Demarchy

[Red Menace]

I brought this up in an earlier topic, but I was wondering what you guys thought about the system called Demarchy.
It's basically a system that eliminates the bureocracies and corruption from electing officials. It's basically where national matters are decided by that of like a jury. Random people are selected to decide on national matters. They aren't permanent, so this eliminates corruption or one's own political goals.

You can learn more at wikipedia, but I just wanted to know what you guys thought about it.

[P.L.U.C.K.]

fuck tommunism, this is the best system EVER!

[MrDoom]

Random people? Deciding national matters?

I'm not sure I'm convinced to the idea.

Aggregated local democracy and self-rule with immediately recallable officials for soviet-wide matters seems a bit less... well, RANDOM.


fuck tommunism, this is the best system EVER!
This is what we call 'political prostitution'.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 09:33 pm
Random people? Deciding national matters?

I'm not sure I'm convinced to the idea.

Aggregated local democracy and self-rule with immediately recallable officials for soviet-wide matters seems a bit less... well, RANDOM.


fuck tommunism, this is the best system EVER!
This is what we call 'political prostitution'.
well it wouldn't be a single person deciding national matters. It would be similiar to a council and a jury combined, where they all have to agree. It wouldn't be where there was a one party jury, but people from all political backgrounds.

[cenv]

I'm not too convinced. The point in electing someone is that you don't end up with an idiot. If I'm going to have a group of people making important decisions, I want it to be a group that the people as a whole have chosen and decided is well-qualified. If you randomly select such a body of people, you don't know whether you're going to end up with idiots, reactionaries, or anyone else that doesn't represent the people. As long as the people have the power to recall elected officials and ensure that those officials don't have too much power, I don't think such extreme measures as demarchy are necessary to prevent corruption. I can see such a system being effective for more small-scale issues, but certainly not national matters.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 10:56 pm
I'm not too convinced. The point in electing someone is that you don't end up with an idiot. If I'm going to have a group of people making important decisions, I want it to be a group that the people as a whole have chosen and decided is well-qualified. If you randomly select such a body of people, you don't know whether you're going to end up with idiots, reactionaries, or anyone else that doesn't represent the people. As long as the people have the power to recall elected officials and ensure that those officials don't have too much power, I don't think such extreme measures as demarchy are necessary to prevent corruption. I can see such a system being effective for more small-scale issues, but certainly not national matters.
I see where your getting at, and I do agree with you, but I think the chances of getting a panel full of reactionaries will be unlikely. Once leftist can cancel out the rest of the panel's decision, but goes the same in reverse, thats why they must come to an ultimate agreement.

[cenv]

Originally posted by Defy+November 25, 2006 05:37 am--> (Defy @ November 25, 2006 05:37 am)
[email protected] 24, 2006 10:56 pm
I'm not too convinced. The point in electing someone is that you don't end up with an idiot. If I'm going to have a group of people making important decisions, I want it to be a group that the people as a whole have chosen and decided is well-qualified. If you randomly select such a body of people, you don't know whether you're going to end up with idiots, reactionaries, or anyone else that doesn't represent the people. As long as the people have the power to recall elected officials and ensure that those officials don't have too much power, I don't think such extreme measures as demarchy are necessary to prevent corruption. I can see such a system being effective for more small-scale issues, but certainly not national matters.
I see where your getting at, and I do agree with you, but I think the chances of getting a panel full of reactionaries will be unlikely. Once leftist can cancel out the rest of the panel's decision, but goes the same in reverse, thats why they must come to an ultimate agreement. [/b]
Unlikely, yes, but there are a lot of national decisions to be made, so it wouldn't be a miracle if it happened eventually. However, are you saying that the panel must make unanimous decisions? I think to expect a panel to come to a unanimous decision on national matters is impractical.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by cenv+November 24, 2006 11:47 pm--> (cenv @ November 24, 2006 11:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 05:37 am

[email protected] 24, 2006 10:56 pm
I'm not too convinced. The point in electing someone is that you don't end up with an idiot. If I'm going to have a group of people making important decisions, I want it to be a group that the people as a whole have chosen and decided is well-qualified. If you randomly select such a body of people, you don't know whether you're going to end up with idiots, reactionaries, or anyone else that doesn't represent the people. As long as the people have the power to recall elected officials and ensure that those officials don't have too much power, I don't think such extreme measures as demarchy are necessary to prevent corruption. I can see such a system being effective for more small-scale issues, but certainly not national matters.
I see where your getting at, and I do agree with you, but I think the chances of getting a panel full of reactionaries will be unlikely. Once leftist can cancel out the rest of the panel's decision, but goes the same in reverse, thats why they must come to an ultimate agreement.
Unlikely, yes, but there are a lot of national decisions to be made, so it wouldn't be a miracle if it happened eventually. However, are you saying that the panel must make unanimous decisions? I think to expect a panel to come to a unanimous decision on national matters is impractical. [/b]
yeah I think they would be unanimous. Or we could just have a panel of leftists,
no reactionaries allowed :D like a clubhouse, back when we were kids, no girls allowed, lol.

