Paradox
30th January 2005, 18:20
I've been reading some papers my father sent me about the Zapatistas. He got these papers from the Zapatista Coalition in California. They're pieces by Subcomandante Marcos, and one of them is called "Two Flaws," and has to do with the structure of the Good Government Juntas, or JBGs. The following are quotes from Marcos:
The members of the Good Government Juntas change continually. After "rotations" which last from 8 to 15 days (according to the region), the junta is replaced. Those who are there then return to their work in autonomous councils, and other authorities come in to run the JBG.
Marcos is saying this because civil societies have complained about the lack of continuity in the JBGs. They say that just when you're about to make an agreement with one junta, the next week, the junta is replaced and you have to start all over again.
The plan is that the work of the JBGs should be rotated among the members of all the autonomous councils of each region. This is so that the task of governing is not exclusive to one group, so that there are no "professional" leaders, so that learning is for the greatest number of people, and so that the idea that government can only be carried out by "special people" is rejected... once all the members of an autonomous council have learned the meaning of good government, there are new elections in the communities, and all the authorities change. Those who have already learned return to their fields, and new ones come in... and start over again.
The advantages? Fine, one of them is that it's more difficult for an authority to go too far and, by arguing how "complicated" the task of governing is, to not keep the communities informed about the use of resources or decision making. The more people who know what it's about, the more difficult it will be to deceive and to lie. And the governed will exercise more vigilance over those who govern.
It also makes corruption more difficult. If you manage to corrupt one member of the JBG, you will have to corrupt all the autonomous authorities, or all the rotations, because doing a "deal" with just one of them won't guarantee anything (corruption also requires "continuity").
Marcos acknowledges that there are a few kinks to work out, but says it will work in the long run:
It will take time, I know. But for those who, like the zapatistas, make plans for decades, a few years isn't much time.
Now, you may be wondering why I posted this in the Theory forum. Well, after reading about how administration under Socialism/Communism would be democratically organized on a local, then regional basis, and so on, I wanted to know if this, the JBG, would be an example of such organization. What do you guys think of this method? And if this isn't an example of how it might work, what would be? Thanks. :ph34r:
The members of the Good Government Juntas change continually. After "rotations" which last from 8 to 15 days (according to the region), the junta is replaced. Those who are there then return to their work in autonomous councils, and other authorities come in to run the JBG.
Marcos is saying this because civil societies have complained about the lack of continuity in the JBGs. They say that just when you're about to make an agreement with one junta, the next week, the junta is replaced and you have to start all over again.
The plan is that the work of the JBGs should be rotated among the members of all the autonomous councils of each region. This is so that the task of governing is not exclusive to one group, so that there are no "professional" leaders, so that learning is for the greatest number of people, and so that the idea that government can only be carried out by "special people" is rejected... once all the members of an autonomous council have learned the meaning of good government, there are new elections in the communities, and all the authorities change. Those who have already learned return to their fields, and new ones come in... and start over again.
The advantages? Fine, one of them is that it's more difficult for an authority to go too far and, by arguing how "complicated" the task of governing is, to not keep the communities informed about the use of resources or decision making. The more people who know what it's about, the more difficult it will be to deceive and to lie. And the governed will exercise more vigilance over those who govern.
It also makes corruption more difficult. If you manage to corrupt one member of the JBG, you will have to corrupt all the autonomous authorities, or all the rotations, because doing a "deal" with just one of them won't guarantee anything (corruption also requires "continuity").
Marcos acknowledges that there are a few kinks to work out, but says it will work in the long run:
It will take time, I know. But for those who, like the zapatistas, make plans for decades, a few years isn't much time.
Now, you may be wondering why I posted this in the Theory forum. Well, after reading about how administration under Socialism/Communism would be democratically organized on a local, then regional basis, and so on, I wanted to know if this, the JBG, would be an example of such organization. What do you guys think of this method? And if this isn't an example of how it might work, what would be? Thanks. :ph34r: