This is brilliant. Please distribute it far and wide and
implement it !!
Andrew.
Beyond Capitalism , Socialism , Anarchy - The Ultimate
Democracy - Direct Participatory Democracy
Introduction.
In 1991 the Soviet Union, one of the world’s two
Superpowers, ceased to exist. It was dissolved by its
own Parliament. Opposition to this step was minimal.
Most people in the Soviet Union supported the demise of
their State. Ever since the Soviet Union was born in
the Russian Revolution of October 1917 many people all
over the world saw it as the Socialist alternative to
Capitalism. This was so because the Soviet Union
replaced private ownership of industry, commerce, and
agriculture, by State ownership of the entire economy.
Socialism was based on the assumption that State
ownership of the economy will put an end to oppression,
exploitation, inequality. This assumption was refuted
by history. State ownership of the entire economy
existed for decades in the Soviet Union, and in all
‘People’s Democracy’ States but failed to end economic
and political misery. It did not abolish oppression,
exploitation, inequality. It replaced Capitalism by a
dictatorship of State and Party officials. Those who
oppose oppression, exploitation, and inequality must
now suggest an alternative to Socialism as well as to
Capitalism, to Nationalisation as well as to
Privatisation. This pamphlet addresses this need.
Socialism (and Anarchy) emerged during the industrial
revolution. Capitalist , Socialist and Anarchist
thinkers were the first to consider the impact of
industrialization on society, morality, and politics.
They revolutionized political thinking 150 years ago.
Today we undergo a revolution of the means of
communication but Capitalist , Socialist and Anarchist
thinking ignores the impact of this revolution on
politics. It is stuck where its founders put it 150
years ago. This pamphlet suggests a new way of running
a State and an Economy by applying the electronic
communication revolution to decision making. This opens
up political possibilities unimaginable a mere 20 years
ago.
An establishment political thinker recently wrote:
“Some form of managed Capitalism and a rather diluted,
not very participatory liberal democracy, is what
history has in store for mankind, and that is that...
dreams of a leap into some radically new world have to
be abandoned.” {Alan Ryan, Warden of New College,
Oxford, “Whatever happened to the Left” The New York
Review of Books, Oct. 17, 1996. p. 42}
This pamphlet proposes a leap into a democracy so
participatory as to make all former political systems
look like so many varieties of dictatorship. If enough
people desire this system the 21st Century will be very
different from a “rather diluted, not very
participatory liberal democracy “. Dare you consider a
new alternative to Capitalism\Socialism\Anarchy, a
DIRECT Participatory Democracy running
Work\Education\State without representatives of any
sort ?
Autonarchy
Direct Participatory Democracy For the 21st Century.
Briefly
The collapse of the Soviet Union has driven many to
conclude that all alternatives to Capitalism are bound
to fail and no alternative to Capitalism is ever
possible. Ethnic wars erupting after the collapse of
the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia led many to conclude
that the only solution to ethnic strife is by creating
separate nation-states for each ethnic group. These
conclusions are premature.
The Soviet Union was ruled by a few leaders, and an
appointed, unaccountable, self-perpetuating,
bureaucracy. All decisions on politics, economics, and
culture, were made by a few officials. 99% of the
population were denied authority to make political
decisions.Domination of politics, economics, and
culture by a few officials is not an attractive
alternative to Capitalism.It is a dictatorship of State
and Party officials. Today we can have a political
system far more democratic than Capitalism and far more
egalitarian than Socialism. Today we can have a State
where every citizen can vote at any moment directly -
without representatives - on every decision of the
State, at Work, in Education. A State based on the
right of every citizen to propose and vote on every
political decision is an Autonarchy meaning a political
system of self - rule. Autonarchy must be applied to
work and education. Employees must have the right to
propose and vote on every decision related to their
work, and students/staff/parents must have the right to
propose and vote on all decisions concerning education.
Innovations in electronic communication since 1980 make
such a system possible. Strife between nations, races,
tribes, or religious denominations, stems from
persecution, discrimination, and laws granting group-
rights to one group while denying them to others. The
solution to such strife is not by separating the groups
and creating separate states for each group but by laws
granting minorities all group-rights enjoyed by the
majority. Such laws establish a pluralistic state which
treats all groups as equals irrespective of their size.
The core of every political system is a priority
principle. It determins perference, and provides
justification and motivation for individuals
functioning in that system. The priority principle of
Capitalism is individual self-centredness. The priority
principle of racism is racial self-centredness. The
priority principle of sexism is sexual self-
centredness. Theocracy stems from religious self-
centredness. Nationalism stems from ethnic self-
centredness. The priority principle of Autonarchy is:
Needs of the poorest must be attended before needs of
the less poor. Needs of the sickest must be attended
before needs of the less sick. Excepting these two
needs of the many must be attended before needs of the
few. Protecting species from extinction and Nature from
destruction and pollution are compulsory. All people,
despite all differences between them, have equal
political authority. Autonarchy is political Humanism,
it rejects the priority of any self-centredness. It
strives for : 1. A state run directly by all citizens
and places of work run directly by all employees. 2. A
law granting minority groups every group-right granted
to the majority. 3. Active opposition to all
discrimination and oppression.
Clarification.
Socialism or Autonarchy ?
“Socialism” has many meanings. Anyone using this term
must provide a clear definition. It isn’t enough to
speak of “Social Justice” since “Justice” has many
meanings too. It is inadequate to speak about “a regime
which has abolished exploitation” since it isn’t clear
what exploitation means where State ownership of the
economy has replaced private ownership. Defining
oneself politically by struggling against evils of an
existing political system is inadequate, one must
propose an alternative political system to replace the
one that breeds the injustices. Opposing oppression and
exploitation without proposing alternative political
system leaves the ruling system intact. The system
acts, the opposition reacts. Those who struggle against
evils of a political system but do not offer an
alternative to that system are politically impotent.
Anyone struggling to replace a political system must
propose a clear, positive, alternative system to
replace the rejected system.
The Socialist alternative to Capitalism is:”State
ownership of the entire economy”. All regimes based on
this principle have degenerated into dictatorships of
officials. This is not an accident due to special
cicumstances. It is a structural feature of any State
and Economy run by representatives, be they political
leaders, officials, or experts. In all Socialist States
(and Parties) political power is in the hands of a few
political leaders. ‘Power’ is authority to make
decisions. ‘Political Power’ is authority to make
decisions binding an entire society. In all Socialist
states 99% of the citizens cannot influence decisions
affecting every aspect of their lives. All decisions
are made by a few leaders. There is an immense,
inherent, inequality in political power between leaders
and led in all Socialist states and Parties . Socialist
thinkers searched for a political system based on
equality without exploitation or oppression but rule by
representatives, hierarchical leadership, and State
rule of the economy in all socialist States and
Parties, produced dictatorships of a few leaders.
‘Socialism’ is inextricably associated with rule by
State or Party leaders. Nobody wants to live in such a
system today.
All Political systems are based on priority principles.
The priority principle of original Socialism was
Equality. Its motto :”Treat all people as equals
despite all differences between them”. Communists
applied equality to ownership, Social Democrats - to
social opportunities. Communists insisted on State
ownership of the economy, so as to abolish inequality
of property owned. Social-Democrats established state
funded education and health services to provide equal
opportunity for further development of all citizens.
Both failed to abolish economic and political
inequality and misery. None of them applied equality to
political authority or to authority at work, in
education, or in the family.Socialist Anarchists insist
on equality of authority but oppose any State. Their
alternative to Capitalism is a federation of self-
managed communes aiding each other. They still disagree
on the structure of decision-making in their
communes.Many Anarchist reject rule by majority
decisions. Some insist on communes of not more than
1000 voters. This is inadequate for running a modern
industrial society. Autonarchy applies equality not to
ownership but to political authority in a State.
Autonarchy means equal authority of every citizen to
decide every issue of State, Work, Education. Applying
equality to authority in the State means : Every
citizen has the right to propose and to vote on every
political decision. No extra political authority to any
citizen at any time.
In short:” Every citizen - one vote - on every
political decision”. Without equal political authority
of every citizen all the time there is no democracy.
Equality of authority at work means that all employees
have the right to propose and vote on every decision
related to their work. This includes all decisions on
profits, investments, hiring and firing. Applying
Autonarchy in a site of education means that
educational staff, students, and students’ parents,
have equal authority to decide all matters of
education.Applying equality to authority in the family
means that wife and husband have equal authority to
make all decisions of the family, and from a certain
age so have the children.
The system known today as “Democracy” allows citizens
to decide who will make political decisions on their
behalf. This makes people believe they decide how their
society is run. It creates the illusion that they are
free. Voters do not run society nor are they free.
Voters are free only to decide who will decide for
them. They have to live by decisions made by
representatives hence they are not free.
To be free is to live by one’s own decisions.
People can never be completely free in society. In any
society, even in the smallest anarchist commune,
everyone’s freedom is limited by other people’s
freedom. For a society to be viable its members must
agree to overcome disagreements by majority decisions
which limit the minority’s freedom. A society cannot be
run by consensus. Representative Democracy is freedom
to decide who will make decisions on behalf of others.
Elections grant political authority to representatives.
Free elections are freedom to choose rulers. You are
free to decide who will decide for you. This is
preferable to Monarchy or Dictatorship where a single,
unelected, ruler decides for everyone else, but it is
not political freedom. Political freedom exists only
when every citizen has the right to decide every
political issue.
Rule by representatives is legitimized by two
arguments:
It is technically impossible for all citizens to vote
on every political decision. 2. Political decisions
require skills most citizens lack.
The first argument has become obsolete after the recent
revolution of electronic communication. The second
argument was always false.
Let us examine the second argument. To decide is to
choose. To “make a decision” is “to choose one out of a
number of possibilities”. If only one possibility is
available there is nothing to choose and hence nothing
to decide. When two possibilities are available we have
to decide\choose which to accept. To choose is to
PREFER. PREFERENCE IS NOT A MATTER OF EXPERTISE. It is
a matter of priorities. Expertise is required for
clarifying the possibilities available, and for
predicting the outcome of a choice. Predicting an
outcome is very different from choosing an outcome.
Predicting requires expertise. Choosing is a matter of
preference. There is no expertise for preference, nor
can there ever be. Preferences stem from priority
principles, not from expertise.
When a doctor tells a patient:’If you accept my
proposals you’ll live, if you dont you’ll die’, it is
the patient, a non-expert, who has to choose. The
doctor, an expert, only explains the possibilities.
Patients’ choices depend on their preferences, not on
expertise. Many prefer death to life as disabled, in
pain, or in prison. Millions prefer ‘Death before
Dishonour’, or ‘To die for God / King /Country /
Freedom’. There are no ‘Objective’ criteria to
determine preference. Preference depends on priority
principles, which are arbitrary. Personal survival is
not, nor was it ever, an ultimate priority principle.
The citizens of Athens discussed - 25 centuries ago -
whether political decision-making requires a special
talent or skill. Their conclusion was: “Every cook can
govern”. Although they excluded slaves and women they
chose their rulers by lot. Extending this to our era
means: every person, whatever her/his knowledge or
experience, is as good as any other when it comes to
prefer\\\\choose between political options. The
Athenians applied this to their politics, they invented
dimo-cratia. Rule by the population.
Can those believing that political decision-making
requires special skills tell us what special skills, or
talents, do John Major, Tony Blair, Kohl, Chirac,
Yeltsin or Clinton, have, that qualify them to make
political decision behalf of millions?
Some History
Rule by direct voting in meetings of soldiers, workers,
and peasants, emerged spontaneously in the Russian
revolutions of 1905 and 1917 and was crushed by Lenin
who came to power in 1917 by advocating this form of
governance. The reappearance of the demand for equal
authority to decide matters of State, Work, Education,
occured during the general strike in France in May
1968. This strike - the greatest in history, in scope
and significance - paralyzed France in 1968. It began
by Paris students protesting against outdated
University regulations. The police attacked the
students with truncheons. The students fought back.
Battles between students and police lasted a few days.
Young workers, outraged by police violence, came to
help the students. Absence of young workers from the
factories paralyzed production. Gradually other workers
joined in. Transport workers, teachers, government
employees, the entire education and health sectors and
finally even the prostitutes...
An entire modern society ground to a standstill during
a period of peace and economic prosperity. By the end
of May 1968 everybody was on strike. No political Party
or Trade Union called for, or planned, this strike. All
Parties and Unions opposed it. Stranger still - the
demands of the strike were not economic. Why did the
entire population of France stop working during a time
of economic prosperity, peace, and free elections,
without raising economic demands ? The strike was
utterly unexpected and more widespread than anyone had
ever seen. The strikers did not raise economic demands.
Instead, meetings took place in universities, in
neighbourhoods, factories, schools, hospitals, even in
mental asylums. These meetings began to manage their
areas of concern. People discussed issues neglected or
ignored by the authorities, and voted on proposals for
improvements. In schools, pupils, teachers, and
parents, jointly discussed education and voted on
proposals for improvements. Pupils had the same vote as
parents or teachers.
This repeated itself everywhere. ‘Action Committees’
sprang up in neighbourhoods all over the country.
‘Self-management’ was the guiding principle. France’s
President, General De-Gaul, panicked and fled to
Germany trying to bring the French Army stationed there
to surround Paris and crush the strike. Meetings of
soldiers decided against this and it came to nothing.
Soldiers’ decisions overuled the General’s decisions.
Generals can decide whatever they like, if soldiers
make their own decisions they overule the Generals’.
Trade Unions’ officials saw the strike as a threat to
their authority.
Why ?
Because when meetings of employees make all decisions
concerning work Trade Unions become redundant. Owners
too. Decision making by employees solves the ownership
problem. By making all decisions about their work
employees become owners. To ‘own’ something means to
have authority to make all decisions about it. Whoever
has authority to make all decisions concerning X , owns
X. Ownership by employees is far more efficient than
ownership by private or corporate owners. Tedium and
profit can be divided by common consent without strikes
or unemployment. No one knows work better than those
who do it. Employee Autonarchy can consult experts to
find out the possibilities available, but choosing
between possibilities must be done by the employees,
not by the experts, just as is done today by owners or
their representatives who consult experts.
As for the Unions, they have long ago become fiefs of
officials whose corruption stems from knowing that
employees can represent themselves directly yet hiding
this from the employees while hinting to employers that
it is in their interest to negotiate with Union
officials rather than directly with employees. In
modern industrial societies Union officials are
concerned more with ruling employees than with serving
employee interests. Meetings of employees can represent
themselves directly far better than Union officials.
Trade Unions today are an essential component of
Capitalism. They are safety valves regulating tensions
between employees and employers to keep Capitalism
functioning. They stand - and fall - with the
representative system. Some Capitalists strive to
replace Unions by private contracts with employees. The
regime of private contracts is worse than rule by
Unions.
Both must be replaced by Employee Autonarchy at work.
Employee Autonarchy on national, trade, and firm,
level, can solve all econmic problems. Trade Union
officials will resist any attempt to change Capitalism
and rule by representatives, into Autonarchy. So will
every employer. The ‘Action Committees’ in France in
May 1968 dealt also with general problems of society
and took political decisions. This made Political
Parties obsolete. All Political Parties, including
Communist Parties all over the world, fought viciously
against the French strike. They called it “Student
Hooliganism”, withheld information about it, distorted
facts, peddled lies.
Why ?
When mass-meetings make political decisions they over-
rule all representatives including Political Parties.
When people vote directly on all political issues,
representatives, be they individuals or Parties, lose
their authority. That is why in 1917 Lenin hurriedly
changed the slogan that brought him to power :”All
power to the workers and soldiers COUNCILS” into: “All
power to the Bolshevik PARTY”. Lenin’s Party crushed
the workers councils, first legally (1918),later
militarily (Kronstadt, 1921). Trotsky led the military
attack on the strikers in Kronstadt, and executed those
taken prisoner... In 1968, when the French Unions and
Communist Party realized they lose credibility by
opposing the strike, they joined it so as to take it
over and use it for their own purposes. The French
Communist Party ordered its Union, the C.G.T., to
demand a wage increase to buy off the workers and stop
the strike. Pompidou’s government realized that the
Communist Party wanted to save itself, and the system
of representatives, and agreed to a 15% increase of
basic wages, plus a reduction in working hours. To
everybody’s surprise the workers rejected this offer.
They declared : “We do not want a larger slice of the
economic cake, we want to run the bakery”. This demand
was, of course, rejected by the French government, by
the Communist Party, and by the Trade Unions. Accepting
it would have made them all redundant. Gradually, after
weeks of strike people began to drift back to work and
the strike gradually subsided.
Why ?
The reason for the failure of this unique strike was
the inability of the strikers to unify the decisions of
all meetings all over the country into a single
decision. Society must have the means to unify many
decisions into a single decision. This is necessary for
running an electricity grid, transport and
communication systems, health and education services,
etc. The main justification for Central Government is
its role as unifier of decisions. The inability of the
strikers to produce an alternative system for unifying
many decisions taken all over the country into a single
decision binding the entire society enabled the Central
Government to reassert its authority. Gradually the old
system of representatives in France reasserted itself.
Is this the end of the story ? NO WAY ! The motives for
this strike have not disappeared. Quite the opposite.
The motives for the 1968 strike are stronger today than
ever before, not only in France but everywhere. The
1968 strike in France was directed against antiquated
authority relations, against hypocrisy and corruption
of politicians, against all Political Parties and
Unions, and against the inability of citizens to have a
say in decisions affecting their lives. These motives
are stronger today than in the past. Since 1960 at
least 40% of the electorate in the USA never bothered
to vote in any election to Congress and at least 30%
didn’t vote for Presidents.
People abstain because they find elections ineffective
in bringing about real change. Today, as in 1968,
Political Parties and leaders inspire boredom and
disgust. Most voters in the West today vote “against”,
not “for”. The 1968 strike was unexpected and faced
problems never faced before, it lacked means to unify
decisions taken all over the country into a single
decision . This enabled the French government in 1968
to reassert its authority. Today electronic
communication provide the means to solve this problem
in a new manner.
Magnetic Card Direct Democracy ( M.C.D.D.)
Personal computers, Computer networks, magnetic-card
technology, faxes, cellular telephones, and
communication satellites, did not exist in 1968. Today
their use is widespread. Millions today use magnetic
cards daily to handle their finances. Autobank
Computers add decisions taken by millions of magnetic
cards and display the totals within seconds. By
equipping every telephone with a magnetic card-reading
device magnetic card technology handling our money can
easily be adapted to handle our politics.
It can add, within seconds, decisions made by millions
of citizens, and display totals immediately and
continously on TV. Direct voting on every political
issue, and proposing decisions to vote on, by each and
every citizen, never possible in the past, is possible
today. The technical reasons for having representatives
are no longer valid. The old battle cry of the citizens
against the absolute authority of the King: “ No
taxation without representation” must be changed today
into a new battle cry against all forms of
representative authority : “ NO DECISION OBEYED WITHOUT
THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT “.
It is technically possible today for every citizen to
propose and vote by means of a magnetic card on any
issue at any time and to see vote totals on TV within
seconds. Direct Participatory Democracy is on the
cards, technically, and historically. It will replace
the complicated and expensive system of Representative
Democracy. It is far more democratic than Rule by
Representatives. It is the ultimate democracy. It is
too democratic for many democrats. It will save a lot
of money by abolishing all jobs of political
representatives, deputies, officials, etc. NO ONE WILL
BE PAID FOR MAKING POLITICAL DECISIONS. This will save
millions spent on running Houses of Representatives,
Governements, Presidents. Moreover, it will abolish
corruption and favouritism. No one will have extra
authority worth buying. Buying and selling votes will
be a criminal offence. Political Parties will have to
change from vote collectors into spreaders of ideas.
Autonarchy means ‘self rule’, direct rule by all
citizens.
Autonarchy is not Socialism, Socialism is rule by the
Socialist Party, and State ownership of the economy.
Autonarchy is direct rule by all citizens with
employees ruling their places of work. Autonarchy is
not Anarchy. Anarchy means ‘without rules’ or State,
Autonarchy is a State run directly by all its citizens.
Autonarchy combines aspirations of original Socialism
and Anarchism for a society based on freedom, justice
and equality, updating them for the 21st Century.
Today most people earn their living by selling time,
skill, or ability, to a private or corporate employer.
Early Socialism considered industrial workers as the
bearer of positive changes in society and took up their
struggle. An egalitarian alternative to Capitalism
today can no longer base itself on industrial workers
alone. It must include clerical workers, teachers,
medical staff, agricultural workers, and housewives,
who do not figure as workers at all but constitute half
the population and are never paid for their work.
Today only those who raise demands for decision-making
authority of all citizens, on every issue of the State
and Work, challenge Capitalism.
Modern technology and social reality make possible an
alternative to Socialism as well as Capitalism, more
democratic and egalitarian than both. Those seeking
such an alternative must change their aim from the rule
of one class (industrial workers) over the rest of
society, to Direct Participatory Democracy of all
citizens not ruled by any class. Socialism aimed to
replace rule of owners of the means of production by
rule of industrial workers. This suited a social
reality that existed until the 1950s. A new
technological and social reality exists today and
requires a change in the aims of those seeking
egalitarian alternatives to Capitalism. Socialists and
Anarchists have not adapted to the new reality, they
have not come up with a new idea for 150 years. They
have failed to update their proposals for alternatives
to capitalism and will be irrelevant to most people in
the 21st Century. Autonarchy is a new alternative to
Capitalism. It applies equality to decision-making in
the State, at Work, in Education, and in the family.
Autonarchy is rule not by a class but directly by all
citizens, where every citizen has equal authority to
propose, and vote on, every political decision, and no
citizen represents others. Voters can appoint people to
carry out decisions but those appointed must have no
authority to make policy decisions and be recallable
any time. Appointees’ authority must be like that of
Ambassadors, who carry out foreign policy but do not
decide foreign policy.
Socialists still insisting on the “Dictatorship of the
Proletariat” must say so publicly and include their
insistence on class dictatorship in their political
programmes. The technological and social reality of
1848, when the struggle for the rule of the industrial
working class was progressive, is like the Stone Age
compared to the social reality of today. The tremendous
changes in society and technology must be met by new
alternatives to both private and state ownership of the
economy. Anyone striving to advance political freedom
beyond Representative Democracy (An Oligarchy which
grants political authority to a few representatives)
must accept the authority of every citizen to make
political decisions, and implement the means to do so.
Direct Democracy makes Representative Democracy
obsolete. Direct Democracy is Peoples’ Power without
brokers and middle-men for political power. Direct rule
by all citizens will replace governance by
representatives. There is no shred of doubt that
despite all expected opposition Autonarchy will replace
antiquated Representative Democracy. This change will
abolish the mystification of politics and the political
alienation of the vast majority of the population. Most
people today consider ‘Politics’ a dirty business which
must nevertheless go on. ‘Politics’ is simply the
making of decisions for an entire society. There is
nothing dirty about it. The dirt which clings to
politics stems from behaviour of political
representatives. Rule by Representatives breeds
corruption due to its unequal distribution of political
authority. Representatives have political authority
while those they represent do not. Authority to make
political decisions grants many benefits, so
Representatives use their authority in order to remain
in office, they bribe the electorate and backstab their
rivals, while those who vote for Representatives demand
benefits for voting for them. This is the classic
‘Roussfeti Representative System’ of ‘you scratch my
back and I’ll scratch yours’
Rule by Representatives - not politics - is the source
of corruption and gives politics a bad name. Rule by
Representatives, not Politics, is at fault. People
tolerate representatives, knowing they are corrupt,
because they see no other way for running society.
People have not yet realized that modern communication
and information technology makes it possible to abolish
Rule by Representatives. Why be re-presented when you
can be present ? We no longer need to sit in a hall and
raise our hands to be counted, or put a slip of paper
in the ballot box. Today we can pass our magnetic card
through a slit and decide policy directly by pressing a
key or we can visit an internet site and vote or make a
phone call to a computer counting device . Today
presence can be electronic, It need not be physical.
Millions can participate in policy debates on TV by
phone-in and vote by magnetic card. The technical
reasons for decision-making through representatives are
no longer valid. This does not mean that the system of
representatives will disappear of its own. Vicious
resistance to Autonarchy is inevitable. It will come
from those who will lose authority, status, and income,
when Autonarchy is implemented.
The main argument against Autonarchy is that of
political expertise. Opponents of Autonarchy argue that
political decisions require special skills which most
people lack. Any research into the special skills of
political leaders reveals that it consists of two
skills : Hypocrisy and Conspiracy. Hypocrisy is
essential for dealing with voters, Conspiracy - for
dealing with rivals. This is not a denounciation.
Anyone involved in traditional politics knows this to
be a fact of (traditional) political life. No
representative can succeed without expertise in
Hypocrisy and Conspiracy. Those who rise to the top are
best in these two skills. This is true whenever
decisions are taken by representatives on behalf of
others. No other skill is required for becoming a
political representative of others. The Minister of
Health is rarely a Doctor, nor the Minister of Defence
a General. Politics is ‘decisions binding an entire
society’. Making decisions means choosing one out of a
number of options. To choose is to answer the question
: “ what is preferable ? “ Expertise does not determine
preference.It never did. It answers the question “ what
are the possibilities ?” Experts can predict outcomes
of choices, but choosing between outcomes is different
from predicting outcomes, it is a matter of preference.
There is no expert for preferences. Preferences are
determined by priority principles, not by expertise. No
skill is required for making political choices and any
person is as capable as any other for choosing one out
of the available options. What special skill,
experience, or talent, do John Major, Kohl, Chirac,
Yeltsin, or Clinton have, personally, or in common,
that qualify them to make political decisions on behalf
of millions of people ?
Autonarchy demystifies politics and solves many
political problems. It cannot solve all political
problems. No political system can ever solve all
political problems. Society and the individuals it
produces change and so do political problems. There is
no guarantee that decisions taken by Direct Democracy
will always produce positive outcomes (however one
defines “positive” and “negative”). No political system
can produce, necessarily, only positive decisions.
Direct Democracy can produce disastrous decisions just
like Representative Democracy but in Representative
Democracy disastrous decision bring about - at best - a
change of representatives, whereas in Direct Democracy
they can lead to a reconsideration, and change, of the
assumptions and priority principle that led to the
disastrous decision. Direct Democracy implies direct
responsibility for the outcome of decisions. Those who
voted for a decision are responsible for the results of
that decision.
Indirect - representative - democracy, implies indirect
responsibility. Those who voted for a representative
are not responsible for every decision by their
representative. Representation absolves voters from
responsibility for decisions taken by representatives.
Voters can shift responsibility onto representatives.In
case of an undesirable outcome of a decision by
representatives voters may change representatives but
they rarely change the considerations that led them to
elect these representatives. In Autonarchy decision-
makers must reconsider the reasons that led them to
vote for decisions producing undesirable outcomes. When
decision-making is direct responsibility is direct. By
re-considering their priorities for decisions that
produced undesirable outcome people can modify them.
Those who do not understand that their own decisions
led to undesired outcomes will make the same decisions
again and again. Those who do understand can break out
of this vicious circle. This is a natural self-evolving
self-regulating process . Understanding and improved
awareness makes possible liberation from repetitive
undesired outcomes.
In Direct Democracy the ruled are the rulers. This
makes them directly responsible for their society and
restores their sense of being active shapers of society
and community. This sense has been destroyed by the
egocentrism advocated by Capitalism and by citizens
lack of responsibility for political decisions made by
their representatives.
When citizens make all political decisions directly
they are not alienated by politics and change from
passives cogs in a bureaucratic apparatus into
conscious shapers of their society.
State and Ethnicity.
A State consists of the laws and everything required
for making laws, enforcing laws and defending them
against internal and external opponents. Briefly : The
Laws are the core of the State. Ethnicity is membership
in a cultural group. There are States whose laws grant
rights according to ethnic belonging. If there are more
than one ethnic group in such a state but only the
majority group is granted group-rights, ethnic strife
is bound to occur. A common solution to
ethnic/racial/tribal/religious strife, is a state with
a majority of one group and laws granting rights to
that group while denying them to others. A different
solution is a State whose laws grant equal group-rights
to all ethnic/tribal/racial/religious groups
irrespective of their size. This is a Pluralistic
State. Ethnic/Tribal/Racial/Religious States do not put
an end to strife, they transfer it from the social
domain to the political domain, from strife within the
State to strife between States. Only laws granting each
minority the same group-rights granted to the majority
can abolish the causes for strife. The laws must enable
each minority to cultivate its cultural heritage and
its language, and protect its members from persecution
and discrimination. The State must enforce those laws.
The ‘equal group-rights to all minorities’ law must be
protected from change by the majority. This contradicts
the democratic principle of majority-rule but is
necessary for avoiding strife. This can be done by
declaring this law as a Basic Law which can be changed
only by a very large majority. Laws granting equal
group-rights to all minorities irrespective of size
will be defended by all minorities.
By defending this law they defend themselves. Every
majority can one day become a minority. A law granting
all cultural groups the same group rights irrespective
of their size will put an end to cultural strife. South
Africa today as ruled by the African National Congress
shows that such a system is possible even after many
years of racist strife. The ANC regime functions well
despite all difficulties and residues of a long and
cruel history of racial discrimination and oppression.
Where there is pluralism there is a way. Where there is
no pluralism there is strife. Not because there is no
way, but because pluralism was rejected. Those who
reject pluralism are responsible for the consequent
strife. If people want a pluralistic state they can set
it up despite all difficulties. Autonarchy’s solution
to ethnic/tribal/racial/religious strife is a
Pluralistic State.
5. Priority principles
Every law and every political system is a result of
decisions based on a priority principle. Priority
principles create preference, motivation, and
justification. There are four main priority principles:
Ego-, Ethno-, Theo-, and Anthropo - centred. In other
words, Self interest, National interest, God’s
interest, or Humanity’s interest - however one
interprets them - as priorities determining
preferences. Priority principles determine preferences,
and preferences are - necessarily - mutually exclusive.
You can prefer only one out of two possibilities, never
both. People acquire their particular priority
principle from parents, teachers, tradition, or some
psychological need. The devoutly religious put loyalty
to God before loyalty to Self, Nation, or Humanity.
Some of them aspire to a State whose laws are the laws
of their religion and whose rulers are their religious
leaders. Iran is an example. Its leaders reject rule by
majority (Demos-cratia) because they believe that
religious leaders know better than the majority what is
good for the majority. This is Theo-centrism. It
prefers Theocracy to Democracy.
Capitalism is founded on the priority principle of
personal self-interest. Its moto: “my interests above
all else”. Many believe this is ‘Natural’ since animals
in nature behave in this manner. Actually there are
various behaviour patterns in nature, but even if all
animals behaved selfishly it proves nothing about human
society. Society exists because it restrains biological
drives. Human society is not a product of Nature but of
restraints imposed upon nature, hence conclusions drawn
from biology are mostly inapplicable to sociology.
Biological justification of politics is a common
fallacy of racists\sexists. Laws are not imposed on
society by Nature\\\\God\\\\History\\\\Reason. They are
made by living people, who interpret
Nature\\\\God\\\\History\\\\Reason in various ways.
Some think God is omnipotent, others think God is a
superstition. Some think Nature, History, or Reason,
are omnipotent others think they are materials which
can be shaped in various ways.
Autonarchy is Anthropocentric, it rejects personal,
national, and religious, self-centredness. The priority
principle of Autonarchy is the well-being of all
people. However, Needs of the poorest must be attended
before needs of the less poor and needs of the sickest
before needs of the less sick. Excepting these two
needs of the many must be attended before needs of the
few. Protecting species from extinction and Nature from
destruction and pollution is compulsory. This is
Humanism. It treats all people as equals despite all
differences between them.
Autonarchy differs from Capitalism by its
priorities.The priority principle of Capitalism is
Egocentrism, whereas the priority principle of
Autonarchy is Anthropocentrism. Their different
positions on ownership and authority stem from their
different priority principles. Attempts to merge
anthropocentrism with ego\\\\ethno\\\\theo -centrism
were tried, and failed. Such attempts produce a facade
of one priority veiling another, dominant, one.
Priority principles determine preferences. As it is
impossible to make a choice without a preference every
person must have a priority principle. As priorities
are mutually exclusive every person has at any given
moment, one, and only one, priority principle, (which
can of course be changed). Different priority
principles produce different political systems. When
the majority prefers personal self interest the
political outcome is Capitalism. When the majority
prefers national self interest the political outcome is
Nationalism. A majority upholding religious self
interest gives rise to Theocracy. When the majority
rejects all forms of selfishness and upholds Humanism
and political equality the political outcome is
Autonarchy.
Socialists assumed that private ownership of industry,
commerce, and agriculture must produce economic crises,
poverty and misery, and must drive people to establish
State ownership of the entire economy. Economic misery
was supposed to drive most people to establish
Socialism. These assumptions were proved wrong after
W.W.2 . Government intervention in the economy can
overcome economic crises and prolong Capitalism
indefinitely. Moreover, facts (including economic
misery) do not contain meanings of their own. People
give meanings to facts and do so according to their
priority principles. Human beings are not only tool-
makers, they are also meaning-makers. Facts have no
meaning of their own. Their meanings depend on their
interpreters. An egoist, a nationalist, and a humanist
will give different meanings to the same fact, each
contradicting the other two. Meanings depend on
priority principles, not on facts.
State ownership of the economy in a society where most
people are self-centered will be a variant of
Capitalism. State ownership of the economy in a society
where the majority is Theo-centric will be a Theocracy.
Political systems are shaped by priority principles not
by ownership relations. The same means of production
can give rise to different political systems each
shaped by a different priority principle. Iraq and Iran
are an example. One is guided by Ethnocentrism, the
other by Theo-centrism. Authority too is shaped by
priority principles. It is often imposed by force. In a
modern industrial society authority is based on consent
rather than coercion. Consent can be due to a belief
that there exists no alternative. Today social,
technical, and political conditions make Autonarchy a
feasible alternative to Capitalism but most people are
unaware of this alternative. If those desiring
Autonarchy promote it vigorously they could be in for a
surprise. On May 1st 1968 nobody in France imagined
that by the end of the month the whole country will be
on strike...
IS AUTONARCHY POSSIBLE ?
Dear David,
Thanks for your letter. Since the collapse of the USSR
all discussions on alternatives to Capitalism have
stopped. Socialists stopped suggesting State ownership
of the economy. Anarchists barely mention communes. The
collapse of the USSR has ruled out Socialism as an
alternative to Capitalism. The anarchist option cannot
even be tested by history due to its rejection of any
kind of State. As a result all those who reject
Capitalism nowadays produce critiques of Capitalism but
no alternatives to replace it. We must go beyond
criticizing and start to consider new alternatives.
Return to ‘True Marxism’, ‘True Leninsm’, Trotskyism,
or Anarchism, is backward looking. Marx, Bakunin,
Lenin, or Trotsky, knew nothing about Magnetic Cards,
Computers, Satellites, Optical fibres. These
technologies were beyond the boundaries of their
imagination. The political implications of electronic
communications and information technology revolution
are ignored by all political thinkers. The
revolutionary changes in communications technology make
it possible, for the first time in history, to transfer
and add up millions of decisions taken far apart into a
single total in seconds and to display it continuously
on millions of TV screens , computer monitors or mobile
phones . Political decision-making by millions of
people is now possible. Politics is decision-making,
and when means of communications change, decision-
making changes. Traditional political thinkers, Left,
Right, and Centre, ignore the consequences of the
communications revolution on political decision-making
and thereby render themselves irrelevant to 21st
Century politics. We need NEW ideas taking account of
new technologies, not return to old ones. Political
systems like those of the USSR/China are outdated and
reactionary. We need a political system more democratic
than Capitalism and more egalitarian than Socialism.
Magnetic Card Direct Democracy (M.C.D.D.) is such a
system. It can also be named Autonarchy meaning Self -
rule.
You asked : “ How can 200 million people rule
themselves directly ? “ What about production,
distribution, police, courts, and the army ? “ How can
one guarantee that a small group will not take over
power ? “ What about the Constitution ?’ Let me try to
answer your questions :
FIRST. Every telephone must be equipped with a magnetic
card-reading device enabling users to pass a magnetic
card through a slit and send its data to a local
computer as is done in supermarkets today. This dials a
number . One then slides the card through the slit for
identification. Computer programs at the other end
check the identity and prepare for further input , just
like an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) at a bank. Every
citizen will have an additional secret PIN (Personal
Identification Number), or Voiceprint, to prevent
people from using cards that do not belong to them. In
remote areas wireless telephones will transmit this
data via satellite to the computer. People’s decisions
enter computers, which add up totals. This technology
functions in most banks and supermarkets all over the
world today. In the 21st Century much of telephone
transmission will be by optical fibres greatly
increasing capacity and speed. Using this technology
every citizen can make every political decision. The
guiding principle of Autonarchy is: EVERY CITIZEN CAN
PROPOSE AND VOTE ON EVERY POLITICAL DECISION.
Magnetic card technology can easily handle 200 million
data inputs. A million or two can be fed into a local
computers calculating totals to pass on to central
computers. Solutions to problems of production,
distribution, etc, will be given by panels of experts
for production and distribution when facing the need to
do so. There is a fundamental difference between
creating solutions to social and political problems and
DECIDING WHICH SOLUTION TO USE. Experts invent
solutions to problems. Politics is about deciding which
solution to use. Many believe expertise grants
authority to decide.It does not. Deciding is choosing.
Choosing depends on preference. Preference is not a
result of expertise, it stems from a priority
principle. Priorities have nothing to do with
expertise. They are shaped by upbringing, education,
beliefs. Every decision depends on a priority principle
and so do solutions to political problems. There are no
“Objective” decisions in politics. Decisions depends on
priority principles. The core of a political system is
its decision-making system. This depends on two
factors:
1. WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO MAKE POLITICAL DECISIONS ? 2.
WHAT PRIORITY PRINCIPLE GUIDES THE DECISION-MAKERS ?
Suggesting a system for decision-making and a priority
principle to guide decision-makers is all we can do
today. Solutions to actual problems will be suggested
by experts who will take into account circumstances we
cannot foresee. In Autonarchy all citizens will decide
which solution to use. Do you want to impose solutions
without familiarity with actual circumstances ? Do you
want to tell workers how to run their work ? All we can
do today is win people over to our egalitarian,
Humanist, priority principle. If people share our
priority they’ll decide like us when facing actual
problems. Restructuring the Police, the Courts, the
Army, will be topical when the majority will demand
this. At present it does not. What is topical today is
the disgust with representative democracy. In the last
elections in the USA 51% of the electorate didn’t
bother to vote ! This shows the enthusiasm people feel
for politics by representatives. Our task today is to
convince the 51% there is another way to run society.
First we must deal with the structure of decision-
making, later - with specific solutions. SECOND.
Proposals to vote on can be grouped like government
departments today. All TV sets will be fitted with
cable\\\\dish reception providing many channels. Some
channels will be permanently dedicated to political
decision-making. TV will show all proposals and vote
totals in every government department. Every proposal
will require three votings before it becomes binding
for the entire society. A first vote will determine if
a proposal is accepted by a necessary minimum of
people. Proposals failing to receive a required minimum
(say 1% of those entitled to vote) will be dropped.
They can be proposed again later. Proposals achieving
the required minimum will be discussed on TV by panels
of experts. Citizens will have the right to question
experts by phone, and to add new proposals. These
discussions can go on as long as the majority desires.
