, Participatory Democracy
>>by Matthew Williams, third_aardvark@hotmail.com
>>
>>     Most First World and many Third World governments refer to themselves 
>>as
>>³representative democracies². There are some variations--for instance, the
>>US presidential system vs. the British parliamentary system, but a common
>>idea underlies all of these systems. By electing representatives every few
>>years to positions of power, the views and interests of most people will be
>>included in the political process. Through our representatives, we all have
>>a chance to influence public policy. Or so it is said. In reality, most of
>>us even in ³representative democracies² feel very disempowered--like we 
>>have
>>little control over the decisions that are made.
>>     If most of us feel disempowered, I think itıs fair to say that
>>³representative democracy² isnıt all that democratic. Not if we define
>>³democracy² as a system in which people are able to participate in making
>>the decisions that affect their lives in proportion to how those decisions
>>affect them. This is not a definition of any system, but of an ideal. The
>>question is how we put it into practice.
>>     I would argue the best approach is one of direct, participatory
>>democracy. Direct because, in so far as it is possible, we would avoid
>>electing representatives and instead deal with issues in public assemblies
>>where everyone has a say. Participatory because everyone, in so far as they
>>wish, would be able to become actively involved in debates, committees,
>>administrative bodies, etc. as the decisions are being made and 
>>implemented.
>>     The problem with so-called ³representative democracies²--which I will
>>from here on call liberal republics--is that ³representatives² are often
>>quite distant from the people theyıre supposed to be representing, shielded
>>by wealth and bureaucracy. Except during periodic elections, the people who
>>elected them have little control over the ³representatives² actions and
>>decisions. If people want to influence decision-making, they have to do it
>>indirectly by lobbying these officials. And the elections and lobbying take
>>place on uneven ground, shaped in large part by big money. The information
>>we have to base our decisions in elections and lobbying on usually comes
>>from the mainstream media, all of which are owned by big business and
>>influenced by the need for advertising dollars.
>>     Even if money were somehow eliminated from the election system,
>>³representatives² would still get most of their information through
>>government bureaucracies, which filter out the information officials get in
>>accord with the bureaucratsı own biases. Most government bureaucrats are
>>middle or upper middle class, and many have spent time working for the
>>industries theyıre supposed to be regulating, which biases them in favor of
>>certain views--views that support the material interests of the well to do
>>and big business. So ³representatives² end up working in their own little
>>world of officials, both elected and appointed, and cut off from the
>>concerns of the majority of people who arenıt in situations of influence or
>>power.
>>     We need to eliminate the distance between where the decisions are made
>>and the people who are affected by them. In so far as possible, we should
>>make decisions in our immediate communities. To keep the sort of power
>>imbalances that exist at the national level from being repeated in 
>>miniature
>>at the local level, we shouldnıt just elect mayors and town/city 
>>councilors.
>>We should have community assemblies, in the style of the New England Town
>>Hall, where policy measures are debated by everyone and then voted on by
>>everyone.
>>     Of course, all decisions canıt be made in our immediate communities. 
>>If
>>the economy were brought under public, democratic control--out of the hands
>>of distant corporations--many more resources would stay in the local region
>>and we would have less need to make decisions at higher levels. (link to
>>economic alternatives?) If we did need to make decisions at higher levels
>>(on such matters as economic trade, regional disputes and environmental
>>protection), we would elect not representatives but delegates to regional,
>>continental or global bodies--whatever was appropriate for the decisions
>>that had to be made. Many of these bodies would be temporary--established
>>just to deal with the questions at hand. The difference between a delegate
>>and a representative is that the delegate would have to come back regularly
>>to consult with the people who elected him or her. He or she would have to
>>have the approval of his constituency before he or she voted or negotiated
>>on any matter. If the constituents werenıt satisfied with the delegatesı
>>actions, they wouldnıt have to wait till the end of his or her term--they
>>could recall the delegate immediately. The constituents could even send
>>along a second person to keep an eye on the delegate and report back on 
>>what
>>he or she was actually doing.
>>     We would need to eliminate all the layers of bureaucracy that now 
>>exist
>>for this to work. This doesnıt mean that in making decisions people 
>>wouldnıt
>>listen to the advice of experts. Experts, however, are often the everyday
>>people who actually do the work involved in farming, manufacturing, road
>>maintenance, etc.--not someone with a degree who hasnıt actually done these
>>things. For instance, it has been found that traditional farming techniques
>>that small farmers have used for centuries usually yield more food than the
>>industrial farming techniques recommended by the ³experts² of the IMF and
>>World Bank. Of course, it would be best if everyone were both practically
>>and intellectually trained in their fields--not just one or the other, as 
>>it
>>often is now. When decisions needed to be implemented, the bodies to do so
>>would be set up as teams--they would work together democratically,
>>administering things but not managing people. People could be chosen for
>>these bodies either by volunteering for them; being elected to them; or
>>being chosen by random lottery (a system used by the ancient Greeks).
>>     Members of the elite argue that we need to have ³representatives² and
>>bureaucracies making decisions because most people arenıt capable of
>>handling these things themselves. This might be true now, but thatıs 
>>because
>>most people have been stupified by a school system based on obedience and
>>rote learning; mindless, unfulfilling work; and a sensationalist press. If
>>these things were changed (links?), most of us would be able to grasp most
>>issues, as long as they werenıt made confusing by the use of academic
>>jargon. True, some people might choose not to participate--but they would
>>always be able to if they wanted to.
>>     What about protecting minority rights against the tyranny of the
>>majority? People would certainly have their civil liberties--they would be
>>able to voice their dissent and organize against decisions they didnıt 
>>like.
>>They might even commit civil disobedience. A set number of spots on
>>committees reviewing problems and decision-implementing bodies could be
>>reserved for certain groups that have been traditionally been oppressed. We
>>would also need to build up a culture of tolerance and respect for
>>diversity.
>>     Direct, participatory democracy is just one element of building a 
>>better
>>world--it is a central one though. Already in the global justice movement,
>>we are seeing the beginnings of it as major protests are organized through
>>affinity groups and spokescouncils, a form of direct, participatory
>>democracy. Given what such organization has already achieved, thereıs no
>>reason to think more of it canıt achieve even greater things.
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp