Delegative Democracy

[PoliticalNightmare]

In the AAFAQ, the author/s suggests that free associations should be built upon principles of direct democracy - i.e. mass assemblies should democratically vote over big decisions while their labour itself is self-managed. Rather than voting in representatives (who are elected once in a while and have power over the masses), delegates (who only have power to carry out the will of the people and would be easily recallable).

My question is, how does this system work exactly? To what extent are decisions voted on? If the division of labour no longer exists and a rota combining hard, boring tasks with more meaningful labour for each citizen is introduced, is this voted on? Or does each labourer have the choice of selecting their lines of labour - getting to pick from a "pool" of work with say 50% being what is deemed trivial, boring and repetitive and 50% being deemed meaningful, fun and enjoyable? Do the majority vote upon the choice of work in the "pool of labour"? To what extent is labour self-managed? To what extent do people in the commune make decisions on the behalf of others? Does there have to be a clear majority for a large scale decision to be passed (i.e. not a 51% majority but say 60%)?

Also, as far as delegates go, what is the system exactly for recalling them? Do people have to make an appeal? To make an appeal does there have to be x number of people? Is there then a mass vote on the appeal? What majority is needed for the delegate to be recalled? How do we ensure that, during the delegate's time in office, they only carry out the will of the majority? How do we ensure that they don't act as tyrant?

How do we ensure that all communes follow these principles? What other questions have I missed out? etc.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm responding to posts from two threads here, and also posting back to those two threads:


'Delegative Democracy'

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=146479


'Describe me your political utopia'

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=145956


I'm going to just throw out a simple model I made recently, in an as-is kind of way -- it may intrinsically address some of the points here about delegations for representative purposes, or it may not.

I *will* add that, in this day and age of fluid digital-based communications, we may want to dispense with formalized representative personages altogether and just conceptualize a productive entity within a supply chain network as having 'external business' or 'external matters' to include in its regular routine of entity-collective co-administration among its participants.

(The model and its text are below.)





In the AAFAQ, the author/s suggests that free associations should be built upon principles of direct democracy - i.e. mass assemblies should democratically vote over big decisions while their labour itself is self-managed. Rather than voting in representatives (who are elected once in a while and have power over the masses), delegates (who only have power to carry out the will of the people and would be easily recallable).

My question is, how does this system work exactly? To what extent are decisions voted on? If the division of labour no longer exists and a rota combining hard, boring tasks with more meaningful labour for each citizen is introduced, is this voted on? Or does each labourer have the choice of selecting their lines of labour - getting to pick from a "pool" of work with say 50% being what is deemed trivial, boring and repetitive and 50% being deemed meaningful, fun and enjoyable? Do the majority vote upon the choice of work in the "pool of labour"? To what extent is labour self-managed? To what extent do people in the commune make decisions on the behalf of others? Does there have to be a clear majority for a large scale decision to be passed (i.e. not a 51% majority but say 60%)?

Also, as far as delegates go, what is the system exactly for recalling them? Do people have to make an appeal? To make an appeal does there have to be x number of people? Is there then a mass vote on the appeal? What majority is needed for the delegate to be recalled? How do we ensure that, during the delegate's time in office, they only carry out the will of the majority? How do we ensure that they don't act as tyrant?

How do we ensure that all communes follow these principles? What other questions have I missed out? etc.





there would be congresses of delegates elected both for industries and for regions such as a city or metropolitan area. delegates would be elected by the base assemblies, would have term limits, would have to report back to the assemblies that elect them, could be removed by the base assemblies, would continue to work at their regular job and only be remunerated for the delegate work at the same rate as their regular job. if the rank and file disagree with a decision of a delegate congress, there should be an easy way for a handful to petition to send the proposal back to the base assemblies for discussion and decision.





Rotation system of work roles

A universal template for covering all work roles through time, going forward, for a post-capitalism, moneyless, collectivized political economy

by Chris Kaihatsu, [email protected], 10-10, for 'Allocating jobs' thread at RevLeft.com, tinyurl.com/24tohdc


- Everyone will assist everyone else in the local area with properly fulfilling the duties of any given work role.

- Unit of time per role must remain consistent.

- People in an area of work roles cannot switch their placement in line in the circle.

- Any roles at larger scales are either in addition to local work roles or else are entirely in replacement of smaller-scale work roles.

- New additions to an area of work roles enter the line in the circle at the bottom, beginning their rotation with a half-cycle of less-popular work roles.

- New collectively agreed-upon work roles will be placed in the existing sequence according to their ranking of a scale of 1 to 10, as averaged from the rankings submitted by those in the local area of work roles.


Rotation system of work roles

http://postimage.org/image/1d53k7nd0/

[PoliticalNightmare]

edit - nevermind, thanks for the post, Chris.

