THEORETICAL MUSINGS ON PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

(What could there possibly be) Beyond Democracy?

text courtesy of special agent Rolf Nadir
Source: http://www.gnn.tv/threads/480/_What_could_there_possibly_be_Beyond_Democracy

Nowadays, “democracy” rules the world. Communism has fallen, elections are happening more and more in those poor underdeveloped third world nations you see on television, and world leaders are meeting to plan the “global community” that we hear so much about. So why isn’t everybody happy, finally? For that matter—why do less than half of the eligible voters in the United States, the world’s flagship democracy, even bother to vote at all?

Could it be that “democracy,” long the catch-word of every revolution and resistance, is simply not democratic enough? What could be more democratic?

Every little child can grow up to be President.

No they can’t. Being president means holding a hierarchical position of power, just like being a billionaire: for every one president, there have to be millions of people with less power. And just as it is for billionaires, it is for presidents: it’s not any coincidence that the two types tend to rub shoulders, since they both come from a privileged world off limits to the rest of us. Our economy isn’t democratic, either, you know: resources are distributed in absurdly unequal proportions, and you certainly do have to start with resources to become President, or even to get your hands on more resources.

Even if it was true that anyone could grow up to be President, that wouldn’t help the millions of us who inevitably don’t, who must still live in the shadow of that power. This is an intrinsic structural difficulty in representative democracy, and it occurs on the local level as much as at the top. For example: the town council, consisting of professional politicians, can meet, discuss municipal affairs, and pass ordinances all day, without consulting the citizens of the town, who have to be at work; when one of those ordinances inconveniences or angers some of the citizens, they have to go to great lengths to use their free time to contest it, and then they’re gone again the next time the town council meets. The citizens can elect a different town council from the available pool of politicians and would-be politicians, but the interests and powers of the class of politicians as a whole will still be in conflict with their own—and anyway, party loyalties and similar superstitions usually prevent them from taking even this step.

If there was no President, our “democracy” would still be less than democratic. Corruption, privilege, and hierarchy aside, our system purports to operate by majority rule, with the rights of the minorities protected by a system of checks and balances—and this method of government has inherent flaws of its own.

The tyranny of the majority

If you ever happened to end up in a vastly outnumbered minority group, and the majority voted that you must give up something as necessary to your life as water and air, would you comply? When it comes down to it, does anyone really believe in recognizing the authority of a group simply because they outnumber everyone else? We accept majority rule because we do not believe it will threaten us—and those it does threaten are already silenced before we can hear their misgivings.

No “average citizen” considers himself threatened by majority rule, because each one thinks of himself as having the power and righteous “moral authority” of the majority: if not in fact (by being so-called “normal” or “moderate”), then in theory, because his ideas are “right” (that is, he believes that everyone would be convinced of the truth of his arguments, if only they would listen sincerely). Majority-rule democracy has always rested on the conviction that if all the facts were clear, everyone could be made to see that there is only one right course of action—without this belief, it amounts to nothing more than the dictatorship of the herd. But such is not always the case—even if “the facts” could be made equally clear to everyone, which is obviously impossible, some things simply can’t be agreed upon, for there is more than one truth. We need a democracy that takes these situations into account, in which we are free from the mob rule of the majority as well as the ascendancy of the privileged class. . .

“The Rule of Law”

. . .and the protection afforded by the “checks and balances” of our legal institution is not sufficient to establish it. The “rule of just and equal law,” as fetishized today by those whose interests it protects (the stockbrokers and landlords, for example), does not protect anyone from chaos or injustice; it simply creates another arena of specialization, in which the power of our communities is ceded to the jurisdiction of expensive lawyers and pompous judges. The rights of the minorities are the very last thing to be protected by these checks and balances, since power is already reserved for those with the privilege to seize it, and then for the lumpen majority after them. Under these conditions, a minority group is only able to use the courts to obtain its rights when it is able to bring sufficient force upon them in the form of financial clout, guileful rhetoric, etc.

There is no way to establish justice in a society through the mere drawing up and enforcement of laws: such laws can only institutionalize what is already the rule in that society. Common sense and compassion are always preferable to adherence to a strict and antiquated table of law, anyway, and where the law is the private province of a curator elite, these inevitably end up in conflict; what we really need is a social system which fosters such qualities in its members, and rewards them in practice. To create such a thing, we must leave representative “democracy” for fully participatory democracy.

