1.
Foreword
We
live in a time of excessive centralisation of political and economic
power. In European Union countries, half of all these countries’ lawmaking
takes place in Brussels. A broad and coherent scale of institutions such
as the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund are
having more say over how people all over the world organise their lives.
The trend of centralisation of politics on a worldwide level goes hand in
hand with increasing monopolisation processes in the economy. Fusion
between industrial conglomerates is the order of the day. A corporation
such as General Electric has more capital than the collective capital of
the poorest third-world countries! Neo-liberal politicians gladly
praise the sacred market and promise the populations of the world heaven
on earth, but this ‘promised land’ seems reserved for fewer and fewer
people.
De-democratisation
Through these
developments, the word ‘democracy’ has been stripped down to ‘the people’s
right to choose their own government’ (Prisma dictionary). This shabby
view of democracy manifests itself in the constantly reoccurring election
circuses where it’s becoming more difficult to convince people that their
vote reflects a real choice. The ever-increasing ‘de-democratisation’ of
social decision-making processes leads constantly to conflict, not only
between those who make the decisions and those on whose behalf decisions
are made, but also within both groups. In order to be able to continue
this de-democratisation, the politicians play a conscious game of ‘divide
and conquer’. Divisions among ethnic groups and social classes, for
example, are carefully cultivated and these divisions are used to cover up
fundamental inequalities of rights and opportunities, and to play off the
different groups against each other. At the same time, every form of
social unrest that germinates gets channelled into so-called ‘opposition
parties’ and ‘Non-Governmental Organisations’. In exchange for a place at
the table of the powers-that-be, they keep society’s malcontents at home
on the sofa, in front of the television. The attentive reader will have
understood it already: the author of this brochure is saying that within
narrow parliamentary channels, it is impossible to bring about real
political change.
On our way to a
post-parliamentary project!
Parliamentary
democracy is a capitalist discovery, which gives form and sustenance to
the elite and to hierarchies, thereby justifying inequality. The
parliamentary puppet show, with its ‘professional politicians’, doesn’t
involve people in decision-making but instead pacifies and neutralises
them. Elections and other ‘moments of democratic participation’ are
nothing more than folklore that gives parliamentary capitalism the
appearance of legitimacy. Politicians, together with their loyal mass
media, do their best to try to convince us that there is something worth
voting for, but this is exaggerated, to put it mildly. The choice between
candidates only represents a difference in style. Parliamentary channels
offer only a narrow margin of possibility for change. Stick your neck out
and get your head cut off. We have seen enough of
parliamentary democracy; we do not need any more time to determine that it
is a fraud. There is no excuse for the enormous and ever-increasing gap
between rich and poor and between the North and South. There is no excuse
for the continued waging of war, in our name, in countries where the
population already has little or nothing to eat. It’s high time for a
post-parliamentary project, a project that not only fights
parliamentary-capitalist power relations, but at the same time brings a
just and workable alternative into being.
The good news is that an
alternative does exist: direct democracy. The pursuit of direct democracy
is a struggle for radical democratisation of all decision-making processes
in society. The intention of this booklet is to show that direct democracy
is not a new ideology where you have to first convince the masses and then
you can seize the power; it is not an unrealistic utopia. Direct democracy
is a concrete way of achieving horizontal organisation in the
here-and-now, from the local level to the global level.
2. What is direct democracy?
When we speak of
direct democracy we speak of equality between individuals as the basis of
the organisation of society. With direct democracy there is talk of a
fundamentally different way of organising than the present parliamentary
capitalist practice. Bringing direct democracy into practice would mean
radically changing the system of social inequality that is currently
legitimated and laid down by laws and regulations. The direct-democratic
ideal directly opposes the system of hierarchy that is current social
norm. A direct-democratic society rejects all that which gives rise to
hierarchy, whether formal or informal, such as sexism, racism,
nationalism, capitalism and imperialism. An end should also come to the
ridiculous idea that is propagated by bosses, that we have been put on
this earth to compete with each other. Cooperation should be propagated
instead. The door to a more just world opens when hierarchy and
competition are rejected, and equality and cooperation become guiding
principles in our lives.
Direct democracy is
not just a system that can be used to organise society; it can be used
when making decisions on a small scale as well as on a larger scale. It is
also a way of stimulating the moulding of ideas and active participation
in decision-making processes. In a parliamentary democracy, people are not
asked for their ideas, but are asked to either accept or reject ideas
already prepared by so-called ‘experts’. In that respect, direct democracy
is radically different. In a direct democracy, the assumption is that
people can decide for themselves what is best for them. People don’t need
‘specialists’, such as politicians, managers, or trade union bosses, to
decide on their behalf what they need on the work floor and in their
neighbourhoods. With direct democracy, people take control of their own
futures, and those affected by decisions are the ones making those
decisions.
Direct democracy can
be applied on the work floor just as well as in your local neighbourhood.
In parliamentary democracy, democratic decision making is seriously
lacking on the work floor. In a direct-democratic society, the
organisation of a company takes place in a meeting that is open to all
workers. This meeting decides, for example, about working conditions and
production targets. During the meeting, people who have revocable mandates
are chosen , to fulfil coordinating functions in the factory, and also to
take care of external contact with other people and organisations. In
local neighbourhoods, issues that affect residents can be dealt with in
comparable direct-democratic meetings of those concerned.
In a direct-democratic
society, the different direct-democratic organisations (and that
definitely doesn’t just mean ‘productive’ organisations such as companies)
will cooperate on a regional level via federations. In these federations,
which are often organised around a particular theme, representatives
coordinate the activities of each other’s organisations. What is stated here is of
course a very concise summary of direct-democratic thinking, but the
intention is not to lay down the law, as an authoritarian ideology would,
but instead to leave the filling-in of the content to those people
concerned. The
political framework above leaves you able to go in many directions, and
that is exactly what it’s all about; a world of many different worlds is
possible. Direct democracy is indeed the best guarantee that diversity
will not be choked by straightjackets like nationalism, capitalism and
state communism.
3. Criteria for a democratic organisational
structure
A direct-democratic
society won’t happen by itself, but will have to be organised. This can
happen in your neighbourhood, in the city, at school and on the work
floor. It’s important to create alternative organisations in all the
important social areas. We will have to do this ourselves, because the
state is never going to do it for us. The state will only make life
difficult for people who want to take their lives into their own hands,
and who want to organise ourselves in an anti-authoritarian way. In
addition to bringing an anti-authoritarian alternative into practice,
direct-democratic organisations will have to organise to resist state
repression. Although each situation and every goal set will need tailor-made
practices, there are a number of conditions that each direct-democratic
organisation needs to fulfil in order to be able to function
properly.
The American feminist,
Jo Freeman, wrote the pamphlet ‘The Tyranny of Structurelessness’ in 1971.
In this pamphlet, she convincingly challenged the informal structures and
hierarchies of the American feminist movement at the time. Basically, the
pamphlet stated that a direct-democratic organisation needs a clear formal
structure, otherwise friendship cliques and ‘hidden’ hierarchies become
rampant. Her criticisms are still relevant after thirty years; informality
and ‘hidden’ hierarchies are common in many activist groups, which stands
in contrast to their stated anti-authoritarian ideas. Jo Freeman’s
pamphlet contained the following list of criteria for a (direct)
democratic organisational structure:
1) Delegate specific
responsibilities to specific individuals, for specific tasks, using
democratic procedures. When everyone knows who is responsible for which
specific tasks, everyone knows whom to consult about concerns.
2) At all times, those
to whom tasks have been delegated are accountable to the group that has
delegated the task to them.
3) Distribute tasks
among as many people as is reasonably possible and workable. This prevents
people’s monopolising power and requires those in positions of authority
to consult with many others in the process of exercising it. It also gives
many people the opportunity to have responsibility for specific tasks and
thereby to learn different skills.
4) Rotate tasks among
individuals. Responsibilities that are held too long by one person come to
be seen as that person’s ‘property’ and are not easily relinquished or
brought back to group control. On the other hand, if tasks are rotated too
frequently, this can bring the continuity of the group in danger. For some
tasks, the individual needs the time to learn the job well and to acquire
the sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.
5) Allocate tasks
along rational criteria. Selecting someone for a position because the
group likes her or giving her hard work because she is disliked serves
neither the group nor the person chosen, in the long run. Ability,
interest and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such a
selection. People should be given an opportunity to learn expertise they
do not have, but this is best done via a good transfer of skills rather
than the ‘sink or swim’ method, which can work in a demoralising way.
6) Diffuse information
to everyone as frequently as possible. Information is power. The more one
knows about how things work and what is happening, the more politically
effective one can be.
7) Ensure that there
is equal access to resources needed by the group. Access to a computer or
to a certain tool can determine someone’s opportunities within the group,
just as skills and information are also resources.
When these principles
are applied, the chance is good that, no matter which specific
organisation structure is finally chosen, the whole group itself has power
rather than individuals or an informal elite. The group of people who take
on tasks is open, varied and temporary. They shouldn’t be able to abuse
their given power, as the group always has the last word.
4. Direct-democratic organisational
forms
In addition to being a
system that can be used to organise society, direct democracy can be used
to make decisions on a small scale as well as on a larger scale. No two
situations are the same, and there are many forms that direct democracy
can take. The specific form of self-organisation that a group chooses is
largely determined by the group’s specific goal. Sometimes the goal is
something short-term, like organising a one-time action. Sometimes the
intention is to work on something for a longer time, as within a campaign.
