💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › james-herod-making-decisions-amongst-assemblies.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:19:36. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Making Decisions Amongst Assemblies Author: James Herod Date: October 2010 Language: en Topics: assemblies
Or, Establishing Direct Democracy Across Territories
Also, Clarifying the Distinction between
Networks and Federations
Revised slightly January 2008 And slightly revised again in October 2010
(There are really only two ways that are compatible with direct
democracy.)
The key problem in building a horizontal, nonhierarchical social order
based on participatory, direct democracy has never been how to do this
on the local level in one town meeting, workers council, or village
assembly, but how to make decisions across such assemblies. Direct
democracy is frequently dismissed precisely because people believe that
it cannot work in larger territories. I don't believe this is true, but
it is true that it has never yet been done, as far as I know. And this
is the challenge we face. Decision-making procedures are thus not
secondary matters. Not at all. They are absolutely central, a core
issue. Until we solve the problem of directly democratic decision making
across territories we cannot establish a free society. It's as stark as
that.
What are our options? First, let's review how it is done presently in
the capitalist so-called representative democracies. Simple. Individual
votes are tallied across the state to elect representatives who then
make the decisions. Most everyone realizes now, of course, that this is
a sham, and has nothing to do with real democracy. It is a device ruling
classes have used to stay in power. The rich are able, by and large, to
control who runs for office and what they do after taking office.
Besides, the ruling class is making all the big decisions behind the
scenes, in order to perpetuate capitalism. Even parliaments controlled
for years by a majority of socialists have not been able to unseat
capitalist ruling classes.
But what if there were no ruling class, but just our popular assemblies
in our neighborhoods and workplaces? What then? Well, we could continue
using the same procedure that bourgeois democracies did and elect
representatives by tallying individual votes across the land. Marx and
Engels believed that if there were no ruling class then there would be
no problem with representatives, because they would not be serving the
interests of the ruling class but those of the working class. A century
and a half later we now know that this is not the case. A
decision-making elite very rapidly turns into a bureaucracy which in
turn rapidly turns into a new ruling class.
There is another way to select representatives, however (other than
picking them through general elections). Each assembly could choose a
representative (and the custom among radicals has been to call them
delegates, and more recently, spokespersons) and send these delegates to
regional assemblies to make decisions. But here is where we start
running into confusion, ambiguity, and disagreement.
Traditionally, anarchists have justified relinquishing their
decision-making power to delegates with the concepts of "mandate" and
"recall." I examined these notions in my book, Getting Free. I think
I'll just reprint the relevant paragraphs here.
Anarchists have long deluded themselves with the idea of federation that
they have solved the thorny problem of how they can have both direct
democracy and large-scale organization at the same time. It's a pat
formula that they ritualistically repeat -- "federated at the municipal,
regional, national, and international levels." It's a grand illusion.
Federation creates a hierarchy by using delegates (i.e.,
representatives) to form smaller and smaller decision-making units,
further and further removed from the neighborhood. But to make it more
palatable, this idea is garnished with three other illusions: mandated
delegates, instant recall, and the separation of policymaking from
administration. I believe all three ideas are flawed and are
incompatible with direct democracy, and hence with anarchism,
self-government, and autonomy.
The notion of a mandated delegate is a mirage because as soon as a
meeting convenes, everything is open. The discussion of the issues
redefines those issues. Sometimes, the change of only one word in a
proposal can completely alter the proposal's meaning and impact. There
is no way delegates can avoid exercising their own judgment on the
issues once the discussion gets under way, no matter how detailed their
instructions ahead of time. So the idea that mandated delegates preserve
the decision-making power of the neighborhood assemblies is an illusion.
In short, I do not believe that delegates can be mandated.
The idea of instant recall is also an illusion. For recall to work, the
people back home would have to be following the discussion as closely as
if they were there themselves. They would have to have detailed, current
knowledge of the issues as they were unfolding in debates among
delegates. Even if everyone back home were watching the conference live
on television (an impossibility), in order to exercise recall they would
have to convene themselves in their neighborhood assemblies and debate
whether or not a delegate had deviated from the mandate far enough to
warrant recall. But if they are going to do this, if they have this kind
of intimate knowledge of the issues and this kind of communication
system, they might as well be making the decisions themselves directly,
without bothering to go through the hassle of setting up a conference of
delegates. A moment's reflection shows that the whole idea of recall is
fallacious, but it has been repeated uncritically for decades by
radicals.
Similarly, the idea of the separation between policy making and
administration doesn’t make sense. Anyone who has worked on a project
knows that all kinds of decisions have to be made constantly. It can be
the most mundane decision and yet have profound policy implications. But
unless a decision happens to come under scrutiny, and is discussed and
aired, it may not be clear what its policy implications are. In other
words, it's next to impossible to separate purely administrative
decisions from policy decisions because almost any so-called
administrative decision may be shown to have policy implications. The
distinction is a false one. It is another illusion, a way of convincing
ourselves that we still have a project based on direct democracy, when
we do not. (pages 94-95)
These objections are valid, I believe, and confirm our need to stick to
direct democracy and never relinquish decision-making power to delegates
(representatives, spokespersons). Others continue to object, however,
saying that this principle (of not relinquishing decision making) should
not be elevated like this. They insist that they have the right to hand
over this power to delegates if they want to, and their group does want
to. They say that they trust their delegates to make the right
decisions, ones that the group itself would make, because the delegate
knows the group, and will act in its best interests.
First of all, it is simply not true that delegates can always know what
their constituents want on every issue. Opinions change. Disagreements
emerge, almost inevitably. But more generally, here is my answer to this
line of argument (again taken from Getting Free):
The main reason for wanting to avoid delegating decision-making power to
representatives is not that people thereby hand over their power to
others and create a decision-making elite, although this is bad enough.
It is not that they are thereby no longer "autonomous individuals," for
there is no such thing. Rather, it is that they bar themselves by this
action from participating in the discussion of the issues. They forfeit
their natures as thinking persons and instead hand over this function to
others. (page 113)
Others suggest that maybe rotation would solve the problem. We could
still relinquish decision making to delegates but then rotate the
delegates frequently, so no decision-making elite could emerge. It's
true that elite formation could be thus blocked. But it still means we
would be giving up our decision making power, handing it over to others.
Even though it is held only temporarily by any one person, it is still
permanently gone from us. Rotation is a good strategy for many kinds of
tasks. Any project is divided into tasks and in many cases it is useful
to rotate these tasks so that everyone can learn everything, that is,
everyone can more or less become competent at the whole operation.
General decision making in assemblies is in a different category,
however. It is a task of a different kind.
Perhaps a clarification would be useful at this point. Direct democracy
does not mean that every decision about everything is taken by everyone.
That's clearly impossible. The very idea is absurd. Decisions over huge
areas of life, like most projects, particular jobs, or households, for
example, will be made by those directly involved. Only decisions of
general significance need be made by general assemblies. But the general
assemblies will decide what these matters are, and what should concern
them and what not. A better distinction therefore than
policy/administrative is whether something is a matter that needs to be
decided by the whole community or is a matter that can be left to
sub-groups. Any social order will have a division of labor, with
specialized tasks, where decision making is best left to those who are
actually doing the task. The mistake is to think that decision making
itself is a specialized task, for which we elect persons with a
specialized skill to carry it out (politicians at present, or more
generally, delegates, representatives, or spokespersons). This is a
grave error, and leads inevitably to a hierarchical society.
Anyway, this is not the place to fully argue the case for direct
democracy. (I should at least mention one salient fact, however; we can
only defeat capitalists by taking decision making away from them and
relocating it in our own directly democratic assemblies.) But for the
time being, let me just assume that we are agreed that we want direct
democracy. How do we get it? As mentioned above, the problem is how to
make decisions amongst groups (assemblies, councils) in a way that is
compatible with direct democracy. That is, how can we make decisions
across territories without using delegates or electing representatives?
This is a problem that has not yet been solved, historically speaking,
that is, in actual social practice.
There are two ways to avoid electing representatives altogether.
(1) We could discuss the issues in our assemblies but then tally
individual votes across assemblies. This is a big improvement over
parliamentary democracy and the election of representatives (i.e.,
decision-makers) in that in this practice people are voting on the
actual issues, and furthermore, are personally involved in face-to-face
discussion and debate, with the votes taken right there in the assembly
(but tallied across assemblies). This avoids the practice of polling
isolated individuals who have not necessarily benefited from such
discussion. This procedure is compatible with direct democracy, and
might be used in emergencies provided a proposal can be floated which
can be voted up or down (and getting such proposals is not as easy as it
might seem). An emergency situation would be one in which there is not
time enough to go through this normal consensus process. Some definition
of emergency will be needed, obviously; otherwise this procedure might
tend to be used in situations where it need not be, thus
short-circuiting consensus decision making.
