The draft declaration for Occupy Melbourne is a noble and powerful document – a testament to the months of work that has been completed by the working committee. It is scheduled for consideration at this Wednesday’s General Assembly. I like it a lot. As this is such an important document, though, I believe that we need some more discussion and debate (and would be surprised if there is not) There is one very important issue in particular which requires more thought, as I argue below.
Part of paragraph one in the Occupy Melbourne draft declaration reads: "In the name of freedom and democracy, we stand resolutely in opposition to unjust, unrepresentative, and unsustainable systems and practices world-wide." I would prefer to delete "unrepresentative" and replace it with "undemocratic". The reasons are as follows:
As it is now, the declaration suggests that the system can be fixed by making it more "representative". Occupy Melbourne, by its nature, calls for direct democracy - that is the people having a meaningful role to play in the activity of governing. A more 'representative' democracy will not achieve this.
I am not sure what making the system more "representative" would mean. Does it mean introducing proportional representation? Does it mean that parliamentarians should listen more? Does it mean that we should have more women on the boards of corporations? These are good things but they will not fix the main problem. Elected elites from any group can be bought off to further the profits of the rich (as they have been in the past). They will usually tend to govern in their own interests rather than in the interests of the majority. Many countries have proportional representation and are still run by corporations.
There has been a rich tradition of direct democracy in protest movements for centuries. For example, it was dominant in the chartist movement, the Eureka Stockade, The Spanish Revolution and the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World - which was the largest radical movement in Australia in the early 20th century). The Greek cities and city-states and towns of Europe in the Middle Ages were also governed through direct democracy. (Marshall, Peter (1992) Demanding the Impossible: A history of Anarchism. London: Harper Collins.) The term 'democracy' has traditionally referred to the people having a direct role in governing. It has only been since the 18th century that this term has referred to 'representation'. Even so, many have preferred to keep to the original meaning. (see Hindess, B. (2001). "Democracy as Anti-democracy." Southern Review: Communication, Politics & Culture 34(1): 9-21.)
Representative democracy is arguably unethical as it institutionalises the notion that people can be represented by others when they don't choose to be represented in this way. For example queers and people of colour have been represented by straight people and whites and or portrayed in stereotypical terms in the media and in parliament. (See May, T. (1994). The political philosophy of poststructuralist anarchism. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pa.)
Most people would support the claim that the present system is ‘undemocractic’. On the other hand, the present wording is antithetical to anarchism, libertarianism and autonomism for the reasons I have outlined. Many in Occupy Melbourne who think in this way would therefore not support this part of the declaration.
Representative democracy can be replaced relatively easily with a system of voluntary association comprising of autonomous communities (unions, associations, local councils etc) which are joined together by delegation and federation. A key element of this system is the election of delegates who can be recalled (impeached) at any time by those who elect them. This is the system advocated by Noam Chomsky in the film Manufacturing Consent (and also elaborated on in his other writings).
So I would suggest to the General Assembly to make this change to the declaration and also urge anarchists, autonomists and other libertarian-minded people to debate this issue. Furthermore, there may be other issues of concern in this draft and, given the importance of this declaration, I would suggest more time for debate and discussion before it is presented to the General Assembly for a vote.
(The image is from http://suburbanliberty.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/anarchy1.jpg )
Comments
In proportional representation there can never be losers
I guess that it is at this point that I diverge most importantly from what you have to say, Jack.
You write "Representative democracy is arguably unethical as it institutionalises the notion that people can be represented by others when they don't choose to be represented in this way. For example queers and people of colour have been represented by straight people and whites and or portrayed in stereotypical terms in the media and in parliament."