It can also be a continuing goal, such as to organise a research group, a
free place, or lasting political cooperation within a collective or
regional federation.
It’s important to find
out which organisational form will work best for you, and which will give
you the most chance of realising your goal. Within the movement for direct
democracy, many organisational forms have developed over the course of
time, and here we will review the most important ones. These should not be
seen as being the ‘be all and end all’. There are many different nuances
and possible variations.
It goes without saying that the criteria
for a democratic organisational structure, which we have already dealt
with, should always be applied to each type of organisation.
Affinity
groups
Affinity means
‘kinship’ or ‘solidarity’. Affinity groups exist in all shapes and sizes,
but as a rule they manifest temporary or spontaneous cooperation that has
a specific and limited goal. The goal can be organising an action, for
example, or carrying out specific supportive tasks during an action or
demonstration. The affinity group operates as a team and all the members
of the group look out for each other. In other words, the ‘solidarity’ is
usually based on the joint pursuit of a goal, but can also be based on
having similar ideas about which methods to use. An affinity group can
operate in conjunction with the organisers of a demo or action, but can
also operate autonomously (independently and on its own initiative) just
as well.
There are generally
between three and twenty members within each affinity group. The group
often consists of people who already knew each other and decided to take
part in a demonstration or action as a group, but that doesn’t always have
to be the case. Groups can also be spontaneously formed to achieve a
certain goal.
Supporting affinity
groups
-First aid group -
This is a group of people who operate as a medical team for the
participants in demonstrations or actions.
-Legal observers group -
This clearly recognisable group observes and reports police behaviour
during an action or demonstration. People are needed who can keep an eye
on developments from a distance, especially when tensions rise, and who
take note of what happens and which officers overstep the
mark.
-Prisoner support group - This group works mostly behind the
screens, gathers all information about those who have been arrested and
the situation in which the arrests took place. The prisoner support group
works closely together with the legal observers group, serves as an
info-point for activists, arranges contact with lawyers, and ensures good
communication between the different people concerned and with the outside
world.
-Route group - During a demonstration, it is a good idea to have
a team that ensures that everyone walks the same route.
-Protection
group - For non-legal actions, it can be good to have a group of people
who are specifically concerned with protecting the participating
activists. This can mean forming a physical wall, for example, between the
activists and the police, or trying to prevent arrests.
Autonomous affinity
groups
-Propaganda group -
During large demonstrations, and other occasions where a lot of people are
present, it is good to let your own anti-authoritarian voice be heard.
This can be done by handing out flyers, carrying banners etc. In practice,
demonstrations are often organised by authoritarian groups, which means
that it’s very important to make a visible anti-authoritarian stance.
-Action group - Demonstrations often offer good protection in order to
be able to carry out direct action. This can be anything from putting up
posters to ‘proletarian shopping’. Take care that you don’t put anybody
else in danger with your action.
Cooperation between affinity
groups
Cooperation between
different affinity groups has increased rapidly in the past few years,
especially within the global justice movement. During big protests that
last a number of days, thousands of people often come together to find
ways to make direct-democratic decisions. This necessity has become more
important as authoritarian organisations have tried to stamp their mark on
the protests. A fairly good way of trying to get all the different groups
on the same page is to hold coordination meetings. Delegates from the
different affinity groups take part in the meetings. These coordination
meetings are known as Spokes Councils.
Collectives
A collective is a
permanent organisation. In a collective (the word actually says it all),
togetherness occupies an important space. By togetherness we understand
the gathering of means, strengths and thoughts. The bringing together of
resources within one organisational framework is at least as important as
the joint undertaking of activities and reaching a shared goal. As a
result of this, the collective is a permanent organisational form that, in
contrast with the affinity group, has a continuing goal, such as putting
out a magazine or keeping a business going. Because of their permanence,
collectives usually have a formal organisational structure. A long-term
organisation also demands necessary fixed tasks. In order to avoid
discussing the same things over and over again, fixed tasks are often
divided up among the individuals of the collective. Those who carry out
these tasks should stick to their mandates (which should include room to
manoeuvre) as established in the meeting. The organisational makeup of the
collective is determined by the number of people involved, the nature of
the collective’s activities and the circumstances that the collective must
operate in. Therefore, the organisational structure is tailor-made
according to the criteria for a democratic organisational structure, as
discussed in chapter 3. Two of the most common organisational frameworks
are the centralised and decentralised collectives.
The centralised
collective
The type of collective
in which all discussion and decision-making takes place in a plenary
meeting (general assembly), in which all members of the collective take
part, is known as a centralised collective. This
can work fine when the collective has a small number of members and
limited activities, as you can see on the chart above. The huge advantage
of this structure is that all members of the collective are involved in
all facets of organising. It can be handy to set up working groups within
this structure that can carry out special tasks and to prepare for the
plenary meeting.
The decentralised
collective
When a collective
grows and the number of projects and people increases, it is often
difficult to organise everything during plenary meetings. Not only does
this lead to long meetings, it is also absurd and inefficient. Why should
everyone have to discuss every little detail?
Contrary to what many
believe, direct democracy doesn’t mean that everyone must talk
about everything, but that everyone can discuss and decide on the
issues that concern him or her. It is not necessary for each person to be
physically present at every meeting; furthermore, plenary meetings in
which everyone is present are no guarantee of democratic decision-making.
In direct democracy, the most important factors are the accessibility and
transparency of a workable decision-making process.
Once you achieve a workable organisational structure, you
should continue to work from it, improving it when necessary. If you
don’t, then the organisation can disintegrate and the collective’s members
can become frustrated. This can bring the existence of the collective in
danger. Therefore, the best way for a more complex direct-democratic
organisation to discuss and decide issues is to formally decentralise the
decision-making process.
One way to
decentralise the decision-making process within the collective is to form
project groups, based around specific, concrete tasks such as producing a
magazine, running a shop, organising actions etc. It is important that the
individual groups’ tasks are clear and defined, so that everyone knows who
does what and when.
The
coordination
The decentralisation
of the organisation structure will succeed or fail depending on the
standard of coordination between the different parts of the collective.
When you decentralise, but fail to coordinate, the collective will fall
apart. Keeping a collective together, especially if the organisation
grows, is quite a job in itself. The project groups meet
separately and delegate one or more person(s) to go to the coordination
meeting a number of times, to represent the project. (The representative
must attend ‘a number of times’, because the coordination group cannot
function without continuity.) During the coordination
meeting, all the delegates from the different projects come together. They
discuss how their projects are going and synchronise activities.
To increase
decisiveness, the coordination meeting could be given the capacity to make
decisions there and then. Important and controversial points should,
however, always be relayed back to the projects before a decision can be
made. If the coordination group still doesn’t reach a decision after that,
then a plenary meeting can always be called. Apart from the different
independently operating projects, which are all represented at the
coordination meeting, joint working groups can be set up (see flowchart).
These can be general working groups for long-term tasks that are important
to all projects, or temporary working groups for specific occasions.
The working groups
are subject to the same method of decision making as the project groups
and coordination meetings are.
Federations
A federation is a
formal cooperation that unites individual organisations. Not all
federations are made up of (only) direct-democratic organisations. Most
already existing federations unite hierarchical organisations. However,
expressly direct-democratic federations exist as well. Many western
countries, for example, have federations that unite anarchist
organisations. A federation seems to be a good place to coordinate the
activities of different direct-democratic organisations (the federation
members). Just like a collective, a federation is a long-term
organisation. Groups join federations for different reasons. Organisations
often share a specific goal, for example ‘representing worker’s interests’
or ‘protection of the environment’. Sometimes ideological principles form
the basis of cooperation, even though in practice the individual
organisations are busy doing different things. Almost all federations work
with a secretariat that supports the federation. This flowchart gives an
idea of how a federation can be constructed:
Collectives 1, 3, 5
and 6 are decentralised collectives and each one consists of three
projects. Collectives 2 and 4 are centralised collectives. Each collective
sends a delegate to the federation council, where they all coordinate
their activities. However, at no time does a collective lose its
autonomy.
Coalitions
Apart from formal
organisational forms, the movement for direct democracy makes use of
informal methods of cooperation. This can take place on a local as well as
a regional level in the form of innumerable groups that prepare and carry
out (often short-term) actions. On a regional level this would usually
take the form of coalitions (also known as platforms) and networks.
Coalitions and networks have a lot of similarities. Not only are both less
formal than federations, but they are also less durable in character, and
their level of political unity is often limited to specific issues. There
are, however, a number of differences between coalitions and
networks.
A coalition is set up
as organisational framework in which different organisations, and
sometimes different individuals, can synchronise their activities, and in
so doing increase their chances of reaching their common goals. Their
basis for cooperation usually takes the form of a manifesto. The manifesto
contains analyses of the issues and a description of the goals. The formal
organisational structure is negligible, so a flowchart is not needed.
Apart from coalition meetings, there is usually a supporting secretariat.
Organisations and individuals can join a coalition very easily. All they
have to do is endorse the manifesto. There are rarely any other
obligations for members of the coalition.
Networks
Networks, even more
than coalitions, are based on informality. Most networks have a more
general goal than the average coalition. A network is an easily accessible
and informal communication framework, where experiences can be exchanged
and the participants can support each other’s activities.