[cenv]

Originally posted by Defy+November 25, 2006 06:55 am--> (Defy @ November 25, 2006 06:55 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 11:47 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 05:37 am

[email protected] 24, 2006 10:56 pm
I'm not too convinced. The point in electing someone is that you don't end up with an idiot. If I'm going to have a group of people making important decisions, I want it to be a group that the people as a whole have chosen and decided is well-qualified. If you randomly select such a body of people, you don't know whether you're going to end up with idiots, reactionaries, or anyone else that doesn't represent the people. As long as the people have the power to recall elected officials and ensure that those officials don't have too much power, I don't think such extreme measures as demarchy are necessary to prevent corruption. I can see such a system being effective for more small-scale issues, but certainly not national matters.
I see where your getting at, and I do agree with you, but I think the chances of getting a panel full of reactionaries will be unlikely. Once leftist can cancel out the rest of the panel's decision, but goes the same in reverse, thats why they must come to an ultimate agreement.
Unlikely, yes, but there are a lot of national decisions to be made, so it wouldn't be a miracle if it happened eventually. However, are you saying that the panel must make unanimous decisions? I think to expect a panel to come to a unanimous decision on national matters is impractical.
yeah I think they would be unanimous. Or we could just have a panel of leftists,
no reactionaries allowed :D like a clubhouse, back when we were kids, no girls allowed, lol. [/b]
Lol. Well, it's a nice idea. However, I firmly believe that it's impractical to expect a panel to come to a unanimous decision on any given national issue. Furthermore, having a leftist-only panel is tricky... who decides whether any given person is in fact a leftist? Selecting a panel comprised only of "leftists" could very easily cause us to slide down the slippery slope of censorship.

[Delta]

No, way too much power with unelected, unrecallable officials. I certainly do not want to be bound by their decisions, as I never authorized them to represent me.

[angus_mor]

If the idea is to randomly select random joes for political concensus, then why not just let the whole populace represent itself; direct democracy anyone? Participatory democracy in a more rational format, perhaps? People who wish to participate in legislation should have the right to, and one could enter the political arena whenever they felt they were ready. Hell, I'm ready to represent myself right now!

[cb9's_unity]

My questions for Demarchy aren't want if a board of reactionaries gets elected mines more like.. what if i get elected to the water sanitation commitee. well i don't know a single thing about how or even were we get the water. At that nobody on the commitee knows about water sanitation, well what do we do? i guess we could pick names out of the hat again but who makes sure were all drinking clean water during that time.

Demarchy could only work in a small communist or anarchist type commune. and at that point why would we take the chance of getting idiot and/or misplaced leaders.

[Forward Union]

This system is undemocratic and authorotarian.

[P.L.U.C.K.]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 25, 2006 05:37 pm
This system is undemocratic and authorotarian.
oh really? (sarcasm)

[which doctor]

For more info:

http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083335872&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)
http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083345239&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)
http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083543192&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Red Menace]

No, way too much power with unelected, unrecallable officials. I certainly do not want to be bound by their decisions, as I never authorized them to represent me. Did you authorize Bush to represent you? *assuming you live in the U.S.*


My questions for Demarchy aren't want if a board of reactionaries gets elected mines more like.. what if i get elected to the water sanitation commitee. well i don't know a single thing about how or even were we get the water. At that nobody on the commitee knows about water sanitation, well what do we do? i guess we could pick names out of the hat again but who makes sure were all drinking clean water during that time.

And yes, like I think you said, to maximize its probability of working, I think this system should only be instituted in a small commune.

Demarchy could only work in a small communist or anarchist type commune. and at that point why would we take the chance of getting idiot and/or misplaced leaders.
Yeah, but I don't think these randomly chosen people would be there on a permanent basis, remember the idea is to get rid of corruption.


This system is undemocratic and authorotarian.
How so? Please explain.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 12:58 am
How so? Please explain.
It doesn't let people run their own lives. A bunch of completely random people will dictate how I live and the outcome of society everyday, and the fact that its a different random group everyday isn't much compensation.

I want to have a say in how my life is run, I want all workplaces and communities to run themselves, not for all workplaces and communities to be run by a random minority that changes everyday.

It's anti-fucking-communist. It's even worse than a republic, at least in that situation I get some say over who dictates me and my community.