The entire point of proportional representation is that black people will be able to vote for a black candidate that represents their interests, not the interest of a dominant political party. We have the Sex party of Australia. Gays and lesbians would be able to vote not for a straight person to represent them but for a gay person or persons. The very ethic of proportional representation is that the society is reflected in the representation in Parliament. For myself I could vote for a socialist candidate knowing that a socialist candidate would be elected to Parliament. Of course whilst society is largely focused on two (or three) major parties they will still accrue the majority of the vote. But they will only get the numbers in parliament according to the percentage of the vote they attract, and it is doubtful that they will be able to govern in their own right. This my not be a perfect model of governance, but AT LEAST it is a huge step forward.
Which is not to say that I am not able to be swayed towards direct democracy as a preferred model. You will need to provide more details though. The problem that I see with small units of people electing candidates is that you do not achieve representation of everyone, there are always losers, whereas in proportional representation there can never be losers. I believe in one vote one value. I am not sure your model provides for this. And you are for directly electing candidates, which means winners and losers, which I don't agree with. Undoubtedly you have done a lot of reading on the subject. I am only a lay person, so I would be grateful if you could explain your model in a bit more depth just so that I can grasp its implications more fully.
Arguing for things I believe are achievable in our society
Let's remember that real democracy is undermined by concepts such as property, by capitalism, the ownership of capital, the distribution of wealth, the control of the media.
I am aware that proportional representation has not resulted in major social change int he countries where it is practiced. Often these countries have chaotic scenes in parliament, and their democracy suffers as a result.
Let us remember what happens when employees demand better justice. Capitalists strike, just like with Qantas. Just like they did when they sacked the Whitlam government and would not pass supply.
So whatever form your democracy takes, you have to deal with these other issues if you want real change in society. But I am not advocating pulling down the apparatus of our capitalist society. I think most of the 99% would reject that, whatever my personal view on the matter. So in a world of restricted options I seek some accommodation with the world in which I find myself. That means arguing for things that I believe are achievable within the limits of the society in which we find ourselves. Of course people are welcome to advocate revolution, but that is another matter. I'm too old for revolution, so I have to settle for less. Occupy Melbourne is only one platform for change. I intend to pursue my own ideology in whatever form it takes.
Try different forms of direct democracy
lots of debate leaflets argueing out these issues would be a way forward. we should not try and come to a common declaration. it achieves little. experiment with practicing different forms of direct democracy, it ties with direct action ( occupation
! ) etc. it is inheritantly anti-capitalist as are the action of occupy movements even if people are confused about it...
Some other good points vis a vis the draft declaration
This post provides some other good points vis a vis the draft declaration.
One aspect of this debate has been ignored, and that aspect is demonstrated by the present discussion. Jack's concern that one word can undo the intent of the document, suggests to me that the intent of this document is to do more than simply provide a "vision" that we can embrace as a group.
Rather it is a heavily weighted political document whose aim is to direct and control the movement. By adopting certain words and not others we are effectively determining the future outcomes of policy debates. I am not sure we ought to be restricting the movement to that degree.
If changing "representative" to "democratic" has such ramifications as ruling out one form of democracy and ruling in another, oughtn't we to be concerned that many other things are being ruled in and out that we are not even aware of?
Are we ready as a group to decide the future direction of the group? Should we be limiting the future direction of the movement? I think we need to be answering these types of questions before we formally adopt any document that is meant to embody our "vision" for who we are. Obviously wording is of paramount importance, if, as Jack states, this is a "noble and powerful document," that is heavily weighted to ensure political outcomes.
It would be nice to know the intent of the people who drafted this document.
OCCUPY MOVEMENT BECOME AN ASSOCIATION NOT FOR PROFIT
OCCUPY MOVEMENT BECOME AN ASSOCIATION NOT FOR PROFIT
AND STEER THE FUNDS THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT AND PURCHASING POWER WITH KYOTO TREATY FUNDS. GOVERNMENT WILL FOLLOW OUR INSTRUCTION AS WE ARE THE NEW INDUSTRY LEADERS TAKEN CONTROL... WITH OUT a fight. THIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN DEMOCRATIC COUNTRYS WHO RUN THEIR OWN AFFAIRS AT HOME
OVER AND OUT
BIG SMILE
This is so cool