From voting and majority rule to assemblies
and consensus (en español)
this page is at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/Discus/2000-11-00Libertus.htm
by Ringolevio and Keif O., aka Libertus Radix
First published in Spanish,
Part I, in Letra Negra, No.5, Mexico City, and
Part II, in Letra Negra, No.6, Autumn 2000, Mexico City.
This translation is by George Salzman, who, despite help, is responsible for any errors that remain. [I numbered the paragraphs to facilitate making further corrections, all of which will be gratefully accepted. My notes, followed by my initials, are in square brackets. -GS].
Part I. Explicit forms of non-hierarchy, direct democracy and self-government
By: Ringolevio
1. Many social organizations and associations of “civil society” are now aware, in confronting the failure of traditional organizational forms for social-political action (even those so-called “democratic” forms), in which up-down hierarchical, pyramidal, bureaucratic and pseudo-representative structures were always taken for granted, acknowledge that it is necessary to change to non-hierarchical, participatory and anti-bureaucratic organizational structures.
2. However, this awareness, still partial, does not by itself get transformed into an effective search for conceptualizations and above all, for truly alternative organizational practices to the traditional ones that are failures.
3. In more than a few cases, unfortunately, (in the best of them due to ignorance and inertia to explore new solutions and in the worst because of obscure motives) the old practices, ideas and prejudices remain, clothed with the names of the practices that should replace them; thus they call a structure non-hierarchical which involves, concealed, all the vices of up-down hierarchy and bureaucracy. The division of work among administrators, policy makers and grassroots militants (or field workers as they are better known) is something usually observed in almost all organizations, even those claiming to be bearers of a new political practice and a new form of ethics.
4. Other groups think it is enough to invoke words that designate the new practices so that these will be embodied in the actual paractice: thus they have to repeat and repeat that the organization is non-hierarchical, consensual and democratic in order that this be so, without concerning themselves and dealing with specific, effective ways that would tend to embody these ideas. It doubtless constitutes, in the best cases, a most naive and counterproductive attitude.
5. It seems necessary to clarify the values that determine these characteristics, as well as knowing, thinking about and practicing a series of mechanisms and methods that are not learned overnight or spontaneously.
6. It is necessary to consciously plan to learn them, test them, explore them, evaluate them and even to create them. This is in no way incompatible with free initiatives and spontaneity in protest actions of collectives or groups that want to use such mechanisms and methods.
7. It is equally essential to make a thoroughgoing inquiry about the reasons why conventional methods for organizing and making decisions don’t work. And how in fact they lead to results contrary to those they are seeking to achieve. At this point deep reflection on the problem of power is necessary. It is not enough to say or demonstrate that one is not looking for, nor wants power.
8. Once the values that provide the philosophical and ethical-political basis for our purposes and organizational forms are clarified, we must counterpose them to those that are the basis for, and determine the profile of the forms we reject, opposing to them specific new ways of organization and struggle, whose methods and rationales are carefully described and analyzed.
9. Thus, if in a decision made by voting in elections, citizens and workers oppose assemblies and councils, it must be because of a failure to explain in the most careful way how these work, i.e. without framing the explanation in a well-focused way, and showing why assemblies and councils embody and assure the very values that the citizens and workers want. To tackle the point without a major preamble, we will develop, in two stages, the example of Assemblies and the process of Consensus for making decisions, counterposed to elections and majorities.
In the Assemblies
10. We affirm the radical and essentially democratic and participatory character of the assembly as a real space in which people can express themselves and decide as individuals and collectively on matters that concern them as individuals and as a collective. We reject the role of an isolated atom that the electoral system confers on a person. We see the electoral method more as a SYSTEM OF SURVEYS than a way in which real citizens make decisions by means of discussion, deliberation and individual and collective face-to-face decisions. These elements are an integral part of a truly democratic procedure, and they can only fully take place in the space of assemblies, although other environments are favorable to them. The assemblies are also the places of meeting and direct communication among people, who in this way come to be connected, i.e. woven into a community. Thus the assemblies give them identity and existential strength.
Carrying out the collective decision
11. Deliberation and discussion in the assemblies is the concrete expression of self-government and the basic form of a self-managed, non-hierarchical structure. Only in this way is it possible to assure that there is no separation between leaders and followers. Any other variation, in which levels of representation are superposed on the exercise of collective deliberation and decision-making with the guaranteed participation of all members of a community, implies the beginning of a process of bureaucratization.
12. WE REJECT the idea that self-government can consist of naming or designating (by whatever method, even in an assembly) representatives, individuals charged with responsibility, or delegates who, even as leaders whose authority is subject to instant recall, can exercise any kind of "control" or "authority" over anyone by invoking obedience to the collective resolutions. On the contrary, the really non-hierarchical character of an assembly organization is made explicit in that no function, responsibility, or designation that falls on a person or collective can imply relationships of subordination: therefore nobody orders and nobody obeys but to themselves, as individuals and collectively.
13. At the moment, however, this can be the case (observing that it deals with an approximate analogy) of a Community Assembly in the indigenous towns of the northern Sierra of Oaxaca, for example, but not of any union, cooperative or neighborhood assembly in almost any other part of our country.
14. Why? The reason is simple: in our society a culture of collective deliberation and discussion of organization doesn't really exist, and much less of collective political discussion and deliberation; for that reason the Assemblies almost never function as we previously described. They are usually trans-formed into places of manipulation and prefabrication of collective agreements. However, we maintain that it is only in assemblies where true collective political discussion and decision-making can be done. Therefore we should learn how to carry out an assembly, and this doesn't mean follow-ing the rules of the civil code or the parliamentary method.
15. Of course we don't mean we should wait to learn before discussing collectively and making decisions; on the contrary, as in movement, this is an ongoing demonstration, but with consciousness of the limitations and of what must be learned in order to create the assembly as a truly democratic space.
16. LET’S BEGIN to think about how it can be possible to avoid assemblies being converted (which often happens) into places of manipulation, coercion, deception and competition, and the ways that groups or minorities gain and hold on to power. This, clearly, if with honesty we first recognize that of course we have been witnesses or participants in similar cases.
17. LET’S NOTE that probably the absence of structure, methods and clear and functional ways to avoid this happening is not something casual or that has to be that way; rather it usually serves the interests of groups and vangard minorities, with whose presence we must contend. They want to use the assemblies in order to get and hold on to their power, although they will always deny it. But their methods always give them away.
18. So the first thing we must be careful with is the manner in which assemblies are convened and to verify whether mechanisms for their development are clearly established ahead of time so that that these problems are avoided. But that’s how it is; we must ask immediately that this deficiency be corrected and propose the way to do it.
19. Above all, and this is valid for any moment in a decision-making process, one must not remain a quiet witness as an assembly carries out a process that is a caricature of collective deliberation. To do this is to be complicit in the maneuvers and the manipulations of the groups or factions that use the assemblies to impose their own agendas. We must lose the fear of confronting these practices or of being considered affectedly scrupulous people.
20. WE NEED NOT ALLOW antidemocratic methods and manipulaions to be imposed with the justification of urgency. Methods exist to make decisions democratically in emergency situations and besides, what is important is to make good decisions, which can only be assured by the effective participation of everyone.
21. There must always be the widest circulation of information and ideas, as well as their discussion in ways complementary to the discussion in the forum: before the assemblies it is necessary to circulate all the data and relevant information in the form of pamphlets, leaflets, wall newspapers, electronic mail, telephone, radio, forums, posters. It must be certain that everyone attending an assembly knows ahead of time what will be discussed, the context in which matters arise, and all factors needed so that everyone can participate effectively.
Part II. Specific forms of non-hierarchy, direct democracy and self-government
By: Keif O.
22. In the previous part we began an exposition on the explicit forms of non-hierarchical organization, direct democracy and the concept of self-government which, for us, are essentially embodied in carrying out the collective process of reflection, discussion, deliberation and decision-making in the assemblies. Now we will continue our analysis concerning several aspects of assembly dynamics in general and their problems, in order to then move on to what is relevant to consensus as a procedure for making collective decisions.
The Assembly (continuation) - Internal Dynamics
The logic of majority rule, factions, and voting.
Representation, hierarchy and delegation. Elections
as an advanced level of pseudodemocracy.
23. When procedures are not adopted in full consciousness and it is assumed that their implications are those imagined, the organization of non-hierarchical assemblies displays an internal dynamic that tends to reproduce, when it doesn’t accentuate and disguise, generally in ways that are inadvertent and unconscious, the prevailing structures of the formal and day-to-day political life in our societies.
24. Almost always, the first feature that is reproduced is the adoption, without more reflection or looking for alternatives, of the method of making decisions by voting and majority rule. This is accompanied by a play of interests (not of points of view or of different ideological options) between internal groups which form into factions. These factions, micro-level versions of the political parties, already have most of their vices and even others of their own. They will try at all costs to make their positions prevail, regardless of the fact that these positions will then constitute a decision that everyone should be able to consider as their own and in which they have also participated; which of course is the essence of self-government … Certainly, for gaining acceptance of ones position nothing is more convenient than turning to votes and majority rule in order to “win” the discussion on a point, since this allows, in the best of cases, making use of good rhetorical ability and differences in knowledge and information, or simply a number of “dim-witted” voters, to succeed (we don't want to say, however, that voting and majority rule are intrinsically negative …). As though this were not enough, the old political sharks are skilled in manipulating the moderator's function, such as allocating speaking times, providing access to information and other ingredients of this cocktail that all of us have been made to swallow at some time….
25. The next brick in the wall is, of course, relying upon an election or vote to choose leaders, committee members or representatives. The several factions usually present slates with their 'sacrificed and experienced' [1] people for these leaders, committee members and representatives, who in principle (or) at first [2] will be subject to a mandate from the assembly. But once the fact is accepted that they were elected by a vote similar in many regards to that of any bourgeois political system, it is easy for the supposed special ability for a specific function or task of the one elected to be in charge of it, to replace any mandate and to give him a hierarchical or special authority in his domain; in addition, in the “operative conditions” that develop, a representative is led to considerations beyond being only a representative or spokesman, and to carry out, as the delegated plenipotentiary, the powers of decision of those he represents (with the convenient subterfuge, sometimes, that he carries out his mandate “obeying by commanding”). If in addition clear, preset mechanisms don't exist for rendering account, this is something that has to happen sooner rather than later. In this way, there develops the basis of a pyramidal structure of representation, delegation, falsification and finally expropriation of the group’s capacity for self-determination, all based on the existence of some assemblies that decide almost nothing and mostly obey. It is not difficult to see how elections, plebiscites and consultations, from top to bottom, at every level of political organization, from the neighborhood, factory, school, municipality or community, up to the national level, or of large corporations or unions, are in reality advanced forms of pseudo-democratic mystification.
[1 Where the original reads, “su” sacrificada y capacitada, I have their 'sacrificed and experienced'. Two friends gave me two interpretations: the first, that the author meant it sarcastically, as though the faction was sacrificing its valuable personnel to this task; and the second, that individuals in a political party or faction who devote their lives to it, mostly giving up the rest of their lives to this single pursuit, are referred to as sacrifices. -GS]
[2 In the original the phrase is que en principio. It could mean who in principle or who initially, i.e. who at first. I don't know which was intended. -GS]
Non-hierarchy
26. Confronted with this internal dynamic of a self-fragmenting nature, we assert that the choice of a non-hierarchical structure and assembly means nothing if it is not made with full consciousness of its implications and meaning, above all, in regard to the precise mechanisms for making decisions that have to be implemented, so that the non-hierarchy and self-government so sought for are translated into a concrete reality and are not only slogans for publicity, concealing a different reality. Above all it has to be clearly known what is understood by non-hierarchy: for us it is, first, the feature that in an organization or structure no function, of whatever nature, can imply relationships of subordination or hierarchy. Therefore, we repeat: in a non-hierarchical organization nobody gives orders and nobody obeys, except those charged with responsibility for some assigned task, who obey the mandate of the group, which in no case can mean exercising “control” over any person. In this way non-hierarchy puts an end to the principle on the basis of which every bureaucratic pyramid is constructed, and prevents its appearance, but only by actively doing it can we combat hierarchy. Non-hierarchy already demonstrates a strategic value in its antibureaucratic character which gives to the organization that adopts it a capacity for flexibility, self-direction and regeneration by separating into its constituent units, without diminishing its potential for joint action, whenever a unification plan among the diverse groups brings them together, respecting and satisfying their non-hierarchical and autonomous internal makeup.
Direct Action
27. From our perspective, non-hierarchical practice goes hand-in-hand with that of direct action. In the field of organization direct action means something of a complementary nature to non-hierarchical practice: it refers to the idea that the people directly affected by the decisions that are taken should be those who are primarily involved in the process of making such decisions. This however doesn't mean that only they are the ones who decide. If it is an action that will be backed by the entire organization, obviously the decision cannot fall only on the nucleus that will carry it out. But under no circumstances can the right to participate forcefully in the conception and design of the action be denied to those who are to carry it out. In the case of an organization oriented towards political action, those individuals who take part in a mobilization or campaign should participate directly in the decisions regarding it. This participation also has strategic value, because carrying out the actions is facilitated from the moment at which they have been decided upon with the participation of those who are to do it. The actions can be carried out more quickly, which can be crucial in an emergency situation.
Consensus as a procedure for deciding collectively, and as an element of a culture of resistance.
28. At the heart of the direct democracy by means of assemblies that we want to build is the need to rely on alternatives to the problems posed by decision-making, and specifically by the method of voting and majority rule. But, do such alternatives exist? We must recognize that perfect alternatives don't exist, but if we appeal to common sense, to the experience of towns and communities with long histories and in diverse cultural traditions, as well as to our own creativity, we can discover and explore alternatives such as the one for which we will give a brief exposition in the following:
29. Consensus is a method for making collective decisions that seeks to overcome the logic of votes and majorities. It can work in small groups as well as in large organizations.