[Raúl Duke]

I really don't know much but....

I think its possible to have demarchy and a great deal of direct democracy at the same time.

People had mention how the randomly assigned delegates in a demarchy are unrecallable, but does this have to be the case?

We could have a system where the randomly assigned delagates could be recalled if the people think s/he is to inefficient or not in the right role, etc

To me demarchy sound like an interesting concept that should be considered, only when combined with elements of direct democracy (or the other way around: it could be use in a direct democracy; since to me demarchy is not a "system" but more like an idea on how to chose delagates/representatives, etc).

It seems that many people in the thread see demachy in the lines of a republic system (which is what we are use to living in); we should examine demarchy in the lines of a direct democracy which has recalls, etc.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 05:58 pm
Did you authorize Bush to represent you? *assuming you live in the U.S.*


No, of course not. What's your point? If you're hoping to make demarchy sound good by comparing it to the oligarchical American political system then you're not setting the bar very high.

[apathy maybe]

Demarchy has been discussed before, in fact I think I was the first to bring it forward on this board as an alternative to the current sham called "democracy". redstar2000 likes it, as pointed out by FoB.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...484&hl=demarchy (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=18484&hl=demarchy)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...934&hl=demarchy (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=18934&hl=demarchy)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...431&hl=demarchy (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36431&hl=demarchy)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...931&hl=demarchy (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=37931&hl=demarchy)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...127&hl=demarchy (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59127&hl=demarchy)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ndpost&p=257103 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=16926&view=findpost&p=257103)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ndpost&p=284856 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=18370&view=findpost&p=284856)
The above are the two posts where I first introduced demarchy (back when this place was still the Che-Lives Forums).

My view is that it is better then the present system. But it is a system for a large state based society, where as my ideal society is community based. It is a good method for finding out the opinions (or what would be the opinions if the people were educated on the issues) of people on issues. It has been used in various Chinese cities to find out what the city government should do (can't actually provide links for this, sorry) and has been used by the South Australian government for a constitutional convention a few years back.

But as a method for running an anarchist society? No thanks.

Love Underground: You have to admit, a bunch of random people (most of whom will be working class) running your life is better then a bunch of politicians. Demarchy is a way of minimising the corruption and shit that occurs in this system we live in.

[ComradeR]

The truth is that all political systems are inherently authoritarian, just to different degrees.

[Delta]

You have to admit, a bunch of random people (most of whom will be working class) running your life is better then a bunch of politicians

But it would take just as much work and revolution to put in place a demarchy as it would an actual anarchistic society (if not more). So it seems to me to be a waste of time to discuss how this is better than the current system if we could get what we actually want just as easily.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 12:29 pm
The truth is that all political systems are inherently authoritarian, just to different degrees.
Oh ok cool. Lets have fascism then.

Or a form of fascism where we have random dictators every day! maybe we could have gameshows where we choose the winner?

[Delta]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 27, 2006 10:02 am

Or a form of fascism where we have random dictators every day! maybe we could have gameshows where we choose the winner?
"For those of you playing at home, if the number on the back of your card matches that on the screen, you are in total control of the army for the next month!"

[OneBrickOneVoice]

An interesting idea. Who chooses the random people? How often would the juries meet to make descisions? How large would the juries be?

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 07:36 pm
An interesting idea. Who chooses the random people? How often would the juries meet to make descisions? How large would the juries be?
The jury has decided that you don't need to know that information :ph34r:

[demarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 03:33 am

fuck tommunism, this is the best system EVER!
This is what we call 'political prostitution'.
What do you mean by that?

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 08:36 pm
An interesting idea. Who chooses the random people? How often would the juries meet to make descisions? How large would the juries be?
I think it all depends. Like I said, I think it would work better in a small society. If it was institutionalized in a city, new juries would be chosen everyday to deal with 100's of cases. You would most likely be chosen to be on this jury a dozen times or more, in a year.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Love Underground+November 27, 2006 12:02 pm--> (Love Underground @ November 27, 2006 12:02 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2006 12:29 pm
The truth is that all political systems are inherently authoritarian, just to different degrees.
Oh ok cool. Lets have fascism then.

Or a form of fascism where we have random dictators every day! maybe we could have gameshows where we choose the winner? [/b]
Or maybe you should shut the hell up and let people speak their piece without getting a rant from you. I like that idea.

[Freedom?]

sounds like an okay system... my only worry would be those selected jury being intimidated by gangs and stuff. either way, thanks for opening my eyes to demarchy. before i read it here i had no idea it existed.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I call it burearchy-- bureaucratic anarchism.

Why?

Well for thing these randomly selected people are unaccountable to the people, irrevokable, and can ignore public opinion.