[ckaihatsu]

edit - nevermind, thanks for the post, Chris.


Of course. No problem at all. And may I recommend *this* post...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1958547&postcount=83

...and some freshly ground pepper...?


= )

[syndicat]

In the AAFAQ, the author/s suggests that free associations should be built upon principles of direct democracy - i.e. mass assemblies should democratically vote over big decisions while their labour itself is self-managed. Rather than voting in representatives (who are elected once in a while and have power over the masses), delegates (who only have power to carry out the will of the people and would be easily recallable).


Recall is not by itself sufficient to define a system of delegate democracy. There are other features:

1. assemblies at the base discuss the main issues being decided at the delegate congresses and send not only delegates but also their own proposals.
2. some advocate what is called the "imperative mandate". this means that the delegate must vote as instructed by the base assembly. the problem with this is that other delegates may bring perspectives and considerations not discussed or unknown to the delegate's base assembly. if the delegates are going to actually deliberate and come up with a proposal, they are going beyond the "mandate". so if they're allowed to do that, then the base needs a way to easily force the decision back to the base assemblies, such as a small number of people petitioning for it.
3. there is also the idea that the delegates share the same social status and conditions as the constituency they are speaking for. so an assembly elects a neighbor or coworker. but this really assumes a revolution in which the class system is being dismantled, and workers have taken over management of production. that's because otherwise class advantages will corrupt the whole process.
4. delegates are not professional politiicians. they still work at least part of the time in some regular job and are remunerated for their delegate work at the same pay as their regular job, so they do not receive any material privileges for being a delegate.



My question is, how does this system work exactly? To what extent are decisions voted on? If the division of labour no longer exists and a rota combining hard, boring tasks with more meaningful labour for each citizen is introduced, is this voted on? Or does each labourer have the choice of selecting their lines of labour - getting to pick from a "pool" of work with say 50% being what is deemed trivial, boring and repetitive and 50% being deemed meaningful, fun and enjoyable? Do the majority vote upon the choice of work in the "pool of labour"? To what extent is labour self-managed? To what extent do people in the commune make decisions on the behalf of others? Does there have to be a clear majority for a large scale decision to be passed (i.e. not a 51% majority but say 60%)?

you're not just asking about delegate democracy but about how a self-managed socialist society would be run. job definitions need to be changed so as to ensure that the harsh or boring work is shared out and everyone gets to work a job with some skill or discredtion or expertise. hopefully this is a proposal that would have gained support and become part of the program of the workers mass movement that brings about the change. so it would be thru the democratic processes of that workers movement that this would be adopted as part of its program.

any scheme of supermajorities will tend to entrench in place a status quo because it will make it much harder to change, for example due to learning from experience, and empowers minorities to control the majority.

in my opinion, there needs to be significant power of workers to manage collectively the places where they work or workers liberation from class subordination won't be a reality.



Also, as far as delegates go, what is the system exactly for recalling them? Do people have to make an appeal? To make an appeal does there have to be x number of people? Is there then a mass vote on the appeal? What majority is needed for the delegate to be recalled? How do we ensure that, during the delegate's time in office, they only carry out the will of the majority? How do we ensure that they don't act as tyrant?

this is where the ability of the base to force a decision down to the assemblies for discussion and vote is critical.

[ckaihatsu]

In the interests of this...





you're not just asking about delegate democracy but about how a self-managed socialist society would be run. job definitions need to be changed so as to ensure that the harsh or boring work is shared out and everyone gets to work a job with some skill or discredtion or expertise. hopefully this is a proposal that would have gained support and become part of the program of the workers mass movement that brings about the change. so it would be thru the democratic processes of that workers movement that this would be adopted as part of its program.


...I'd like to reiterate this:





I *will* add that, in this day and age of fluid digital-based communications, we may want to dispense with formalized representative personages altogether and just conceptualize a productive entity within a supply chain network as having 'external business' or 'external matters' to include in its regular routine of entity-collective co-administration among its participants.


It seems to me that if we can read newspapers, watch TV news, and participate on the net *today*, on matters of the status quo that are kept *outside* of our reach, we can certainly do the same in a post-capitalist political environment in which a liberated labor *is* empowered.





in my opinion, there needs to be significant power of workers to manage collectively the places where they work or workers liberation from class subordination won't be a reality.


In such an environment the process of politics could probably be allowed to rise to greater, more meaningful heights than what we currently experience. This would mean a general culture in which people's attentions *are* on effective politics for a much larger proportion of their professional work time. Functionality itself, even, might very well take a backseat to the more-important collective process and mass decisions that come out of such a liberated political culture.

To this end I have to re-question whether delegative democracy -- of *any* kind -- would be necessary at all, or whether mass participation could take place on a very distributed, flat-topology political terrain....