After hearing experts’ opinions on possible outcomes of
various decisions a second vote takes place. Voters
dial a number, identify themselves by their magnetic
card, and key in the number of the proposal and their
decision on it: 1 = YES, 0 = NO, 2=ABSTAIN. Computers
add up the totals and display them on TV. Allowing time
to study decisions that passed the second vote, a
final, third, vote is taken on proposals. A proposal
which received the majority becomes binding for
everyone, else it goes back to the panel of experts for
amendments, modifications, and the discussion and
voting are resumed.
Votes via private or public phones go to regional
computers adding up regional totals then passing them
on to central computers who add up grand totals and
transmit them continuously to TV. TV shows anytime the
following details in every government department: 1)
Proposals for 1st vote. 2) Proposals that passed
/failed 1st vote. 3) Proposals passed/failed 2nd vote.
4) Proposals passed/failed 3rd vote. And vote totals of
each. Proposals are organized by subject matter. Those
interested in education need only switch into the
channel dedicated to education. Within minutes everyone
can know every decision. This is far more democratic
and efficient than representative democracy. THIRD.
Voters can appoint people to oversee the implementation
of decisions. Appointees have no authority to make
policy decisions, they are authorized only to implement
decisions. Appointees can be changed by voters any
time. This is similar to the role of Ambassadors today,
they carry out foreign policy but do not make the
decisions shaping that foreign policy.This Magnetic
Card Direct Democracy ( M.C.D.D.) is Autonarchy, i.e.
Self -rule. Some people will vote on every decision,
others will vote only on what they consider important.
All will be able to decide what their society should
do.
By proposing and voting on most political decisions
people will become involved in their society and
overcome their present political alienation, apathy,
boredom, and disgust, induced by politics through
representatives. Instead of representatives we shall
have Direct Democracy, Autonarchy. Autonarchy is NOT
Anarchy. IT goes beyond the
Capitaslist\\\\Socialist\\\\Anarchist controversy on
ownership. It grants those who have to carry out
decisions the right to make those decisions. Autonarchy
is not Anarchy as the State is not abolished but run
directly by all citizens. Autonarchy is not Oligarchy
as the State is not run by a group but by all citizens.
Autonarchy will end political indifference of most
citizens, ‘atomization’ of society, political
favouritism, hypocrisy and corruption. Autonarchy can
be implemented immediately. All the necessary
technologies function daily in supermarkets and ATMs.
Implementing the means enabling every citizen to vote
directly on every political decision costs a fraction
of the Defense budget. All employees in a country,
trade, or firm, must form Employee autonarchies of the
country, trade, or firm.
Employee Autonarchy is decision-making by all employees
on every issue at work. It solves most conflicts at
work. It makes owners, and Unions, redundant. It
improves production and makes work far more efficient,
safe, and rewarding. It puts an end to strikes and
unemployment. It can be applied to any number of
people.
There are many obstacles to overcome before Autonarchy
is implemented but size of the population is not one of
them. You asked: “What about the Constitution ? “An
Autonarchy MUST have a Constitution and a Bill of
Rights to safeguard minorities and individuals from the
possibility of TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY but details of a
Constitution and Bill of Rights must be left to those
to draft them. They will take into account
circumstances we cannot foresee. One can propose a
declaration of the basic principles of Autonarchy so as
to provide a general idea what this system is about.
Autonarchy is based on the principle of EQUALITY OF
AUTHORITY of all people in every domain of social life.
To clarify this a bit more I suggest the following:
PRINCIPLES OF AUTONARCHY
Every citizen has the right to propose, and vote on,
every political decision. People represent themselves
only. Representing others is illegal. Every citizen has
one vote, and only one vote, on every political
decision. All votes have equal weight. Majority
decisions are binding. Needs of the poorest must be
attended before needs of the less poor. Needs of the
sickest must be attended before needs of the less sick.
Excepting these two, needs of the many must be attended
before needs of the few. Protecting species from
extinction and Nature from destruction and pollution is
compulsory. All employees must have the right to
propose and vote on every decision concerning their
work. All employees in a country, trade, or firm, can
form employee autonarchies of the country trade, or
firm. Employees at a site are the highest authority to
decide matters of their site. They have the right to
veto any other decision concerning their site.
Teachers, students, and parents, have the right to
propose and vote on the content of their education and
how they should be taught, on a national and local
level. At any educational site, staff, students, and
their parents, are the highest authority to decide
policy and practice at that site. Staff and students at
an educational site can veto any decision concerning
their site. Students have the right to veto decisions
by staff and parents. Any minority, while obeying
majority decisions, has the right to campaign for its
views and to propose - after a year - a new vote on
previous decisions. Any minority has the right to
express its view. Minority rights are irrevocable. They
do not depend on the minority’s views. All cultural
groups have equal cultural group-rights irrespective of
their size. People can be appointed to carry out
decisions. Appointees have no authority to make policy
decisions. They have authority only to carry out
decisions of those who appointed them. Appointees can
be changed any time. Each member of a family has equal
authority in deciding matters of their family. Wives
have same authority as husbands, and from the moment
they ask for it so have the children.
Obstacles to Autonarchy are neither technical nor
financial, but political, social, and psychological.
Autonarchy is more democratic than any Democracy. It is
the ultimate democracy. It gives people more political
freedom than any other system by enabling them to live
according to their own decisions. Freedom means living
by one’s own decisions. In society, work, family,
freedom is limited by decisions of others. Autonarchy
allows more freedom to more people than any other
system. Of the many objections to Autonarchy I consider
here two: 1. Is it desirable that all citizens decide
directly all political issues ?. 2.
How can one prevent the ‘Dictatorship of the majority ‘
?.
Here are my answers: 1. There are many examples of
majority decisions producing disastrous results.Is it
therefore wise to allow majorities to decide every
political issue ? Whatever the answer it cannot serve
as a justification for any other political system as
there are examples of every decision-making system
producing disasters for the decision makers. No
political system can provide a guarantee against
decisions producing disasters for the decision makers.
We can leave aside unforseen factors not taken into
account by the decision-makers. Such factors will
always emerge and cannot be avoided nor can decision-
makers be blamed for failing to foresee them. We must
consider cases like, say, the majority which voted the
Nazis into power in Germany in 1933. The disasters
resulting from this decision were not brought about by
unforeseen accidents. They resulted from the priority
principle of a majority which put its own wellbeing
above the wellbeing of all others, and was willing to
dominate, oppress, and exterminate ‘inferior people’.
Such preferences by majorities, minorities, or
individuals, can occur again in the future. They prove
nothing about a decision-making system. The question
that matters is : Can disasterous consequences of
decisions change priority principles that led to such
decisions ? The possibility that decision-makers will
stick to a priority principle that produced disasters
decreases as the number of decision-makers increases. A
single person is far more dominated by anxieties,
obsessions, and fixations than a group. Had Hitler’s
generals succeeded to assassinate him in 1944 they
would have surrendered long before he did thus saving
Germany, and the rest of the world, much suffering.
Hitler survived the assassination attempt and due to
his obsession he continued with a lost war for another
year causing much suffering to Germany and to the rest
of the world.. Autonarchy, based on political decision-
making by all citizens, is less prone to personal whims
than any dictatorship, or representative democracy.
2. Majorities can do worse than err, they can try to
oppress minorities. Minorities oppressed by majority
decisions will resist as best as they can, and
undermine the stability, security, and prosperity, of
the entire society. A wise Autonarchy will introduce
measures to safeguard minorities from oppressive
majority decisions. Laws protecting minorities from
oppression and requiring a special majority to modify
them must be introduced. Minorities need laws
protecting them from oppression by majorities. A good
example is the regime established by the ANC in South-
Africa. Having won an absolute majority in the last
elections the ANC could have introduced laws granting
rights to blacks while denying them to whites. This
could have been done democratically, by majority vote.
Black racism would have been met by White resistance.
This would have plunged society into violence,
insecurity, and instability, as in the former White
racist regime.Wisely, the ANC did not use its majority
to grant special rights to blacks. It created a regime
where rights do not depend on colour of skin.
Autonarchy must legislate laws to safeguard minorities.
An Autonarchy will be viable, durable, and prosperous,
only if it grants minorities the same group-rights
which the majority enjoys and desists from imposing the
majority’s beliefs, culture, or language, on any
minority.
In cases of differences between geo-cultural regions,
as in the European Community, there is a point in
creating a federation of smaller Autonarchies rather
than a single, large, Autonarchy. A system can be
devised wherein some decisions are made directly by all
citizens of the federation while others are decided by
citizens in each Autonarchic member of the federation.
The right of an Autonarchic member of the federation to
veto decisions of the entire federation must be
ensured. Laws protecting minorities from majority
oppression enhance the cohesion of the Autonarchy.
Creativity in this direction can produce a political
system which its citizens will enjoy rather than just
endure. I’m sure I didn’t answer all your questions and
probably created more than I answered.
Answers will be invented by people facing actual
situations. No political party foresaw the workers and
soldiers councils in Russia in 1905 and 1917, they were
invented by ordinary people, so the Action Committees
in France in 1968. I believe that unlike in October
1917 in Russia, when a politically fluid situation was
shaped by a sect into a preconceived mold and unlike
the upheavel of May 1968 in France when the situation
was ripe for Autonarchy but the technical means were
nonexistent, the next upheavel in a modern,
industrialized, society will have all that is required
for a successful implementation of Autonarchy. It is
possible to implement Autonarchy first in one
government department. Lessons from this experience
will be useful for implementing Autonarchy generally.
The massive indifference to elections in the West today
indicates the decline of politics by representatives.
Political decison-making by representatives is a system
whose time is up. Democracy WITHOUT REPRESENTATIVES,
AUTONARCHY, is the system whose time has come.
Nov. 7. 1996
FROM ANARCHY TO AUTONARCHY.
