<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#3333FF" vlink="#551A8B" alink="#00CC00"> Carrol Cox wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>"Joe R. Golowka" wrote: > Alex LoCascio wrote: > >> Or the unaccountable, interminable snooze-ocracy of the >> consensus-based >> affinity group model. > > > Or direct democracy. It is not a quibble to point out that democracy (all varieties including direct democracy) is a form of rule by which the whole (expressed in some sort of majority) constrains the part (the individual). Hence by opting for direct democracy you undercut anarchy. And as soon as you do so, you define debate as not authority vs no authority but as a debate over the best or most possible mode of authority.</blockquote> Rubbish.  From the Anarchist FAQ: A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy? For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within free associations is the political counterpart of free agreement. The reason is that "many forms of domination can be carried out in a 'free, 'non-coercive, contractual manner. . . and it is naive. . . to think that mere opposition to political control will in itself lead to an end of oppression." [John P. Clark, Max Stirner's Egoism, p. 93] It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a fully human life. And so, "[h]aving to join with others humans . . . [the individual has three options] he [or she] must submit to the will of others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity." [Errico Malatesta, The Anarchist Revolution, p. 85] Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means by which individuals can work together as free and equal human beings, respecting the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct democracy can individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and self-government, so developing their intellectual and ethical capacities to the full. In terms of increasing an individual's freedom and their intellectual, ethical and social faculties, it is far better to be sometimes in a minority than be subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what is the theory behind anarchist direct democracy? Once an individual joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes a "citizen" (for want of a better word) of that association. The association is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific office or neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others, the content of his or her political obligations are defined. In acting within the association, people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e. manage their own activity. This means that political obligation is not owed to a separate entity above the group or society, such as the state or company, but to one's fellow "citizens." Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political authority, but as this authority is based on horizontal relationships between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see section B.1 - "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" - for more on this). Thus Proudhon:      "In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. - No more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, each      town, each industrial union, makes its own laws." [The General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 245-6] Such a society would be based upon industrial democracy, for within the workers' associations "all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to the approval of the members." [Op. Cit., p. 222] Instead of capitalist or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct democracy) would be the guiding principle of the freely joined associations that make up a free society. Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are governed by others ("Democratic rule is still rule" [L. Susan Brown, The Politics of Individualism, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct democracy as we have described it is not necessarily tied to the concept of majority rule. If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either consenting or refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to impose obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association. Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means by which liberty can be nurtured. Needless to say, a minority, if it remains in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of the error of its ways. And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts, namely that anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband, whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of those subject to their decisions. Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights. This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions and makes dissent a key factor in decision making. Thus Carole Pateman:      "If the majority have acted in bad faith. . . [then the] minority will have to take political action, including politically disobedient action      action if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the political association itself. . . Political disobedience is merely one      possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing democracy is based . . . The social practice of promising involves the      right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical      recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent, or where necessary, to disobey." [The Problem of Political Obligation, p.      162] Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links between associations follow the same outlines as for the associations themselves. Instead of individuals joining an association, we have associations joining confederations. The links between associations in the confederation are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as within associations, with the same rights of "voice and exit" for members and the same rights for minorities. In this way society becomes an association of associations, a community of communities, a commune of communes, based upon maximising individual freedom by maximising participation and self-management. The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 ( What sort of society do anarchists want?) and discussed in greater detail in section I (What would an anarchist society look like?). This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta speaks for all anarchists when he argued that "anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern human society in general." [Op. Cit., p. 100] As can be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority -- the minority can leave the association at any time and so, to use Malatesta's words, do not have to "submit to the decisions of the majority before they have even heard what these might be." [Op. Cit., p. 101] Hence, direct democracy within voluntary association does not create "majority rule" nor assume that the minority must submit to the majority no matter what. In effect, anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it fits Malatesta's argument that:      "Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of the      majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should feel the      need to adapt to the wishes of the many . . . But such adaptation on the one hand by one group must be on the other be reciprocal, voluntary      and must stem from an awareness of need and of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy. It      cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 100] As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule is not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making tool which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and acted upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the majority. In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the minority. After all, as Malatesta argued:      "one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced that the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should      sacrifice his [or her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should support a policy he [or she] considers wrong." [Life and      Ideas, p. 132] Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct democracy has its uses when he noted that "[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less than the whole, the right to use some limited discretion as to the means to be used to accomplish the ends in view." However, only the unanimous decision of a jury (which would "judge the law, and the justice of the law") could determine individual rights as this "tribunal fairly represent[s] the whole people" as "no law can rightfully be enforced by the association in its corporate capacity, against the goods, rights, or person of any individual, except it be such as all members of the association agree that it may enforce" (his support of juries results from Spooner acknowledging that it "would be impossible in practice" for all members of an association to agree) [Trial by Jury, p. 130-1f, p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132] Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash. In practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most decisions within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities required for fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury system and minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority claims/rights in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can only be created through practical experience by the people directly involved. Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does not mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For example, many small associations may favour consensus decision making (see the next section on consensus and why most anarchists do not think that it is a viable alternative to direct democracy). However, most anarchists think that direct democracy within free association is the best (and most realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and equality. A.2.12 Is consensus an alternative to direct democracy? The few anarchists who reject direct democracy within free associations generally support consensus in decision making. Consensus is based upon everyone on a group agreeing to a decision before it can be put into action. Thus, it is argued, consensus stops the majority ruling the minority and is more consistent with anarchist principles. Consensus, although the "best" option in decision making, as all agree, has its problems. As Murray Bookchin points out in describing his experience of consensus, it can have authoritarian implications, because      "[i]n order. . . to create full consensus on a decision, minority dissenters were often subtly urged or psychologically coerced to decline to vote      on a troubling issue, inasmuch as their dissent would essentially amount to a one-person veto. This practice, called 'standing aside' in      American consensus processes, all too often involved intimidation of the dissenters, to the point that they completely withdrew from the      decision-making process, rather than make an honourable and continuing expression of their dissent by voting, even as a minority, in      accordance with their views. Having withdrawn, they ceased to be political beings--so that a 'decision' could be made. . . . '[C]onsensus' was      ultimately achieved only after dissenting members nullified themselves as participants in the process.      "On a more theoretical level, consensus silenced that most vital aspect of all dialogue, dissensus. The ongoing dissent, the passionate      dialogue that still persists even after a minority accedes temporarily to a majority decision,. . . [can be] replaced. . . .by dull monologues --      and the uncontroverted and deadening tone of consensus. In majority decision-making, the defeated minority can resolve to overturn a      decision on which they have been defeated -- they are free to openly and persistently articulate reasoned and potentially persuasive      disagreements. Consensus, for its part, honours no minorities, but mutes them in favour of the metaphysical 'one' of the 'consensus' group."      ["Communalism: The Democratic Dimension of Anarchism", Democracy and Nature, no. 8, p. 8] Bookchin does not "deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of decision-making in small groups of people who are thoroughly familiar with one another." But he notes that, in practical terms, his own experience has shown him that "when larger groups try to make decisions by consensus, it usually obliges them to arrive at the lowest common intellectual denominator in their decision-making: the least controversial or even the most mediocre decision that a sizable assembly of people can attain is adopted-- precisely because everyone must agree with it or else withdraw from voting on that issue" [Op. Cit., p.7] Therefore, due to its potentially authoritarian nature, most anarchists disagree that consensus is the political aspect of free association. While it is advantageous to try to reach consensus, it is usually impractical to do so -- especially in large groups -- regardless of its other, negative effects. Often it demeans a free society or association by tending to subvert individuality in the name of community and dissent in the name of solidarity. Neither true community nor solidarity are fostered when the individual's development and self-expression are aborted by public disapproval and pressure. Since individuals are all unique, they will have unique viewpoints which they should be encouraged to express, as society evolves and is enriched by the actions and ideas of individuals. In other words, anarchist supporters of direct democracy stress the "creative role of dissent" which, they fear, "tends to fade away in the gray uniformity required by consensus." [Op. Cit., p. 8] We must stress that anarchists are not in favour of a mechanical decision making process in which the majority just vote the minority away and ignore them. Far from it! Anarchists who support direct democracy see it as a dynamic debating process in which majority and minority listen to and respect each other as far possible and create a decision which all can live with (if possible). They see the process of participation within directly democratic associations as the means of creating common interests, as a process which will encourage diversity, individual and minority expression and reduce any tendency for majorities to marginalise or oppress minorities by ensuring discussion and debate occurs on important issues. -- Joe R. Golowka joegolowka@earthlink.net Anarchist FAQ - <A HREF="http://www.infoshop.org/faq">http://www.infoshop.org/faq</A> "The essential difference between a monarchy and a democratic republic is reduced to the following: In a monarchy, the bureaucratic world oppresses and plunders the people for the greater benefit of the privileged propertied classes as well as for its own benefit, and all that is done in the name of the monarch; in a republic, the same bureaucracy does exactly the same thing, but in the name of the will of the people."  -- Mikhail Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy </body> </html>