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