Reading Bakunin’s critique of Marx today - 124 years
after it was written - one has to admit that history
proved Bakunin right. The same can be said of Emma
Goldman’s and Alexander Berkman’s critiques of Lenin
written in 1922 after they saw Lenin and Trotsky attack
and execute the strikers of Kronstadt who demanded that
Lenin keep his promise “All power to the COUNCILS of
workers, peasants, and soldiers” which brought him to
power, but which he changed to:”All power to the
Bolshevik PARTY” when he won power. Bakunin wrote in
1872 :” In the People’s State of Marx there will be, we
are told, no priviliged class at all. All will be
equal, not only from the judicial and political point
of view but from the economic point of view. At least,
that is what is promised.There will therefore be no
longer any privileged class, but there will be a
government and, note this well, an extremely complex
government, which will not content itself with
governing and administering the masses politically, as
all governments do today, but which will also
administer them economically, concentrating in its own
hands the production and the just division of wealth,
the cultivation of land, the establishment and
development of factories, the organization and
direction of commerce, finally the application of
capital to production by the only banker, the State.
All this will demand an immense knowledge and many
“heads overflowing with brains” in this government. It
will be the reign of the scientific intelligencia, the
most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant and contemptuous
of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new
hierarchy of real and pretended scientists and
scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority
ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense,
ignorant, majority. And then, woe be tide the mass of
the ignorant ones. Such a regime will not fail to
arouse very considerable discontent in this mass and in
order to keep it in check the enlightened and
liberating government of Marx will have need of a not
less considerable armed force. For the government must
be strong says Engels, to maintain order among these
millions of illiterates whose brutal uprising would be
capable of destroying and overthrowing everything, even
a government directed by heads overflowing with brains.
\\\{Bakunin “Marxism, Freedom, and the State”, p. 18,
Ch.3: “The State and Marxism”\} \{This text can be
downloaded from
http://www.cs.utah.edu/galt/marxnfree.html\}
. . . It will be for the proletariat a barrack regime,
where the standardized mass of men and women workers
would wake, sleep, work, and live, to the beat of the
drum, for the clever and the learned a privilige of
governing, and for the mercenary minded, attracted by
the immensity of the international speculations of the
national banks, a vast field of lucrative jobbery. At
home it will be slavery. . . a State all the more
despotic because it will call itself the People’s
State.” {op. cit. Ch.5, p.25\}
This prediction, written in 1872, turned out to be
correct whereas Marx’s prediction that a classless
State owning all means of production will usher in an
era of freedom turned out to be wrong. In the USSR and
all ‘People’s Democracy’ States the State owned all
means of production but the entire population was
oppressed by State and Party officials. Emma Goldman
and Alexander Berkman, anarchists who supported the
Russian revolution and worked for it in the USSR from
early 1920 to late 1921 had a similar critique of
Lenin. In her autobiography Goldman describes her last
meeting with the anarchist Peter Kropotkin in 1920,
agreeing with his observation: “The Russian revolution
was far greater than the French and of more potent
worldwide significance. It had struck deep into the
lives of the masses everywhere. No one could foresee
the rich harvest humanity would reap from it. The
Communists, irrevocably adhering to the idea of a
centralized State were doomed to misdirect the course
of the revolution. Their aim being political supremacy,
they had inevitably become the Jesuits of Socialism,
justifying all means to attain their purpose. Their
methods paralyzed the energies of the masses and
terrorized the people. Yet without the people, without
the direct participation of the toilers in the
reconstruction of the country nothing creative and
essential could be created.” (quoted by Emma Goldman in
“Living my life” , Dover 1979, Vol.2 p.863) After
Kropotkin’s funeral in February 1921 she adds: “My
grief over his passing away was bound up with my
despair over the defeat of the Revolution which none of
us had been able to avert.” (p.869). Leaving Russia in
December 1921 after witnessing the Red Army attack the
striking sailors of Kronstadt she adds: “We were not
running away from the Revolution.It was dead long ago.”
(p.919) adding later “We could do more for the country
abroad than in Russia, work for a better understanding
of the chasm between the Revolution and the regime and
for the political victims in Soviet prisons and
concentration camps.” (p.927).
Goldman and Berkman saw in 1921 that the Communist
Party led by Lenin had taken over the revolution
establishing an extremely centralized State terrorizing
the mass of the population and eliminating all
opposition including critics from its own ranks. The
Anarchist critique of Marx’s theories and of Lenin’s
practices turned out to be correct, profound, and
valid. The fact that Anarchist predictions and warnings
turned out to be correct while Marxist predictions
turned out to be wrong raises the questions: Why did
Anarchist ideas fail to win a big following while
Marx’s ideas and Lenin’s practices attracted millions ?
Why do Anarchist ideas today attract only a minute
number of people ? The fact that Lenin signed peace
with Germany shortly after coming to power, as he
promised he would, and committed himself to create a
society based on social justice rather than greed won
him the support of millions all over the world. Few
heard the Anarchist critique while millions heard
Lenin. Yet even after Stalin’s regime of terror became
known in the West people did not accept Anarchist
ideas. Anarchism did not provide a workable scheme for
running a modern, large scale, industrial society. It
criticized Capitalism but did not provide an
alternative to Capitalism. Traditional 19th century
Anarchism suffered from two drawbacks: 1. It was a mix
of Individualist (‘Life Style’) Anarchism and Social
Anarchism. Ideas upholding absolute freedom of the
individual against any majority were mixed with the
Social Anarchism of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman and
Malatesta, of a Stateless society based on communes and
mutual aid. This mixture confused many people.
2. The idea of a society without a State seemed
unworkable to most people in the 20th Century.
Anarchism was a product of the 19th Century. In the
19th Century the State was run by a small elite of
landowners and Capitalists and was stamped by its
feudal her. Education, Health, and Transport were
private matters untouched by the State. There was no
minimum wage, no 40 hour working week, no paid holidays
or sick leave, no unemployment benefits, no State
Health Insurance, no State paid pensions. Apart from
legislation and taxes the State left the economy to
private interests.
The small elite running the State made the laws,
appointed heads of the Legal system, Police, Prisons,
and Army, oppressing the vast majority of the
population. Women had no vote and no access to higher
education. After WW1 much of this changed and more
after WW2 but by then Anarchist ideas crystalized and
“The State” was enemy No.1. After WW1 women got the
vote in many countries, Social-Democrats came to power
in some countries and initiated State-funded Education
and Health services, State Pensions and unemployment
benefeits, Public Transport, Housing projects, Public
Works, etc. The State became the largest employer in
many countries and the main factor in the economy.
Those who aspired to liberate society from oppression,
economic misery, exploitation, struggled for changing
the structure and priorities of the State but not for
abolishing it. Could hospitals, roads, airports, or the
electricity grid be built and run if the State were
replaced by federations of Anarchist communes ? Could
Anarchist communes set up modern Medical Centres
costing many times the annual income of many communes ?
Could a modern network of roads, railways, ports,
airports, telephones, electricity, etc. be conctructed
and run by, or as, communes ? Very few Anarchist
thinkers offered answers to these questions. Anarchists
disagree among themselves about the structure of
decision-making in their own communes, let alone in
society at large. No wonder Anarchist ideas attracted
mostly opponents of authoritarianism but not many of
those searching an alternative system to Capitalism.
Bakunin died in 1876, before State funded Education,
Health Service, Pensions, Unemployment benefeits, were
implemented, before the invention of electric lighting,
motor cars, airplanes, radio, TV, 40 hour working week.
For Bakunin The State was : “A tyranny of the minority
over the majority in the name of the people”
\\\{op.cit. Appendix\\\}. Which it certainly was in his
time. He argued against sending workers’
representatives into existing Parliaments: “ Is it not
clear that the popular nature of this power will never
be anything else but fiction ? It will obviously be
impossible for some hundreds of thousands or even some
tens of thousands or indeed for even only a few
thousand men to effectively exercise this power. They
will necessarily exercise it by proxy, that is to say,
entrust it to a group of men, elected by themselves to
represent and govern them, which will cause them
without fail to fall back again into all the falsehoods
and servitudes of the representative or bourgeois
regime. After a brief moment of liberty or
revolutionary orgy citizens of the new State will awake
to find themselves slaves, playthings and victims of
new power-lusters.” \\\{op.cit.p.27\\\}. All of which
was valid until the 1980s. Bakunin summed up his ideas
on the State by the statement: “State means domination,
and all domination presupposes the subjection of the
masses and consequently their exploitation to the
profit of some minority or other “. \\\{op.cit.
p.21\\\} And so it is to this day. Must this remain so
forever, even after the invention, and daily use, of
Magnetic Cards, Computer networks, communication
satellites, and cable TV ? NOT AT ALL ! Electronic
communications technologies implemented in the 1980s
open up possibilities unimaginable in the 1960s, let
alone in Bakunin and Marx’s time. It is now possible to
equip every phone with a magnetic card-reading device
enabling the user to vote via the telephone on any
issue. Totals of all votes can be calculated
immediately by computers and appear on TV. Discussions
on possibilities to be voted on can be done by experts
on TV with people phoning in to ask questions or
propose new ideas. After such discussions people can
vote on the issues. Every citizen must have the right
to propose and vote on every political issue, and every
employee must have the right to propose and vote on any
issue related to his/her work. People can be appointed
to implement majority decisions. Appointees’ authority
will be like that of Ambassadors today. They carry out
a policy but do not decide that policy. Ambassadors
have no authority to make policy decisions and can be
changed any time. Today it is possible to set up a
political system based on the principle : EVERY CITIZEN
CAN PROPOSE, AND VOTE ON, EVERY POLITICAL DECISION.
This direct rule by the entire citizenry, can be named:
Autonarchy, meaning self - rule. Electronic
communication today can turn the whole country into a
Parliament. Physical presence is irrelevant, electronic
presence is what matters. Decision-making by
representatives is obsolete. Every citizen can be
electronically present at every decision. All can vote
on any issue of State, Work, Education. This was
impossible in Bakunin’s day but is possible today in
many countries. Autonarchy must be applied to work and
to education. Employees must make all decisions
concerning their work on a national, regional, and
local level. Educational staff with students and their
parents must make all decisions on education on
national, regional, and local, level. This is not
ANARCHY but AUTONARCHY. The State exists but is run by
ALL citizens - directly - not via representatives.
Kropotkin would have liked the idea. Bakunin too, maybe
even Marx.