It’s no coincidence “freedom” is not on the ballot.

Freedom is not a condition—it is something closer to a sensation. It’s not a concept to pledge allegiance to, a cause to serve, or a standard to march under; it is an experience you must live every day, or else it will escape you. It is not freedom in action when the flags are flying and the bombs are dropping to “make the world safe for democracy,” no matter what color the flags are (even black!); freedom cannot be caught and held in any state system or philosophical doctrine, and it certainly cannot be enforced or “given” to others—the most you can hope is to free others from forces preventing them from finding it themselves. It appears in fragile moments: in the make-believe of young children, the cooperation of friends on a camping trip, the workers who refuse to follow the union’s orders and instead organize their own strike without leaders. If we are to be real freedom fighters, we must begin by pledging ourselves to chase and cherish these moments and seek to expand them, rather than getting caught up in serving some party or ideology.

Real freedom cannot be held on a voting ballot. Freedom doesn’t mean simply being able to choose between options—it means actively participating in shaping the options in the first place, creating and re-creating the environments in which options exist. Without this, we have nothing, for given the same options in the same situations over and over, we’ll always make the same pre-determined decisions. If the context is out of our hands, so is the choice itself. And when it comes to taking power over the circumstances of our lives, no one can “represent” us—it’s something we have to do ourselves.

“Look, a ballot box—democracy!!”

If the freedom so many generations have fought and died for is best exemplified by a man in a voting booth, who checks a box on the ballot before returning to work in an environment no more under his control than it was an hour before, then the heritage our emancipating forefathers and suffragette grandmothers have left us is nothing but a sham substitute for the true liberty they lusted after.

For a better illustration of real freedom in action, look at the musician in the act of improvising with her companions: in joyous, seemingly effortless cooperation, they actively create the sonic and emotional environment in which they exist, participating thus in the transformation of the world which in turn transforms them. Take this model and extend it to every one of our interactions with each other, and you would have something qualitatively different from our present system: a harmony in human relationships and activity, a real democracy. To get there, we have to dispense with voting as the archetypal expression of freedom and participation.

Representative democracy is a contradiction in terms.

No one can represent your power and interests for you—you can only have power by acting, and you can only know what your interests are by being involved. Politicians have made careers out of claiming to represent others, as if freedom and political power could be held by proxy. Now, inevitably, they have become a priest caste that answers only to itself—as politician classes have always been, and will always be.

Voting is an expression of our powerlessness: it is an admission that we can only approach the resources and capabilities of our own society through the mediation of that priest caste. When we let them prefabricate our options for us, we relinquish control of our communities to these politicians in the same way that we leave technology to scientists, health to doctors, living environments to city planners and private real estate developers; we end up living in a world that is alien to us, even though our labor has built it, for we have acted like sleepwalkers hypnotized by the monopoly our leaders and specialists hold on setting the possibilities.

The fact is we don’t have to simply choose between presidential candidates, soft drink brands, competing activist organizations, television shows, news magazines, political ideologies. We can make our own decisions as individuals and communities, we can make our own delicious beverages and action coalitions and magazines and entertainment, we can create our own individual approaches to life that leave our unique perspectives intact. Here’s how.

What are the democratic alternatives to democracy?

Consensus

Radically participatory democracy, also known as consensus democracy, is already well-known and practiced across the globe, from indigenous communities in Latin America to postmodern political action cells (“affinity groups”) in the United States and organic farming cooperatives in Australia. In contrast to representative democracy, consensus democracy is direct democracy: the participants get to share in the decision-making process on a daily basis, and through decentralization of knowledge and authority they are able to exercise real control over their daily lives. Unlike majority-rule democracy, consensus democracy values the needs and concerns of each individual equally; if one person is unhappy with a resolution, then it is everyone’s responsibility to find a new solution that is acceptable to all. Consensus democracy does not demand that any person accept the power of others over her life, though it does require that everybody be willing to consider the needs of everyone else; thus what it loses in efficiency, it gains tenfold in both freedom and goodwill. Consensus democracy does not ask that people follow a leader or standardize themselves under some common cause; rather, its aim is to integrate all into a working whole while allowing each to retain her own goals and ways of doing things.

Click Here to continue reading.

THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY: NEOLIBERAL VS. PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

This important article explains one of the most influential tools the U.S. government uses for political manipulation in order to acheve their foreign policy objectives. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created during the Reagan administration primarily to help fund right wing elements in Central America. Gradually the scope of the NED's activities has expanded and they are operating wherever the U.S. has interests worldwide. The tactics that the NED uses are covert and subversive. As James Jordan clearly demonstrates below, the masses would be appalled to find what has been done to oppress people in the name of democracy. The media is clearly tied up in the scandal as well. Mainstream sources would never print such an incendiary article as this one, they aren't even likely to review Eva Golinger's books which both reveal similar information to that below. There is little hope of shutting down the NED anytime soon, given that most people continue to harbor the misconception that it is a quality institution doing good things abroad in the name of the US. Still we must continuously work to change the policies of the NED by revealing the subversive and immoral nature of its current activities, and by pushing our foreign policy makers to respect the freedom of expression, self-determination and sovereignty of other peoples when carrying out diplomatic relations. The following outlines why these actions are necessary. -Editor

Close the Mis-named National Endowment for Democracy

By James Jordan

Source: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7046/1/340/

Haven’t heard of the National Endowment for Democracy? Not many people have. Yet the NED is taxpayer funded and carries out foreign policy with no meaningful public oversight or transparency. In fact, it does more to undermine democracy than not.

The NED…

* …spent more than $20 per voter in Nicaragua in 1990--more than had been spent by both candidates in the 1988 US Presidential election!
* …funded and set up meetings between organizations involved in the 2002 attempts to overthrow the elected government of Venezuela.
* …funds far right parties in Eastern Europe, even working with convicted Nazi collaborators like Lazslo Pasztor, of the NED funded Free Congress Foundation.
* …funded, created, and trained most of the groups involved in the overthrow of Haiti’s elected government in 2004, through its core institute, the International Republican Institute, chaired by John McCain. This led to the bloodiest year in Haiti in modern history.
* …spends almost half its budget in support of the occupation of Iraq.

Here in the United States, we care about democratic rights. We fought a revolution against colonialism and we fought a civil war against slavery. In the 20th century we fought for women’s right to vote and we waged a civil rights struggle to secure the vote for people of all ethnicities. We were knocked down a few times when we got a president, in 2000, who actually lost the popular vote, only to turn around and force us into a war that the US people didn’t want. But we’re still here, still struggling on behalf of real democracy!

We care about democracy—at home and elsewhere. Unfortunately, the political-corporate-military machine tries its best to keep us from learning about US efforts to undermine elections in other countries. These efforts are aimed at making sure other governments adopt policies granting easy access for big corporations to natural resources, cheap labor, and new markets. This is backed up with US military power. Michael Plattner, a vice-president for the NED, explains, “Liberal democracy clearly favors the economic arrangements that foster globalization ….The international order that sustains globalization is underpinned by American military predominance.”

While the NED is only a small part of the US so-called “democracy promotion” efforts, its influence reaches far beyond its annual budget.

The NED is…

1) …Unconstitutional–

* The NED sets a dangerous precedent by privatizing US foreign affairs. The constitution is clear that international relations are carried out on behalf of the US people by the executive and legislative branches.

2) …A “Black Box” of Democracy Interference that violates the public trust–

* Because of it’s publicly-funded, yet “private” character, the NED is not subject to any meaningful oversight. In fact, the core institutes of the NED also receive funding from USAID and the US State Department. Funneled through these institutes, and then further subcontracted, even non-NED funding can get laundered so that it is almost impossible to track.

3) …A web of military, political, espionage, and corporate media that obstructs the free flow of information for the sake of corporate interests–

* The boards of the NED and its core organizations are full of Spin Doctors from public relations firms, big advertisers, corporate headquarters; political analysts and advisors; and ex-CIA and military personnel. Vin Weber, NED Board Chair, works for a public relations firm that is part of the Omnicom Group, the world’s 3rd largest advertising agency. The Center for International Private Enterprise, an NED core institute, includes an executive from Google and a major contractor with Google. The International Republican Institute, another NED core institute, includes a former Senior Advisor to the CIA and various representatives from the military-industrial complex. These are just a few examples. The NED is able to coordinate campaigns of misinformation and bring together a diverse coalition in order to manipulate foreign elections. If that fails, the NED empowers that coalition to overthrow elected governments—like it did in Haiti and like it is trying to do in Venezuela.