A good
example of a network is the People’s Global Action (PGA) network (1),
which has brought countless organisations and individuals together in the
last few years without even having an office or a spokesperson. The
organisations and individuals that have come together through PGA often
carry out their activities thousands of kilometres away from one another.
The characteristics that unify PGA are its five political hallmarks, its
manifesto, its organisational principles, e-mail lists, and a conference
now and again. People within a network rarely call themselves members, but rather
participants. There are countless networks of an anarchist character. The
Internet has hugely increased the role of networks in modern social
movements.
The global justice movement owes a large part of its existence
to networks. Even so, these networks shouldn’t be seen as a replacement or
an alternative for more formal structures such as federations, but should
be seen as a valuable addition to such formal organisations. They offer a
cross-border organisational frame in which the social movements can
coordinate their activities without being in each other’s faces. On the
contrary, the anonymity of the Internet gives participants in networks the
idea that their own autonomy is guaranteed. In the following flowchart, you
can see an example of what a network might look like. The connecting lines
between the various participants can represent e-mail lists, joint
meetings, or even personal friendships.
Common problems
within horizontal organisations
Every method of
organising has its own problems and restrictions. There is no ideal way to
organise. Even direct-democratic organisations struggle with internal
problems. For example, these problems can be organisational or
content-based, and problems can overlap, which makes it even more
confusing. Conflicts and differences of opinion, which are direct results
of the diversity inherent within the movement for direct democracy, are
too often seen as problems rather than dealt with
constructively.
Making good decisions
is paramount to the sustainability of every form of collaboration. A
decision is good when the content is clear, when everyone agrees, when
it’s determined how the idea will be put into practice, and when it’s
clear how the implementation will be monitored. If one (or more) of these
conditions is not fulfilled, it could easily undermine the trust between
the group’s members and the group’s capacity for action. Vagueness in the
decision-making process can also be a reason why certain points keep
making their way back onto the agenda. The importance of good decision
making is something that should not be underestimated; we will discuss the
topic further in chapter 5.
Each group that is
serious about achieving something would do well to ensure that the tasks
are clearly shared. A common mistake is making a decision before thinking
about what’s needed to implement the decision. When responsibility for
carrying out a decision is not clearly delegated to specific people but to
the group as a whole, often nobody takes initiative because everybody
trusts that somebody else will do it. Of course there are tasks that
everyone is responsible for, but in most cases it’s sensible to divide the
tasks based on rational criteria (see chapter 3) among the group
members.
Within
direct-democratic groups, there are no bosses who dish out orders. There
is (mostly) no punishment system, such as being sacked, that will
guarantee thorough implementation of tasks. Therefore, cooperation depends
largely on the initiative of the members of the group. Failure to stick to
agreements and failure to take responsibility sabotages cooperation within
the group, and reduces the chances of reaching the desired
goal.
Sometimes it seems as
though there are more outspoken characters and crazy ideas in
direct-democratic groups than anywhere else. This makes sense, as there is
more possibility to be oneself in a direct-democratic environment than out
in the ‘big bad world’. Working and living together on an equal level,
however, doesn’t happen on its own. Diversity demands conscious and
patient behaviour; this isn’t always easy, especially with so much
constant pressure from the outside world on you and your group. For this
and other reasons, clashes between various characters and ideas inevitably
take place. The trick is not to suppress and deny these conflicts, but to
give them a place within the organisation, in such a way that these
conflicts help to strengthen the group, and finally help to achieve the
goal you set out to realise in the first place.
Footnote: (1) People’s
Global Action website: http://www.agp.org
5. The meetings
The most important
spaces for communication within direct-democratic organisations are the
meetings. There the following takes place: discussion, organisation and
decision making. There are various direct-democratic ways of meeting. The
activist group Food Not Bombs, for example, has introduced a method that
can help groups to meet smoothly, effectively and satisfactorily. The
facilitator and minute-taker have especially important
roles.
The facilitator
The facilitator (also
known as moderator or chairperson) has an active, guiding role. She or he
ensures a clear structure for the meeting by arranging the agenda points
in a logical order and making sure that the meeting sticks to these
points. The facilitator ensures that each point is introduced properly,
and that as many people as possible take active roles in the
decision-making process by asking each person’s opinion and the arguments
behind it. She or he takes care that the discussions take place in a
constructive manner, that each person is allowed to say his or her piece,
and that members listen to each other and take each other
seriously.
The facilitator guides
the meeting to a decision. This process starts with thorough discussion of
the agenda points, and requires intervention to stop side conversations,
talking in circles, and digression. In order to work towards reaching a
good decision or conclusion, the facilitator has to keep neutral in the
discussion, has to listen to everyone’s ideas, objections and arguments
and frequently summarises the discussion up to that point.