WHAT IS TO BE DONE ?
If the ideas in this pamphlet appeal to you and you
wish to help implement Autonarchy here is what you can
do. 1. Find other people interested in these ideas and
discuss the ideas together. 2. Think Globally, act
locally. Set up your own local Committee for
DirectDemocracy (CDD). Locality can be geographic,
occupational, or electronic (via Internet), whichever.
3.
Your committee should meet regularly, finance itself,
discuss any issue it likes, suggest autonarchic
solutions to actual problems, and implement them. 4.
Publicize your ideas in every way possible, in print,
on radio or TV , on the Internet, in oral discussions
with friends, workmates, pupils, students, etc. 5.
Be self-reliant but establish contact with other CDDs.
Help create new CDDs. 6.
When a number of CDDs emerge call for a local,
regional, national, or international, conference, to
coordinate activities, to learn from each other’s
experience, and to assist autonarchists and CDDs who
need help. All CDDs should work to create a WORLD
AUTONARCHIC MOVEMENT. 7.
An Autonarchic Movement must not be organized like
traditional Parties. It must not have an Executive
Committee which makes decisions on behalf of others. It
should have a coordinating committee to facilitate
coordination between CDDs and to exchange ideas between
CDDs but, every CDD is free to accept or reject
proposals of a Coordinating Committee. Proposals of a
Coordinating Committee are welcome but not binding.
Never lose sight of the basic Autonarchic priority
principle: ‘Needs of the many must be attended before
needs of the few’. Don’t be self-centred. Do not allow
local needs dominate global ones. 8.
An Autonarchic organization has no leadership, either
personal or communal. It is an embryonic forerunner of
the political system it strives to create. Political
systems are like their creators. Means shape ends in
their image. Relations between members of a DD movement
should be like those they wish to see between members
of an autonarchic society. So too should be the way
every CDD, and the movement, function. 9.
There is no need to wait until Autonarchy is
implemented everywhere. In small domains Autonarchy can
be implemented without magnetic cards. If it is
possible to implement Autonarchy locally, in a firm, a
school, a village, town, or borough, DO IT. Be prepared
for stiff resistance. Experience gained from such cases
will be of use to other CDDs. 10.
Keep your sense of humour. Grim politics produce grim
results. Don’t just criticize, suggest autonarchic
solutions to social and political problems. Activate
your creativity but keep your feet on the ground. Do
not be deterred by those saying your proposals will not
work. Great authorities insisted people will never be
able to fly through the air, land on the moon, utilise
atomic energy, cure infertilty, change hereditary
traits, etc. All were proved wrong. In politics
‘impossible’ is often a substitute for ‘undesirable’.
Check out if those saying Autonarchy is impossible
desire it.
Direct Democracy Manifesto - Politics for the 21st
Century
Introduction
History is an ongoing struggle for freedom and for
domination. To be Free is to live by one’s own
decisions. To dominate is to make others live by one’s
decisions. Freedom and domination in society are
determined by politics. Politics means deciding for an
entire society, and implementing these decisions.
Who decides for an entire society? by what authority ?
Decisions for an entire society are made by a few
people whose authority rests, ultimately, on the
political ignorance of most people in society. They
vary from a single decision-maker, to a few, elected,
decision-makers. In all decision-making systems a few
decide for many.
Today, as in the past, most people are excluded from
deciding what their society should do, and how they
should live. Those excluded from deciding how their
society should live are not free. They live according
to decisions made by others. They are dominated by
those who decide for them.
The history of decision-making systems is a sequence of
struggles by the dominated against their dominators for
more say in decision-making. These struggles are
motivated by the desire of most people to be free, to
live by their own decisions rather than by decisions
made by others. Such struggles have increased freedom
in the Family, at Work, in Education, and in the State.
Today most people are freer than in the past but not as
free as they could be. Most people want to be free, not
to dominate others. Complete freedom is possible only
when living - voluntarily - on one’s own. One cannot be
completely free when living in a group. Any group, from
Family to Humanity, must have a system for making
decisions binding all those in the group. Without such
decisions a group does not function as a group. Rarely
do all members of a group agree to all group-decisions.
Some have to obey decisions made by others which they
oppose. This is so in the Family, in Education, at
Work, and in the State. Most people resent being
dominated but dominators coerce - subtly or crudely -
dissenters. When dissenters defeat coercion, they must
establish new ways for making group-decisions else the
group ceases to exist. Complete freedom is impossible
in a group, yet most people prefer life in a group to
living on their own. Though complete freedom in a group
is impossible, it is often possible to increase freedom
in a group. In Parliamentary Democracy people have more
freedom than in a Dictatorship. In Direct Democracy,
people have more freedom than in a Parliamentary
Democracy. Most people today believe that rule by
elected Representatives provides the highest level of
freedom possible in society. This was true before
electronic communications were implemented. Since then
a State far freer than Rule by Representatives is
possible.
Direct Democracy
Democracy (“Demos” - ordinary people, “Cratia” - ruling
system) was invented in Athens some 2500 years ago.
Every citizen (apart from women and slaves) could
propose and vote on every political decision. For some
tasks decision-makers were chosen by lottery. Such a
system was technically possible in a society of a few
thousand people. It is technically impossible in a
society of millions of people. Adding up millions of
votes within seconds was impossible until recently. Not
any longer. Today millions of people make millions of
decisions in their Banks by Automated Teller Machines
(ATMs). These decisions are about their finances. Most
people do not think about the ATMs handling their
decisions. Each ATM contains a computer which checks
the magnetic card, obeys the decision, updates
accounts, and sends copies of the decisions to a
central computer which adds them all up. The total
result of all these decisions can be seen any time by
Bank managers. These programs can accept not just
financial decisions but also political ones, thus
enabling every citizen to use existing ATMs for voting
directly on every political decision. This makes
elections, parliaments, and governments obsolete.
Today all citizens can use ATMs to vote on every
political decision directly, without representatives.
By making all political decisions directly people can
decide how they should live. This makes them far freer
than in a Parliamentary Democracy where representatives
make all political decisions for them. A State based on
the principle: EVERY CITIZEN - ONE VOTE - ON EVERY
POLITICAL DECISION, is a Direct Democracy (DD). This
does not mean every citizen must vote on every
political issue, it only means all citizens have the
right to do so. Electronic means of communication make
Direct Democracy possible. Direct Rule by all citizens
can be implemented TODAY. All citizens can decide all
political issues and be the government. This is
government by the governed. Rule by the ruled. The ATMs
make no political decisions, they just receive, record,
and add decisions made by owners of magnetic cards.
Today millions of financial decisions are added up in
seconds by networks of ATMs. Bank managers can watch
totals any time in their offices. This technology
proved itself reliable for handling our finances. No
Bank or Supermarket can function without it. The same
technology can also handle our political decisions. It
can add up and display totals of millions of votes
immediately. This was impossible in the past.
Representatives were needed while it was impossible to
vote, and count millions of votes, in seconds. Today,
when this is possible, representatives are no longer
needed. We need not put voting papers in ballot boxes
and spend days in counting them. We can insert a
magnetic card into an ATM, key in our vote, and see
totals immediately on TV. When millions of votes are
added up, and displayed on TV in seconds,
representatives for making political decisions are not
needed. Instead of voting for political representatives
every citizen can vote directly on every political
decision. Why be represented rather than be present ?
The will of the majority on any issue can be known
immediately.
The antiquated, complicated, slow, and expensive,
system of elections, parliaments, and governments, is
obsolete today. Why keep a dominating, alienating,
inefficient, expensive, and corruptive system when a
much freer, faster, cheaper, and incorruptible system
is possible? Today, for the first time in history, it
is possible for millions of people to make every
political decision themselves, directly - without
representatives. A new political system where every
citizen can propose - and vote on - every political
decision is possible right now. In such a system, the
majority will be much freer than in Parliamentary
Democracy where citizens are free only on Election Day
to decide who will decide for them. The minority will
have to obey majority decisions and will therefore not
be free. However, minority status is not permanent. A
new vote on an old decision can make a former minority
into a majority. This is preferable to Parliamentary
Democracy where neither the minority nor the majority
are free as representatives make all political
decisions for them. DD means not only mass-voting but
also mass-discussing of options. Discussions on TV by
panels of experts drawn by lottery, with the public
phoning in to comment, criticize, or propose, option,
will inform all citizens about the available options.
In the 17th and 18th century the struggles against
authority of Kings to make all political decisions were
guided by the principle:”No taxation without
representation”. The inhabitants of the cities, leading
this struggle, demanded that their representatives take
part in deciding how their taxes will be used. They won
the battle. This increased Freedom of most people in
society.
In the 21st Century struggles against authority of
representatives to make all political decisions will be
guided by the principle: “No decision obeyed without
the right to vote on it directly”. “Directly” means
“without intermediaries.” In politics this means
“without representatives.” This battle will be won too.
It will increase Freedom of all far beyond its present
level. Husbands will not decide for wives, Teachers and
Staff will not decide for students, Union officials
will not decide for employees, State and City
Representatives will not decide for citizens. All
citizens will have the right to vote directly on every
political decision. Today, wives, students, employees,
citizens, must have the right - and have the means - to
decide themselves every issue of their Family,
Education, Work, and State. This principle will not be
accepted easily. There will be a long, fierce, and
persistent opposition to implementing this principle
but this struggle , however long and fierce it may be,
will eventually be won.
A Direct Democracy must not become a dictatorship of
the majority. It must have a Constitution protecting
any minority, be it political, racial, ethnic,
religious, or other, from oppression by majorities. DD
citizens will decide on the Constitution.
Protection of the minority can be achieved by four
principles:
1.The minority must have the right to veto certain
decisions All citizens will decide beforehand to what
decisions this applies.
2. A minority may be exempted from carrying out some
decisions it opposes. All citizens will decide when
this applies.
3. Some decision will require a special majority of
60%, 70%, or 80% to become valid. All citizens will
decide to which decisions this applies
4. The right of any minority to express its views
publicly is unconditional and permanent. This is the
spirit of Direct Democracy. Any subverting of this
principle subverts DD.
Implementing these principles will strengthen DD and
make it viable and durable. Without them there will be
strife and hostility between minority and majority.
Such strife will eventually break up the DD. Only if a
minority feels secure in DD will it support it.
This will make DD viable, durable, inspiring, and even
enjoyable.
Replies to critics
Some critics say that ordinary people cannot make
responsible political decisions because making such
decisions is a special skill. If political decision-
making is a special skill why isn’t this skill taught
at any university? Making decisions is not a skill. It
is a choice. To decide is to choose one out of some
options. Choices cannot be taught. To choose is to
prefer. People prefer what they consider best. What is
“Best” is determined by values, not by skill. No amount
of skill - or information - will convince a religious
person to vote for abolition of religious education.
Some people believe that ordinary people should not
make all political decisions as they lack information
about the issues. Panels of experts can discuss the
issues on TV and answer phone-in questions from the
public thus providing citizens with all necessary
information. Panel members should be drawn by lottery
from lists of all experts specializing in the
particular issue. This will minimize the bias caused by
the experts’ own values.
Some people fear that when all citizens have a right to
propose political decisions there will be too many
decisions to vote on. This is disproved every day in
every Parliament. The number of decisions on every
subject in every Parliament is very much smaller than
the number of their MPs. The substance of the issue,
not the number MPs entitled to vote, determines the
number of proposals. Moreover, Parliaments require
three rounds of voting on every decision. Decisions
failing to get a minimum of votes do not appear in the
next vote. This serves to further reduce the number of
decisions.
Political decisions are of two kinds: 1. POLICY
decisions, 2. decisions on EXECUTING policy.POLICY
decisions answer the question: WHAT to do? Policy
EXECUTION decisions answer the question: HOW to do?
Politics is about POLICY decisions. They express what
society chooses to do. Every citizen has the right -
and ability - to decide what society should do. Policy
decisions depend on preferences. Preference depends on
values, not on expertise. There are no experts for
preference. Ordinary citizens can prefer just like
their representatives. In Direct Democracy all citizens
make all policy decisions. Decisions on policy
execution often require technical expertise. Citizens
can decide to appoint experts to carry out such
decisions while retaining authority to revoke decisions
or appointments any time. Experts should be drawn by
lottery from lists of experts. Repeated lottery can
replace those proved inefficient or corrupt. Drawing
decision-makers by lottery minimizes corruption.
Corruption is not part of politics - as many believe -
it is part of any system where a few decide for many.
Those seeking favors from the decision-makers use
bribes, while the few decisions makers bribes voters to
retain their authority. When all citizens decide
policy, there is no ruler to bribe. Moreover, bribes
cannot influence lottery outcome. In this manner DD can
rid politics of corruption.
Some people believe Direct Democracy (DD) will be far
more complicated than Rule by Representatives (RR).
This is not necessarily the case. Most political
complications have nothing to do with the substance of
issues, but are created by rulers using them to stay in
power. Politics will be much simpler in DD, but even if
this were not the case it hardly matters as freedom
outweighs complexity. In Dictatorship, political
decision-making is far simpler than in Parliamentary
Democracy. A single ruler, without opposition, makes
all decisions. Yet most people prefer Parliamentary
Democracy with its complexity to Dictatorship. People
prefer a system with more Freedom even if it is more
complex, to one with less complexity and less freedom.
To most people freedom matters far more than
complexity.
Some people will oppose Direct Democracy on principle
even when convinced all its difficulties can be
overcome. These people are Absolute Elitists. They
abhor direct rule by all citizens. Elitists denounce DD
as “Populist” and “mob rule”. They believe majorities
will make decisions causing disasters to themselves and
to others. One such example is the majority voting the
Nazis into power in Germany in 1933. This is not an
argument against DD. It holds for ANY political system.
A single ruler can make disastrous decisions just like
a group of elected representatives. In fact, the
smaller the number of decision-makers the greater the
risk that psychological whims, ego-trips and anxieties,
will determine decisions. A single ruler’s decisions
depend on one person’s psychology which often causes
grave harm to society. The greater the number of
political decision-makers the more psychological whims
cancel each other out and the better the chance that
the wellbeing of society prevails. Moreover, the “crowd
effect” swaying people to vote like those around them
is neutralized by ATMs hence DD is anything but “mob
rule”. No political system can be immunized against
disastrous decisions. A decision made by all citizens
can be disastrous just like one made by a few decision
makers. Yet in a DD disastrous decisions can be revoked
immediately whereas in RR those who made disastrous
decisions remain in power till next elections.
Moreover, disastrous decisions in DD force those who
made them to reconsider their motives, as they can
blame only themselves. In Rule by Representatives this
causes - at best - a change of representatives while
leaving intact the motives for the decisions. This
causes repetition of disastrous decisions.
Many people assume that the selfishness, greediness,
and political apathy of many in society today will turn
a Direct Democracy into a jungle ruled by unbridled
selfish instincts. They see these negative qualities as
part of an eternal “Human Nature”. However, during the
General Strike in France in May 1968, when
“Autogestion” (“Self-Management”) was a widespread
demand, there was an outburst of goodwill, solidarity,
and concern for society by millions of French people,
surprising even themselves. Selfishness, greediness,
and political apathy are products of the current
political system. Every political system generates
individuals in its own image. It creates an atmosphere
in which people can “succeed” only by accepting the
norms of the system. Inferences drawn from present day
patterns of individuality ignore the relation between
the political system and the norms it generates. When
this relation is taken into account this argument
against DD collapses, and DD is seen in a new light, as
a shaper of a new type of individuality: caring,
creative, and deeply concerned about society. DD is
much more than a political decision-making system. It
is a means for shaping new norms, and new types of
individuals.
Making a decision implies responsibility for its
results. Some fear this responsibility and therefore
fear freedom. This is an attitude of children afraid of
losing parental love. Adults suffering from fear of
responsibility need support and help to overcome it.
Fear of freedom and responsibility stems from
immaturity. It can be treated and overcome. This can be
aided by education starting with the earliest family
language patterning.
Some supporters of Direct Democracy have no clear
definition of Direct Democracy. They promote various
referendums and proposals for more public control over
representatives, while accepting Rule by
Representatives (RR). Lack of a clearly defined
alternative to RR relegates their activities to mere
reforms of RR. They propose reforms to ameliorate the
excesses of RR while upholding it They oppose the
definition of Direct Democracy as DECISION-MAKING
WITHOUT REPRESENTATIVES because it exposes their
activities for what they are - reformed Rule by
Representatives.
Cooperation between supporters of Decision-making
WITHOUT Representatives and supporters of Decision
making BY Representatives, is possible if both
tendencies recognize the difference between them and
each respects the role of the other. Although these
tendencies will eventually have to part ways, each can
benefit from cooperation with the other. As long as
cooperation is possible it should be maintained.
However, cooperation is never an end in itself, it is a
means to an end. When means cease to serve their ends
they should be discarded. The Christian Church was a
means to spread Christianity, the Communist Party was a
means to serve Communism, both turned into ends in
themselves at the expense of the ends they served, and
ruined. The tendency to turn means into ends must be
resisted. Means must never be allowed to become ends.
Promoting Direct Democracy
If you wish to promote DD, here is what you can do:
1. Find others interested in these ideas and discuss
these ideas with them.
.2 Think globally, act locally. Set up your own local
Committee for Direct Democracy (CDD). Locality can be
home, neighborhood, School, Work, or electronic (via
Internet), whichever you desire.
3. Your committee should meet regularly, finance
itself, discuss any issue it likes offer DD solutions
to problems, and implement them.
4. Promote DD in every way possible, in print, on radio
and TV , on the Internet, in oral discussions with
friends, at work, in school.
5. Be self-reliant but contact other CDDs. Help create
new CDDs.
6. When a number of CDDs emerge, call for a local,
regional, national, or international conference to
coordinate activities, to learn from each other’s
experience, and to assist CDDs in need of help. All
CDDs should help create a WORLD DD MOVEMENT to
coordinate activities of all DD movements. This does
not mean the entire world becomes a single DD. DDs will
merge if their citizens wish it.
A DD Movement must not be organized like traditional
Parties. It must not have an Executive Committee making
decisions on behalf of others. It must have a
Coordinating Committee (CC) to facilitate coordination
between CDDs, and to aid exchange of ideas between
CDDs, but every CDD is free to accept or reject
proposals of a CC. Proposals of a CC are welcome but
not binding.
8. A DD organization has no personal or communal
leadership. It is an embryonic forerunner of the
political system it strives to create. Political
systems are like their creators. Means shape ends in
their image. Relations between members of a DD movement
should be like those they wish to see between members
of a DD society. This must also be the way every CDD,
and the entire DD movement, operate.
9. If it is possible to implement DD locally, at work,
in a school, a village, town, or borough, DO SO. Be
prepared for vehement resistance. Don’t wait till DD is
implemented everywhere. In small domains DD can be
implemented without magnetic cards. Experience gained
from such cases will be of use to other CDDs.
10.Use your sense of humor. Politics need not be grim
or boring, they can be fun. Don’t just criticize,
suggest DD solutions to every social and political
problem. Activate your creativity, but keep your feet
on the ground. Do not be deterred by those saying your
proposals will not work. Many believed people would
never fly, land on the moon, utilize atomic energy,
cure infertility, change hereditary traits, or that the
USSR would last for ever. All were wrong. In politics
“impossible” often masks “undesirable”. Check if those
saying DD is impossible desire it.
Remind Elitists that, contrary to Plato’s critique of
Athenian Democracy 2500 years ago, both Aristotle and
Socrates supported it, and even today we benefit from
its achievements in art, philosophy, and politics.
Direct Democracy will stimulate people’s involvement in
their community and society. It will awaken their
responsibility for their community and society. It will
inspire political creativity and goodwill stifled by
all other political systems. It will raise humanity to
a higher level and will change not only society but
also individuality. It will transform the “person” from
a bored, and indifferent, member in a static,
corrupting and alienating political system into an
active shaper of a consciously evolving society
concerned with the well being of the community.
|