The drawbacks though are that the procedure would require that votes be
tallied individually and that some principle of majority rule be used
(e.g., simple, two-thirds). This option is closed off, moreover, if our
assemblies are using so-called consensus decision-making procedures
(which requires the modification of proposals to take account of
objections), where votes are not tallied by individuals (which of course
will most likely be the normal mode of operation).
(2) The second way to avoid electing representatives involves a back and
forth negotiating process and might be formulated as follows:
Proposals that involve two or more assemblies will first be discussed
and decided upon in the local assembly, using the "consensus" process.
Then negotiators from each assembly involved will confer to work out
differences and prepare a general agreement, which will then be returned
for ratification by local assemblies. This back and forth process will
continue until all assemblies involved are satisfied with the decision.
A key concept here is ratification. Decision making is kept firmly on
the local level. Any decisions about matters outside the local area, say
on a regional level, must be based on ratification by the local
assemblies, and this can only be accomplished through a process of
negotiation. There is no other way without reverting to simple majority
rule and the tallying of votes by individuals (as in procedure #1
above), thus voiding the consensus process. This may take time, but
what's the rush? We must simply recognize that this is how it's done.
This is the time we need and the steps we need to go through to make
directly democratic decisions.
But there will undoubtedly be those who get impatient with this process
and insist that we "get on with the job." What job is it that we are
getting on with? There were people like this in the New Left who got
frustrated and impatient with all the time we were devoting to getting
egalitarian relations within our own projects and groups. They wanted to
"get on with the job" (of making the revolution I presume). That is why
the New Left gave birth to the idea of prefigurative politics, wherein
our current practices, procedures, and behaviors must resemble those
that we will want in the future society we are trying to bring into
being.
Similarly with decision making. We need to invent now the practices we
will need later in a world full of democratic autonomous neighborhoods.
If we cannot learn now to make decisions across groups (assemblies,
territories) based on direct democracy, we've got nothing, absolutely
nothing, and may as well forget about establishing a self-managed
society. This is a hurdle we must get over before we can create a free
society.
---
In light of the above discussion it might be useful to consider the
recent experiment with popular assemblies in Oaxaca, Mexico. Oaxacans
established a Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca in Oaxaca City.
They also established forty other popular assemblies in smaller towns
scattered around the state. I don't know much about the forty local town
assemblies (but as far as I do know they made no attempt to establish a
network using the direct democratic decision-making procedure outlined
above). I do not read Spanish. But I have followed the English-language
reports quite closely and so have some knowledge of the Popular Assembly
in Oaxaca City. It was composed of delegates (roughly 180 of them, but
this number undoubtedly varied from meeting to meeting). The delegates
were sent by labor unions, the teacher's union (section 22), various
NGOs, civic organizations, the popular assemblies from smaller towns,
various neighborhoods, town councils, scattered individuals, and so
forth.
This assembly therefore was a sort of modified parliamentary democracy.
It was not based on direct democracy. It's true that this way of
selecting delegates is far superior to selecting them through general,
state-wide elections (which the rich can easily control). It's also true
that this was a way of bypassing the existing power structure based on
the established political parties. Yet many, perhaps most, of the
organizations which sent delegates to the Popular Assembly are not
themselves organized internally on the basis of direct democracy, but
are rather traditional hierarchical organizations. So basically, they
were sending "leaders" to the popular assembly. But at least these
delegates were "leaders" of their local groups, and not leaders imposed
from above (except perhaps in some of the national unions). This Popular
Assembly was definitely set up though to be a state-wide decision-making
body. And indeed, the assembly before too long started passing
resolutions which were binding on the entire state. So it took on the
functions of a legislative body. Also, the Popular Assembly used
traditional majority rule, just as a matter of course, with votes being
counted individually. In addition, there was only the one Popular
Assembly in the whole city of Oaxaca, which has a population of 250,000
(out of 3.3 million state-wide). But it wasn't meant to be an assembly
for Oaxaca City itself. Its delegates came from all over the state.