Making good decisions
is a skill and everyone’s constructive input is necessary. The facilitator
guides the decision-making process to strong results, by formulating a
clear conclusion after each agenda point has been discussed and saying
when (in her opinion) consensus has been reached or is in reach. The last
moment in the decision-making process is when the facilitator asks whether
there is consensus regarding the conclusion or decision. The facilitator
makes sure that the minute-taker notes this correctly, so that there is no
chance of confusion later on about what decision has been made, and about
who is going to carry out the required tasks.
The
minute-taker
The minute-taker’s
role in the meeting is equally as important as that of the facilitator.
The minute-taker listens closely to the arguments and writes them down, as
well as the decisions made. Good and complete minutes avoid
misunderstanding. It’s important to take minutes in such a way that the
reader gets a complete picture of the discussion, the arguments exchanged
and the decision taken. It’s important to write down who precisely is
going to carry out which task(s).
Small
tasks
Depending on the
makeup of the group, it can be handy to assign people small but important
tasks that will help the meeting run more smoothly. For example: it’s
advantageous for groups to have someone who phones around the day before
the meeting to remind all the participants that the meeting will take
place. This can help when attendance at meetings tends to be low. For
larger meetings, it can be useful to have a host to direct people, someone
to receive the latecomers and to quickly update them on what’s already
taken place so as to cause as little disturbance as possible. Another role
is that of the timekeeper. Often it’s necessary to stick to a strict
timeframe, so that at the end of the meeting you don’t still have half an
agenda to discuss.
In difficult and
heated meetings, it can be handy for one person to take note of the
atmosphere. This person’s task is to make sure that things stay relaxed,
that everyone gets to speak, that nobody talks for too long, and that
everyone’s still awake. Normally these would be the facilitator’s tasks,
but if the meetings are really big, then the facilitator will be busy
enough keeping the discussion on track.
The consensus
meeting method
Below, you will see a
flowchart of the consensus meeting method. This method structures the
meeting in such as way that not only does the meeting flow, but produces
clear results. This is a reproduction of the formal consensus method used
by Food Not Bombs, which actually refers to a long tradition in Western
direct-democratic movements. Sometimes the method will need to be adjusted
to suit your specific situation and wishes of the group. There are other
variations of this, and it can also be used in combination with other
methods of holding meetings. Particularly in large assemblies this can
include methods in which the meeting strives for consensus but actually
ratifies decisions by voting (usually by overwhelming
majority).
In the consensus
meeting method, the group chooses the facilitator and minute-taker at the
start of the meeting. Then, after a round of proposals, the agenda is
decided upon. Each
point is then explained, and people get the opportunity to ask questions
to clear up any confusion about the agenda point and proposals.
If an agenda point
is not explained well or is unclear, then reaching a good conclusion and
decision is already impossible before discussion has even
started.
Step 1: when an agenda
point doesn’t cause much discussion, then consensus can sometimes already
be achieved after the first discussion.
Step 2: when there are
objections, probably more discussion and/or clarification is necessary. In
order to avoid discussing all objections at the same time, a list can be
made of the objections. These can then be grouped according to the type of
objection.
Step 3: each group of objections is considered one by one.
For each objection you try to reach a satisfying solution which shows
consideration for the objection. Then you try again to see if there’s
consensus.
Step 4: if that’s not the case, then the point is obviously
so sensitive that more discussion is necessary. You then note the
remaining objections and ask the objectors for more clarification. Then
you ask what would remove the objection. You do this for each individual
objection.
There are now five
possibilities:
- There is consensus:
the proposal is accepted
- There is consensus: the proposal is
rejected
- There is no complete consensus, but there is unanimity
because the remaining objector ‘stands aside’ so as not to block the
proposal
- People who definitely do not want the proposal to go through
block consensus
- A working group is set up which tries to find a
solution
Have a look at the
flowchart of the consensus meeting method.
Hand
signals
In meetings, it can be
helpful to use hand gestures to communicate. By using hand signals, people
can participate without having to interrupt the conversation, which
usually makes the decision-making process easier. Below you can find some
of the most important hand signals.
Pointed index
finger
This means that you have a question or remark and that you
would like to let the facilitator know that you want to speak. If a lot of
people stick up their index fingers at once, then the facilitator (or
somebody who assists her) can make a speakers list.
Two hands held in the air
You want to
directly react to something the last speaker said. This gives you priority
over the people who raise their hands and who might possibly change the
subject with their remarks.
Waving with both hands (‘twinkling’)
This is how you say
‘I agree’ or ‘I think that’s a good idea’. This is a quiet, easy way of
letting everyone know, especially the facilitator, what you
think.
Moving your hands up or down
This is how you ask
someone to speak louder or softer.
The L-sign
Making this sign shows that there are
language or translation problems. Sometimes this means that you are asking
someone to talk slower, and sometimes you are asking for
translation.