30. Above all, it also strives for quality in the decision, in regard to its content and in regard to the internal cohesion that its adoption implies for the group. The way of achieving this is a process of deliberation (naturally in assembly), in which the voice of everyone is recognized as well as the value of his or her probable contribution for reaching a solution or decision which embodies a synthesis of the different viewpoints. For this reason, in this process neither votes nor majorities exist: a decision is adopted when there are no more objections and everyone indicates their essential agreement with the solution or decision. The most common, but mistaken criticism of consensus refers to nothing more than the ability of a single individual to block adoption of a collective resolution: this can only happen in extremely rare cases. Certainly the consensus process can take time, but the quality of the decision reached is worth it. In addition to the fact that it is a truly collective resolution, carrying it out can in large measure be immediate, since there is no need to transmit and impose the decision. Consensus doesn't attempt to make all points of view identical or to achieve absolute agreement on each and every detail of a decision. Diverse forms of consensus exist, but they all give priority to the process of deliberation discussed above. They have been, and are currently being practiced in various forms and to various degrees, by different groups and organizations: from indigenous communities in many parts of Latin America, to ecological organizations, anarcosyndicalists and, most recently, organizations of civil society in many parts of the world. (but very little in our country…)
31. Formal consensus, that is to say, that which maintains a defined structure and clear functions, will always be necessary in an organization that exceeds a certain numerical size. It’s a good example of a process that must be learned and consciously developed in order to make explicit the non-hierarchy and direct democracy we seek. If the development of the process for making assembly decisions is left to spontaneity, that only increases the difficulty of the process maturing and overcoming the inertias and corrupt practices that predominate in many organizations or groups that attempt to organize themselves. Because of what was just said, we can then speak of a culture of resistance and of radical democracy which are needed for unifying intentions with theoretical-practical factors.
For a detailed exposition of the method of Consensus, we suggest the reader consult reference No. 2
32. Here we have continued discussing the specific forms of non-hierarchy and self-government, expanding on the treatment of the internal dynamics of the assembly and its chronic difficulties, in order to go on to an explanation of an alternative to the dilemmas that lie at the core of radical, direct, self-managed democracy, which we hope to contribute to building. In the following number of Letra Negra we will discuss in more detail some aspects and misunderstandings about consensus, and we will treat other questions related to the theme of this series, such as:
The dictatorship of amorphism, and spontaneity as panacea
Bureaucratic centralism hidden in a new discourse
Labor council and self-management
Self-management, direct radical democracy
Political ethics and radical democracy
Documents and Sources:
1. Manual of non-violent direct action, Edited from the workshop on Analysis and libertarian political groupings, Mexico 1999-2000
2. Manual of consensus, Translated and edited from the workshop on Analysis and libertarian political groupings, Mexico 1999-2000
3. Warning to the civilized about generalized self-management, Raul Vaneigem
4. Documents for criticism and debate on assemblies and the organization of the student movement, edited from the workshop on Analysis and libertarian political groupings, Mexico 1999-2000
Political Parties, by Robert Michells. Publ. by Amorrotu, Buenos Aires 1969
What is Bureaucracy?, by Claude Lefort. Publ. by Ruedo Ibérico Francia 1970
Self-management, by Pierre Rosanvallon. Publ. by Fundamentos 1976
The numbered materials from 1 to 4 can be gotten in electronic version at:
http://pagina.de/insurgencia.civil
All the cited texts can be consulted in the Biblioteca de Crítica y Alternativas Radicales:
http://pagina.de/biblioteca.critica/
Tel 55 78 13 01 Saturdays 12-18 hrs
Internet addresses:
The Net of the Consent (The Consensos Net)
http://www.consensus.net/
Rukus Foundation (Another manual of AD)
http://ruckus.org/man/action_planning.html/
Tools for Activists and other Hell Raisers
http://www.casagordita.com/tools.htm/
Act UP Manual of Civil Disobedience
http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/
Social self-management
http://www.pagina.de/autogestion/
Political theory and Social History
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1664/
Znet in Spanish
http://www.zmag.org/Spanish/index.htm/
To contact author: Libertus Radix <laboetie@prodigy.net.mx>
To contact translator: <george.salzman@umb.edu>
* * *
Return to the opening page of the subfolder Discussion of strategy for revolution
Return to the opening page of the Strategy for revolution folder
Return to the homepage of the website
Last update of this page: January 26, 2004
|