There was at least one element of direct democracy present that I know
of. Section 22 of the teacher's union practiced what they called
"consulting with the base." Decisions taken by the Popular Assembly had
to be ratified by the entire membership of the teacher's union. I don't
know if other organizations represented in the assembly used this
procedure. My impression is that they didn't. Also, I don't know how
often the delegates from Section 22 had to consult, or over what types
of decisions. Was it only for the really big decisions, or more or less
for everything? My impression is that it was only for the really big
decisions, like whether to end the strike or not.
---
For comparative purposes, we might take a quick look at the neighborhood
council system in El Alto, Bolivia. This is one of the most advanced
cities on earth in terms of local control and grassroots organization,
with elements of direct democracy. This city of 800,000 is organized
into 600 neighborhood councils. The councils basically run the city. The
average membership in a council is 200, but these two hundred
participants usually represent the entire neighborhood. They come from
heads of families, unions, trade organizations, and so forth. So these
neighborhood councils are not assemblies of the entire neighborhood
(which would mean meetings of roughly 1300 people). They are assemblies
of delegates from the neighborhood. Nevertheless, this is a powerful
grassroots structure. For city-wide decisions El Alto also relies on
delegates, on a central council composed of delegates selected from
neighborhood councils. So on the city level, they have reverted to
federation and hierarchy, to a modified representative government.
In his new book, Consensus (2006, See Sharp Press), Peter Gelderloos has
this to say about federations.
"Federations contain two tiers of structure: local and central. The
local structure consists of a number of autonomous groups, each working
within their immediate communities, that have decided for various
reasons to band together. The central structure manifests in periodic
meetings attended by people from each local group within the structure.
At these central meetings, people decide matters concerning the entire
federation, and create strategies of action that each locality can
participate in, for a broader impact. The federation should never
dictate to a locality, but should recognize the autonomy and
self-directed community work of each local group as the source of its
strength."
The contradiction here is glaring. If the central meeting decides
"matters concerning the entire federation," how is this consistent with
the claim that "the federation should never dictate to a locality." It's
not. If decisions taken at the central meetings are not binding on local
groups there is no point in making them. If the local groups are truly
autonomous then why pretend that a regional assembly of delegates has
any power over them? In practice, of course, and here is where I think
Gelderloos has misrepresented the situation, regional assemblies do
assume that they are making decisions that are binding on the entire
federation. Moreover, local groups send delegates to these regional
meetings also with the understanding that that body can make decisions
that are binding on all groups in the federation. That's the whole point
of regional assemblies, under federation. And, to my mind, this is the
thing that distinguishes a federation from a network. Federationists
have agreed to relinquish their decision making powers to delegates who
then go to regional assemblies to make decisions for the whole
federation. Networkists refuse to relinquish decision making power to
delegates, but instead practice direct democratic decision making across
groups (assemblies, territories), as outlined above.
Other criteria are sometimes put forward to distinguish networks from
federations. Gelderloos mentions one of them, namely, "well-defined
principles of unity." So it is often said that federations have much
more specific statements of purpose, or platforms, than networks. In
federations, it is said, members are more or less on the same page of a
more concretely defined politics. They are more homogenous, politically.
Networks are thought to be more heterogeneous, with vaguer statements of
principles. This may have been true so far historically, but I don't
think it need be true. I see no reason why a network couldn't hammer out
just as specific a statement of political principles as a federation.
Why not? It would take some work. But so do such statements when
generated by federations. Federations, by having (starting out with)
such a detailed statement of beliefs, simply exclude those who disagree
with it. That's why they are more homogenous politically. A network
could do the same thing. People who don't agree with the mapped out
politics simply won't become a part of the network. Conversely, a
federation could be just as loosely defined and vague as most networks
are currently thought to be.
A third distinction between networks and federations that is sometimes
mentioned is that federations have a more bureaucratic structure, with
secretaries, treasurers, various other officers, and the like. Again,
there is nothing to stop a network from also setting up such a division
of labor.
No, I think the key distinction is whether all decision making is kept
on the local level or whether it is sometimes handed over to delegates
at regional assemblies. This is the distinction between direct democracy
and some form of representative government. If we want to be free, we
will need to insist on and fight for direct democracy, and to reject,
forever, representative government.