The time-out sign
With this gesture you ask for the
opportunity to make a technical remark (such as to suggest the meeting
takes a break, or to make an important announcement or suggestion).
Obviously, nobody should misuse the time-out sign to gain priority over
other speakers or to change the subject.
Fist in the air
By doing this you are
saying ‘This is unacceptable.’
Circling your hands
When people talk too long, you can
circle with your hands in the air to ask them to finish off what they are
saying.
Wiggling your fingers in front of your face
With this
gesture you are showing that you don’t follow the discussion anymore, and
that another explanation is necessary. It can also mean that you are dizzy
from too many details.
Problems in
meetings
Communication between
people is important; With poor communication, group cooperation can easily
and unnecessarily go wrong. Most communication that is important to the
organisation takes place during meetings. What follows here is a list of
the most common and easy-to-prevent problems.
Talking
for the sake of it: talking too long, too often and too loud, often without anything
important to say, just for the sake of being heard.
Defensive behaviour: constantly reacting to points
that contradict your own opinion. This often goes hand in hand with taking
criticism personally.
Splitting hairs: highlighting the weak points of someone else’s argument and
presenting this as an important point, in order to draw attention from
that person’s main argument.
Repetition: unnecessarily repeating what has already been said (more than
once).
Human
shield: when
someone receives criticism, somebody else verbally jumps in to play a
human shield. The result of this is often that the person at whom the
criticism is directed doesn’t have the chance or the responsibility to
explain him or herself.
Nuisance
behaviour:
interrupting a discussion without cause and starting a discussion on a new
topic.
Negativity: seeing the negative side of everything being addressed.
Tooting
your own horn:
using your contribution to redirect the discussion so that your pet
subject is always discussed.
Paternalism and discrimination: not taking people seriously
because they are young, for example, or inexperienced. Paternalism and
discrimination can also mean discounting others’ opinions on the basis of
class, physical ability, race, ethnicity, or other social
categories.
Taking
over: monopolising
initiatives without giving others the chance to take on
responsibility.
Selective deafness: only hearing the arguments that
are up your alley.
Talking
on behalf of others: hiding behind other people by saying, for example, ‘I heard
that...’ or ‘a lot of people think that...’
Sexism
within direct-democratic organisations manifests itself, for example, in
the form of not taking women’s contributions seriously. These
contributions can include political analyses or technical advice, fields
that are stereotypically seen as specialties particular to men. There are
many other forms of discrimination within direct-democratic groups besides
sexism, which also need to be dealt with.
6. Setting up your own
organisation
Organising a
direct-democratic group is quite a job. Direct democracy aims to organise
in such a way that involves people as much as possible in making the
decisions that are relevant to their lives; that is mostly what direct
democracy should be about. In this last chapter, you can find a number of
pointers that can help you when you set up your own direct-democratic
organisation.
The initiative
group
The chance that all sorts of people just happen to have
the same idea at the same moment, in the same place, to set up a
direct-democratic group, is obviously really small. Practice has shown
that setting up organisations, whether they are direct-democratic
organisations or not, usually happens as a result of the initiative of a
few persistent people. Starting up a sustainable organisation is something
that demands good preparation and perseverance.
In order to increase
the success of your initiative, it’s a good idea, first of all, to get an
initiative group together that will get things started. You can do this in
a number of ways. The most obvious thing to do is to ask around in your
circle of friends. If this doesn’t result in the necessary enthusiasm,
don’t get disheartened. Then it’s time to look beyond your friends. A
tried and true method of finding potential members for initiative groups
is to organise a public meeting. You should organise this meeting around a
theme that, in your opinion, is important and connected to the group which
will be set up.
Such a meeting’s
success depends on a number of factors. These are the most
important:
a) Make sure the
programme content is good
b) You can increase the turn-out for the
meeting by making a connection with current affairs which already have
media attention
c) Announce the meeting as widely as possible. It’s
pointless making a good programme if nobody turns up because they don’t
know about it. Make posters, spread flyers and send press releases
d)
Ensure that you make a clear flyer that informs people about your
initiative to set up an organisation and encourages them to take
part
e) Make a list of all people present. Moments when so many
potential comrades are alltogether in one room are scarce, and there’s
nothing more annoying after the meeting than not knowing who was present.
Make a list and let it do the rounds so that people can write down their
name and (e-mail) address if they want to be kept informed.
Finally, make sure
that you know what you want to achieve by the end of the meeting, and
already think of what the next step can be.
The
goal
Sometimes, the goal is
immediately apparent; other times it is the subject of debate. In any
case, having a clear goal (or goals) is a requirement for the success of
the collaboration. However, setting a clear goal is not something that
happens just like that. Activists sometimes confuse their methods and
their goals, so that carrying out actions becomes a goal in
itself.
Permanent
organisations, such as collectives and federations, have different goals.
