Representative versus Participatory Democracy in Canada: Role of Citizen Activism

Raj Patel's book, The Value of Nothing, makes an argument for participatory democracy based on peasant movements.

Any movement that seeks to harness the for workers the the methods of industrial capitalism is doomed to failure as industrialism is, ultimately, anti-human and anti-life.

Protrucio wrote:

... Apparently dictators have often created the illusion of a participatory democracy by means of the plebecite. My question is ...

Sorry, but you are not permitted to ask questions! This is a plebiscite. In a plebiscite, the questions are pre-chosen for you!

Seriously, we can't tar participatory democracy with that brush. It's unfair. There are other methods of voting/questioning aside from plebiscites/referenda, and they do allow full, meaningful participation.

You asked if Facebook is grassroots and I couldn't answer, at the time. But now I can explain why I think Babble is grassroots. Babble has no structure or formal rules, aside from a kind of communicative structure (person to person). Like most online forums, it's all about discussion that's free and open. It lets you respond to what someone else is saying in a pointed manner, so it's immediately challenging. The grassroots is like that too, I believe. (And so is a participatory democracy. But not a plebescite! It's the opposite.)

Edited to add: Besides, the reliance on plebiscites is what characterises not participatory democracy, but representative democracy in its mass incarnations, what Weber called "plebiscitarian democracy":

Max Weber wrote:

... It is decisive that this whole apparatus of people [the party] - characteristically called a 'machine' in Anglo-Saxon countries - or rather those who direct the machine, keep the members of the parliament in check. They are in a position to impose their will to a rather far-reaching extent, and that is of special significance for the selection of the party leader. The man whom the machine follows now becomes the leader, even over the head of the parliamentary party. In other words, the creation of such machines signifies the advent of plebiscitarian democracy.

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation....

epaulo13 wrote:

..to understand the socialism i am looking for it is easier for me to frame it in participatory democracy. if participatory democracy is decentralized power to the grassroots then my socialism should compliment that. if it does not then, in a similar fasion to what is being stated by UNETE in post #32, change would need to continue.  

quote 32:
"UNETE praises the Venezuelan state for making many well-conceived efforts to guarantee food security, bring strategic industries under national control, and put a halt to speculation in financial markets, but says these efforts have been damaged by “bureaucratism, indolence, and corruption of functionaries who act like a fifth column... in the entire structure of a bourgeois state that refuses to die."

*edited quote for clarity

What presents the greatest threat to Venzuela is the state itself. The state is necessarily top down and carries with it the institutions and apparatus to quickly revert to the pre-Chavez era. Aristide, in Haiti, dismissed the military but retained all other state institutions leaving himself and his government unprotected when they came for him. If "democracy" is an abstract manifested in the state, then it is both phony and weak. Democracy must be an expression and an act of the people.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

What presents the greatest threat to Venzuela is the state itself. The state is necessarily top down and carries with it the institutions and apparatus to quickly revert to the pre-Chavez era. Aristide, in Haiti, dismissed the military but retained all other state institutions leaving himself and his government unprotected when they came for him. If "democracy" is an abstract manifested in the state, then it is both phony and weak. Democracy must be an expression and an act of the people.

Anyone who is sympathetic to deeper democracy than capitalism can deliver in Latin America knows all about how a democratically elected Marxist government in Chile was overthrown by the military, with Yanqui planning and help, and replaced by a violent, fascist dictatorship. Chavez in Venezuela talks about "a peaceful armed transition" to socialism and you can bet your ass that the necessity of the "armed" part was learned about and paid for in Chilean blood.

When the state protects the revolutionary changes, is it your friend or your enemy?

N.Beltov wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

What presents the greatest threat to Venzuela is the state itself. The state is necessarily top down and carries with it the institutions and apparatus to quickly revert to the pre-Chavez era. Aristide, in Haiti, dismissed the military but retained all other state institutions leaving himself and his government unprotected when they came for him. If "democracy" is an abstract manifested in the state, then it is both phony and weak. Democracy must be an expression and an act of the people.

Anyone who is sympathetic to deeper democracy than capitalism can deliver in Latin America knows all about how a democratically elected Marxist government in Chile was overthrown by the military, with Yanqui planning and help, and replaced by a violent, fascist dictatorship. Chavez in Venezuela talks about "a peaceful armed transition" to socialism and you can bet your ass that the necessity of the "armed" part was learned about and paid for in Chilean blood.

When the state protects the revolutionary changes, is it your friend or your enemy?

In my view the state is necessarily the enemy of an authentic democracy. When a coup was conducted against Chavez, all of the institutions of the state, formal and informal, official and non-official, sipped champagne and celebrated. It was the people of Venezuela, aided by junior military officers, of indigenous origin, who restored Chavez to government.

States lay claim to the right to enact laws without consultation, to usurp civil rights, and to a monopoly on violence to which resort is seldom the last.  How can such a thing be reconciled to democratic ideals?

epaulo13 wrote:

..to understand the socialism i am looking for it is easier for me to frame it in participatory democracy. if participatory democracy is decentralized power to the grassroots then my socialism should compliment that...

Maybe the broader grassroots (not organized/compartmentalized) is always for social justice. A truly participatory democracy would therefore have to be socialist, at least in that sense (I agree).

The Venezuelan proposal that N.Beltov mentions would be participatory, I guess, to the extent that the central officials were dependent on the delegates, and the delegates dependent on the broader grassroots. But I didn't see any guarantee of the former.

If Mills' criteria are also applied, then I think the proposal might fail on the first three points (below). It's hard to imagine how an ordinary Joe at the grassroots could arrange to participate effectively in a complex legislative issue (say he had a bright idea for something in section 7, paragraph 3), and even harder if his delegate were opposed to it.

C. W. Mills in the Power Elite wrote:

In a public, as we may understand the term, (1) virtually as many people express opinions as receive them. (2) Public commununications are so organized that there is a chance immediately and effectively to answer back any opinion expressed in public. Opinion formed by such discussion (3) readily finds an outlet in effective action, even against - if necessary - the prevailing system of authority. And (4) authoritative institutions do not penetrate the public, which is thus more or less autonomous in its operation.

In a mass, (1) far fewer people express opinions than receive them; for the community of publics becomes an abstract collection of individuals who receive impressions from the mass media. (2) The communications that prevail are so organized that it is difficult or impossible for the individual to answer back immediately or with any effect. (3) The realization of opinion in action is controlled by authorities who organize and control the channels of such action. (4) The mass has no autonomy from institutions; on the contrary, agents of authorized institutions penetrate this mass, reducing any autonomy it may have in the formation of opinion by discussion.

Suppose we didn't rely on government (or who knows? business entrepreneurs) to eventually deliver a participatory democracy to us.  Could we instead obtain it for ourselves, by action? (Is this what the thread is asking?)

..further to my ramblings in #65 and with due respect i don't feel that more analysis is needed for what is going on in latin america but more of a reporting. a reporting to help inspire and guide us in the north. the analysis we do need is of here in canada. where is our participatory democracy? where is the movement towards more participatory democracy? and how or where can we be building alternatives today at the same time we are doing the defensive thing..demos, occupations, strikes etc. i feel a need to move beyond trying to convince people that we need socialism to actually building it in a participatory manner.

I had a friend that was on the BBC before the internet. When the internet fist came out he was on that. One day he wanted to find out the binging of the internet hi-way. We tracked it down to some arms company in the USA.

We then investigated that company and actually got to a page that held the minutes of their meets but could not get on it.

But the thing that alarmed us was the weapons they were trying to develope.

To get to this company we had to go through some other front company that they had. It was something involved with children. Toys or something like or a hospital, I can't remember exactly.

It was creepy as this company was making money from internet usage. So basicly everytime we pay for internet useage they get a percentage.

trippie wrote:

Taking small steps has not worked in the past and will not work in the future.

Step one is actually being able to articulate the problem.

What is preventing and equatable democracy from forming in Canada, and the rest of the world for that matter?

It's true, small steps won't work if the goal is a participatory democracy in the future. I may have chosen the wrong phrase here, because I was replying to epaulo13 and, looking back, I don't think he meant small steps toward a participatory democracy, but rather a small scale instance of it that was already achieved and subsequently built up. (So it would be like a seedling - already a complete tree in form and function, it just has to grow.)

I don't think anyone has attempted that recently. Many efforts have claimed to be headed toward a participatory democracy, but none of them was a seedling in the sense of already being:

• Participatory according to Mills' definitions of (1) open and (2) critical (see post #64)
• A democracy that's (3) powerful and (4) autonomous
• A small instance of this, but with the promise of growing to full size

Nothing would prevent us from doing that today, except maybe item (3). The enforceability of outcomes (electoral, legislative, etc) will depend on the level of participation. It may take a while - weeks, months or more, depending on the issue - to attract a sufficient number of voting participants. Or maybe that's just a measure of the tree size? So maybe we could do this today, and be the first to attempt it.

Here's a seed that died before it could become a seedling. (Clumsy gardeners, maybe.) Afterward, I wrote up some notes about this approach. I called it "discussion refit". (Maybe "discussion seeding" would be a better name? Or something like that?)

Note: That particular seed included an attempt to get rid of the class system (or some of the injustices associated with it). So maybe it's not a matter of which comes first (social justice or substansive democracy), but the two are bound up together?

Edited to add: Maybe we're already having a little effect. Our pollwiki is being vandalized, apparently because of this thread.

Do you want to try discussion refitting Protrucio? Just to get a feel for it? (It's kind of fun.)