The sole mission of the NED is to “fix” other countries’ elections, and most US residents would agree that is unfair. USAID also builds schools, roads and has other projects that are an obligation for rich countries to provide to the poor countries since our wealth was extracted from them in the first place. The NED mission, on the other hand, is limited to the manipulation or other countries’ democratic institutions and processes.

In the playing field of democracy, two competing forms have met head to head: neoliberal vs. participatory democracy. The kind of democracy that the NED favors is the neoliberal kind. Its proponents, such as Plattner, refer to it as liberal democracy, but that is incorrect terminology. Liberal democracy is the philosophy of government on which the US was originally founded. It is flawed, but still more democratic than its neoliberal permutation. One still has had to struggle pretty hard to win the right to vote, be it through colonial revolt, civil war, or suffragist and civil rights movements. But once the less-than-assured right to vote is won, elections are more or less decided along the lines of “one person, one vote” and “majority rule.” Another goal of real liberal democracy is the protection of minority rights. But the only minority neoliberal democracy aims to protect are the rights of big corporations.

Neoliberal democracy replaces the motto of “one person, one vote” with “one dollar, one vote.” For instance, in Iraq, the US is advocating for passage of oil laws that are opposed by two thirds of the Iraqi population. Passage would result in the biggest give-away of oil profits that the Middle East has witnessed. Union membership in the oil and public sector was also outlawed by the occupation government.

Conversely, participatory democracy directly empowers community structures and cooperative ventures. When I think of participatory democracy, I think of Susana and Cesar Achique, from Tacaraigua de la Laguna in Venezuela. Susana Achique is the elected president of the Grupo Turismo y Aventura Dios y Yo (or, the God and I Tourism and Adventure Group), a local coop that was founded on a government credit of just under $140,000 US dollars. With that money, they bought and outfitted three motor boats, an office and launching dock, and set up a cooperative that takes tourists on ecological and fishing trips.

Cesar, the driver and tour guide for our boat, was enthusiastic, telling us how their lagoon had been damaged by over-fishing by commercial trawlers, depleting both fish and bird populations that depend on the fish for food. Jobs were scarce—the commercial fishing industry brought the town little benefit. Cesar’s eyes radiated a confident pride as he told about the return of the fish and bird populations following the Venezuela’s reform of fishing laws that stopped the trawlers from entering such environmentally sensitive areas. As if to underscore what he was saying, thousands of birds started their evening descent into the mangrove swamps around us as the sun began to set.

Back on shore, Susana explained to us how members run the coop democratically. Profits from the venture are used to pay the workers and to provide community benefits. This is something I heard over and over in Venezuela—how coops and worker owned and operated factories don’t just benefit the people directly involved, but the whole community. Revenues fund schools, health clinics, and more. Media centers, food subsidy centers, health clinics, and a whole variety of government missions are not just serving but are being implemented by community members.

While Venezuela is engaged in a massive effort to diversify its economy, it still remains dependent on oil profits which, under participatory democracy, support social spending. Community members are involved in decisions about whether or not to develop oil resources and, for the first time in Venezuelan history, indigenous nations most affected by oil development, take part in these decisions.

Has participatory democracy been good for Venezuela? Since the people gained popular power in 1998, the poverty rate has dropped from 54% to 38.5%--30% if food and health subsidies are factored in; millions have gained access to free health care; half the population is enrolled in free, public education; and over 5 million acres of fallow land have been turned over to rural people for agricultural development. The economy has been growing steadily since NED funded attempts to overthrow the government in 2002.

The Alliance for Global Justice has begun a project called the Respect for Democracy Campaign, and one of our primary goals is to close the NED. This campaign has been endorsed by many groups and individuals, including Howard Zinn, author of the Peoples’ History of the United States, Eva Golinger, author of The Chavez Code and Bush Vs. Chavez, Rev. John Fife, co-founder of the Sanctuary Movement and former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church USA, the Venezuela Solidarity Network, the Campaign for Labor Rights, the Worker to Worker Solidarity Committee, and the Nicaragua network.

Of course, ending democracy manipulation and winning participatory democracy must be built upon participatory struggle! In other words, what this campaign needs is…YOU!

Neoliberal democracy and economics has put the future of the world at stake. We have a choice: corporate globalism and elitist power or community autonomy and people power.

Which of these is in YOUR future?

--James Jordan is coordinator of the Respect for Democracy Campaign. For More information: www.respect4democracy.org. Email: respect4democracy@afgj.org. Phone: 202-544-9355.