You could say that they have roughly three different types of goals:
short-term goals, intermediate steps, and long-term goals. A long-term
goal of a federation, for example, could be uniting all food-producing
factories in the region. An intermediate step could be uniting these
factories at local level, and the short-term goal could be informing
people about what a federation is. You start by defining your ultimate
goal. Then, you define the path and the initial and intermediate steps
necessary to reach that goal. Don’t lose sight of the ultimate goal, and
don’t let yourself get caught up in political games and media hype.
The target
group
The next step in
setting up your organisation is establishing your target group. Make a
list of the groups you want to reach. You will often have different target
groups at the same time, and it pays to approach these groups with
different methods of communication and action. Before you decide which
methods to use in order to reach your target groups, make sure you choose
a suitable organisational structure.
The form of
organisation
In chapter 4 we
discussed the most important organisational forms. Besides temporary and
permanent organisational forms, you can choose between formal and informal
means of organising. Which organisational form is most suitable depends on
your goal, the participants in the initiative, and the circumstances in
which you will have to work. Changing your organisational structure
afterwards can be difficult, so consider well before you make your
choice.
The
methods
Your choice of methods also largely depends on your
goal, the participants in your initiative, and the circumstances in which
you will have to work. For example, if your goal is to temporarily put a
company out of business, your method of choice could be an occupation. On
another occasion, the goal could be to inform people about an issue. In
that case, spreading flyers or organising a demonstration could be a
suitable method. In a final example, if the group’s goal is to start up a
social and political centre, one possible method could be to squat a
building. Choosing the right action method can be a difficult question and
often involves consideration of all sorts of possibilities. Choose
carefully, because you don’t want the method to overshadow the reason for
the action.
Practical
points
When you’ve got your
action group together, and you’ve agreed on your organisational structure,
your goals, your target group, and your methods, then the framework has
been laid for cooperation. Here are some tips of a practical
nature:
-Ensure that there is
a clear contact point that people can refer to for further information,
and announce this on all flyers, posters, press releases and other
publications. Don’t forget things like your website address, telephone
numbers and e-mail addresses.
-Make reports of all meetings and
gatherings, and keep all this information in a central place that is
accessible to all members of your group. There is nothing as frustrating
as constantly having to run around, looking for essential
information.
-Make a good public-relations plan that can be referred to
any time you publicise your activities. Such a plan should include press
contacts’ fax and phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and media deadlines, as
well as places that you can put up posters and distribute
leaflets.
-Make a list of individuals and organisations that might be
able to help organise and support your activities.
When you are still in
the orientation phase, it’s often worth the effort to contact existing
organisations and find out how they work. You can profit from their
knowledge and experience. This way you avoid making unnecessary mistakes,
and you don’t have to reinvent the wheel time and again.
Good luck, and have
fun!
Resources
Organising and
discussion methods:
- Anarchism in Action:
Methods, Tactics, Skills and Ideas http://www.radio4all.org/aia/
(A
detailed handbook about direct democracy, anarchism as an organisational
method and anarchist projects.)
- On the EYFA (a
European network of horizontal, social and ecological organisations)
website, you can find a lot of different pamphlets about meeting
techniques. http://www.eyfa.org/resources.htm
- On Conflict and
Consensus, A Handbook on Formal Consensus Decision Making http://www.consensus.net
Anarchist Resources
on the Internet
The Anarchist
Organisation (http://www.tao.ca)
Infoshop (http://www.infoshop.org)
Anarchist
Infos (http://www.a-infos.org)
The
Independent Media Center (http://www.indymedia.org)
The
Memory Hole, (http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/tmhframe.html)
Postscript
Practice starts where
this booklet ends. The practicalities of organising, such as your choice
of goals and the methods you choose to achieve your goals, were not
discussed in great depth in this introduction to direct-democratic
organisation. By reading this booklet, you have been able to familiarise
yourself with a number of traditions and rules of direct-democratic
organisation, which the undersigned has put together on the basis of his
own experience. The choice of information in this booklet is quite
selective considering the wealth of evaluations and pamphlets that
circulate within the western movement for direct democracy. This booklet
is not law and the jargon used can also be challenged.
The purpose of this
booklet is to make clear that there is a reasonable alternative to
hierarchical organisations, and that horizontal organisations definitely
don’t have to be chaotic or small scale. There is a rich tradition behind
the direct-democratic ideal, but more importantly than that, a resplendent
future. It is up to you what form this future will take.
Marco van Duijn,
Leiden, Summer 2003
Eurodusnie Collective,
Leiden, The Netherlands
http://eurodusnie.nl
To visit: Freeplace
Koppenhinksteeg, Freeplace Boerhaavelaan
Postal address: Postbus 2228,
2301 CE, Leiden, The Netherlands