For anyone who wants to try it, we could maybe do a practice run in one of the previous threads (dead seeds). They're unlikely to come to life (I think we botched them from the start) but they're pretty realistic otherwise:

• Social justice in BC
• School trusteeship in Toronto

Which would you prefer? (Speaking for myself, I was surprised by the BC thread: it felt very different to be working on real political issues, rather than just talking about them. I guess it's one of those things you just have to experience.)

Protrucio wrote:

... i would like to try out discussion refitting for sure. I like what you are doing... I think it is valuable and worthwhile.

Thank you! All we did, though, is develop some tools. They aren't worth much in themselves. (Like gardening, it'll be the gardeners who do the work and take the kudos for it.)

Should we do a practice run? I guess you prefer the BC thread. Here's the setup for that:

1. Login to the pollwiki.
2. Go to your position page. (It won't actually exist, yet.)
3. Press the 'create' tab.
4. Press the 'Save page' button. (You get a new, empty position page).
5. Vote for me. (Don't worry, you can change your vote later!)

Then we can go into the BC thread, and hammer out some environmental policy. (Once you're familiar with how it all works, we can look at refitting Wind Concerns discussions, or any others that look promising.)

Quote:

Bolivia's leftist government said Thursday it has begun military training for civilians at army barracks in what the opposition called a first step toward creating pro-government militias.

Weapons instruction and physical training began on Monday for hundreds at military bases in Bolivia's east, a stronghold of the pro-business opposition, and army officials said it would extend to all bases.

The program is reminiscent of one that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez launched in his country after a failed 2002 coup attempt that he blamed on the United States. Venezuela claims it has 120,000 participants.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-lt-bolivia-citizen-m...

Protrucio wrote:

Logged into pollwiki...then went to position page pending content...

OK, looks good!

It'll be easier if you vote for me. Alternatively, I can vote for you if you prefer. (Discussions are mostly between voters, candidates and co-voters. The tools are setup for that. It's a little easier for the voters.) Next:

1. View the diff between our position drafts.
2. Make sure you're logged in.
3. Click the checkbox (frag 1), then press the 'patch' button. If the patch works (usually it does) your position will now be the same as mine. (Don't worry if you disagree with any of the content, we take care of that in the next step.)

Then we're ready to start.

Protrucio wrote:

...gnu gnu

Licence? Here it is, the software is free and open. And the position drafts (and other pollwiki content) are in the public domain.

epaulo13 wrote:

... i agree with you that open, online forms such as babble is an excellent place to work from. we need other places though ....

I'm confident we can do just about any discussion medium, not just Web forums and mailing lists. It'll take time, but I bet we could eventually do face-to-face meetings (using mobile gadgets) and take the politics onto the street. But we'll need to grow to a core of something like 6-12 active users, I imagine, before we could attract the developers for that. (Our tools will be primitive to start with.)

epaulo13 wrote:

... there was a relationship book i once read that encouraged arguing with your partner when friends were around because you were more likely to have a fair fight...

That reminds me of this hilarious story Augusto Boal tells. I hope the link works (page 132, last paragraph).

epaulo13 wrote:

... i've come to the conclusion though that this must be done in a participatory way. no top down. right from the beginning. participatory democracy is the bridge to "living well together" ...

(Me too. It wouldn't feel right at all, if came from the top down.) So I wrote some of this approach up in the wiki. We already talked a bit about it here. It's just rough notes, and hopefully we can improve them together. The most important part right now is the setup instructions. (You'll see we're calling it "guerilla gardening", at least till we think of a better name.)

So Protucio: you're now on step 5 of the instructions (voting). The vote you cast under the alias is OK for test purposes, but it won't work for the real thing. You'll need to vote as yourself. That means you have to log into the pollserver using your OpenID or email (not an alias), and when it asks for an email address, give it the same address as you're using in the pollwiki. So the employmentincentives address is OK, or whatever you want to use in the wiki. (Protucio is saying, "Damn! I should have let epaulo13 go first!")

This stuff is still clumsy to use. Nobody who tries it ever gets it right on the first go. As soon as we have a few active users, I'll start working to make it more user friendly.

OK, looks good! Now you're on step 6 of the setup instructions. The setup is kind of boring, and it may not make sense, at first. But when you're done all 9 steps, we can start planting one of these "seedlings" of participatory democracy (just a practise run) which is more interesting.

If anyone has trouble with the software (login or anything else) please say so. Usually the best place is here (or contact me directly). We actually like to hear about problems (believe it or not!) and you can help us to fix them. This is kind of important, too, because I think the problems will get more interesting, later. We'll actually be doing participatory democracy then (in small ways) and every problem we solve together will help it to grow. (I don't know if others agree, but for me, as a technical guy, this is something that really attracts me to a grassroots approach. I get a strong feeling that it's not just democracy that has to be participatory at this level, but also the development of the tools. How can we have one without the other?)