Democracy

[SergeNubret]

What would you say democracy is?
Is it simply when everybody can vote on which party that will win an election?

[Q]

Elections are actually anti-democratic. They are an inherently oligarchic method of selecting representatives.

For more background info and possible democratic alternatives, Paul Cockshott (also a user on Revleft) makes some compelling arguments in this article (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/788/democracy-or-oligarchy).

[Clarion]

Direct democracy, yes. But selection of official and political office holders by sortition in the modern state is just not possible, as it's far too complex for a randomly chosen layman, or desirable, as you can end up with powerful positions in the hands of those who are unrepresentative and it offers less accountability (as they will rotate out after one term regardless of their performance) than election with right of recall.

[International_Solidarity]

Democracy is, in short, the rule of the people(majority) over a nation. This can be gained by a direct style democracy, or a Socialist style system where the working class, which is the largest(majority) class, controls the means of production. However, getting a choice between a few members of the Bourgeoisie and voting on which to have as a ruler is not democracy. Any society in-which the minority class rules over the majority class is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Voting =/= Democracy.

[Red Enemy]

The question on democracy is:

Bourgeois Democracy or Proletarian (Socialist) democracy?

[Q]

Direct democracy, yes. But selection of official and political office holders by sortition in the modern state is just not possible, as it's far too complex for a randomly chosen layman, or desirable, as you can end up with powerful positions in the hands of those who are unrepresentative and it offers less accountability (as they will rotate out after one term regardless of their performance) than election with right of recall.
A few things:
- Sortition actually scales up pretty well. In fact, the larger the populus, the better it works. It is actually the reverse: It doesn't work with small populations. For example, groups that are smaller than, say, 1000 can probably work better with elections.
- Sortition isn't a one-on-one replacement of elections. We don't, for example, select a minister by lottery. The whole underlying idea of sortition is to gain statistical representation of the greater populus, so policy reflects the interests of the whole. So, instead of ministers (single persons) one would expect councils of about 25 people or bigger.
- "Accountability" is really a non-issue for a sortitioned democracy. As you rightly remark terms last only for one term. "Accountability" becomes an issue exactly when representatives need to be kept "in check". With sortition this is built-in from the start, not a necessary "add-on".

I agree that there are some caveats and sortition is not a panacea. However, I do think that a sortitioned-democracy much more closely resembles socialist democracy than any variant we've seen on soviet-democracy. (Edit: Prerequisite for this is that the proletariat has to be in a demographic majority, so third world countries are a different matter).

Another interesting piece on the subject is Moshé Machover's Collective Decision-Making and Supervision in a Communist Society (http://www.zcommunications.org/collective-decision-making-and-supervision-in-a-communist-society-by-moshe-machover).

The question on democracy is:

Bourgeois Democracy or Proletarian (Socialist) democracy?

This is not telling us a lot. Mind that /Learning is a place where some more explanatory answers are expected.

[Clarion]

Sortition can be used for large assemblies, but their are some individual roles which need to be filled.

Judges and magistrates, for example, reallistically need to operate in a small panel at most. Generals are another example.

While policy making by sortition-selected assemblies is fine, the actual execution and administration of that policy generally requires people with particular skills and involves tasks that are rarely suitable for committee. So some election is inevitable.

Further, I would suggest that those roles in which sortition can work better than election (i.e. broad policy making) are those in which direct democracy can work even better. In those cases where direct democracy isn't practical, delegate democracy is a much more participatory process, one which includes ordinary workers in the decision making process directly rather than only if their name happens to be called.

[Q]

Sortition can be used for large assemblies, but their are some individual roles which need to be filled.

Judges and magistrates, for example, reallistically need to operate in a small panel at most. Generals are another example.
Yes, this is indeed a valid point. There are several solutions to it. User DNZ for example makes the case for sortitioning from pools of qualified people on specific jobs, like the ones you mention.


While policy making by sortition-selected assemblies is fine, the actual execution and administration of that policy generally requires people with particular skills and involves tasks that are rarely suitable for committee. So some election is inevitable.
This is correct. I myself am not in favor for sortitioning all branches of the state. That would just be silly. But where sortitioning doesn't make sense in execution areas, it should surely play a role in supervision of these areas, as to keep these accountable.


Further, I would suggest that those roles in which sortition can work better than election (i.e. broad policy making) are those in which direct democracy can work even better. In those cases where direct democracy isn't practical, delegate democracy is a much more participatory process, one which includes ordinary workers in the decision making process directly rather than only if their name happens to be called.
Soviet models are great for when you're talking about the local level. Higher up in the hierarchy though, say on the provincial or national level, you enter into some serious issues regarding representation though. Machover explains these indepth in the paper I linked.

[Let's Get Free]

Elections within the capitalist system only serve as a non violent contest between different sectors of the ruling class for control of the state, the primary organ of coercion through which the capitalists pursue their political and economic interests. Elections offer a form of systemic stability to the system. Different sectors of the ruling class will win and lose, but the general system of capitalism, exploitation, and oppression remains safe.

[subcp]

An ideal that has been useful at promoting the expansion of nascent capitalism and repression by consent of a useful proletariat.

[Paul Cockshott]

Sortition can be used for large assemblies, but their are some individual roles which need to be filled.

Judges and magistrates, for example, reallistically need to operate in a small panel at most. Generals are another example.


Judges?

They are a social role that arose in feudalism. They did not exist in ancient
democracies and republics where courts were made up entirely of jurors.

Judges are an inherently anti-democratic element of a constitution, where there are judges a democracy has not yet been securely established.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, this is indeed a valid point. There are several solutions to it. User DNZ for example makes the case for sortitioning from pools of qualified people on specific jobs, like the ones you mention.

To the user who prompted comrade Q to propose an alternative to ministers: there is also an alternative within a ministerial model. A college that is statistically representative could be attached to any particular minister, like with the big-S Soviet ministerial model. It might not be able to override the minister's orders to the ministry as a whole, but it can force the minister to be accountable to a third executive body (council of ministers) if need be.

[Red Enemy]

Democracy is a method of decision making. Where it is used, and how it is used can determine what the nature of this "democracy" is.

[Le Socialiste]

What would you say democracy is?
Is it simply when everybody can vote on which party that will win an election?

Context is everything. Whatever forms or methods democracy assumes organizationally is heavily dependent on the social and material organization of society. Democracy is, at present, little more than a facade that may be easily dispensed with by the ruling-classes if so needed. The true producers of society (i.e. the working-class) have little to no input or say in administrative policy, and can only win gains through immense, sustained pressure on their elite or ruling-class. Electoral struggles are limited, both in scope and realtime gains.

Were we to narrow our definition of democracy to voting rights (which were, in turn, fought for) and the ability to vote on party representation during an election cycle, we would still be confronted with some rather fundamental contradictions. For, despite our role in voting them in, these 'representatives' aren't answerable to our responsible for us; quite the opposite in fact. What's more, our ability to recall politicians or candidates is inhibited by layers of safeguards and bureaucracy, rendering the voter little more than a passive 'participant' in the democratic process. Because of this enforced division between the government, the state, and the people who constitute its base, one discovers a deep-seated sense of alienation and disfranchisement.

In order to ameliorate the situation, a wholesale reorganization of society is required. This is putting it lightly; indeed, it would entail the complete and utter overthrow of existing relations under capitalism, and the forcible dissolution of the ruling-classes.