|
To The Barricades For Direct Democracy
by Marco
|
Never before was the world moving and changing as much as it is now, only it is moving in the wrong direction, one that gives rise to growing differences and confrontations between people, and to serious environmental pollution. Despite a number of hopeful years of world-wide anti-capitalist protest, within which direct democratic movements played a key role, a just and durable perspective has never seemed as far away.
The esteem of political parties and parliamentary democracy has sunk to an all time low, and direct democratic movements have not yet worked out how to use this to their advantage.
The gaping hole between the people and politicians throughout Europe is being filled by the popular right wing. They wrap their conservative and xenophobic ideas in a populist anti-establishment package. The question arises as to how the direct democratic movement can regain political initiative, and how the restless masses can be won over to an anti-authoritarian alternative.
|
The movement for a different globalisation on the defence
For while it seemed to be going well. A series of international protests focussed on free trade summits, with as culminations the protests in Seattle (November 1999), Prague September 2000) en Genoa (2001), which mobilised millions of people for a different world. Although the ideas of how this different world should look vary, there was a shared criticism on the point of neo-liberalism, the new colour of capitalism. In only a short period, they managed to put economic globalisation on the agenda of world politics. The diversity within the movement for a different globalisation was also impressive and inspirational. However, the movement has not yet been able to translate this awakening of the people into a
durable force to be reckoned with.
It soon became clear that society's elite was not planning on taking this movement for a different globalisation seriously. They increasingly succeeded in using the movement to pull their own cart. As a result of this, the protests increasingly became demonstrations of powerlessness. Events in Genoa, where a fascistic police force attacked demonstrators, with as a tragic low point the death of Carlo Guilliani, made this even more clear. For a while it seemed that the awareness within the movement that it was in a rut would lead to a global reorientation as to which strategy should then be used. The slogan used during the G8 top in Genoa "We are with 6 billion, you are only with 8" showed that the power of numbers is limited and that more than protest alone is necessary to defeat capitalism. After Genoa in particular, much discussion took place about which way to go next. However, the events of September the 11th halted the majority of these discussions quite abruptly.
The movement was aware from the onset that the consequences of the inevitable retaliation would be far-reaching. Not only was war feared, but it was anticipated that governments world-wide would seize this chance to draw attention away from looming economic recession, and to use this opportunity to deal with the 'enemies of the west'. "You are either with us or with the terrorists", as Bush so aptly worded the mounting threat.
Fear gripped the world and, led by the US, governments around the globe began their war against terrorism. The social achievements that people have gained, such as liberties, social benefits and social security, were declared dangers to society overnight. Country after country announced far-reaching measures to increase security. These measures mostly effected the poorest of the world's population, and only helped to strengthen the smouldering fear that had been awakened.
The once so successful and optimistic movement for a different globalisation was quick to declare that this would only help to make it stronger, but quite the opposite was true. After September the 11th, they only seemed to be running along behind the facts. Before September the 11th, the movement was capable of planting an important mark on political debate, but thereafter they found themselves completely on the defence. There was no time now for the necessary strategical reorientation.
Unholy Trinity
After September the 11th, part of the direct democratic movement focussed itself on anti-war protests. War is correctly seen by some as an extension of western neo-liberal politics, with varying use of economic and military means, the battle is fought for a political and economic hegemony.
However understandable this switch towards the anti-war movement may be, it led to repetition and variations in strategies and practices otherwise used by the movement for a different globalisation, of which the sell-by-date had long passed. Demonstrations and actions, sometimes internationally co-ordinated, have the upper hand within the anti-war movement, while past experience shows that 'reaction' alone is not enough. A reactive political strategy can bring to light unwelcome developments and in doing so hamper further development. To actually bring about a fundamental political change, the foundations of the 'old politics' have to be smashed and be replaced by something better.
As long as nation states exist, wars will follow each other one after the other in much the same way as capitalism flourishes under a parliamentary democracy. We are talking here about an unholy trinity (capitalism, nation states and parliamentary democracy), which has over the last century not only given rise to many wars, but has organised and institutionalised exploitation. This is what one century of parliamentary capitalism has taught us, but of course this does not mean that wars have not been fought through and by other political systems.
The aim is not to claim a larger piece of the pie, but simply to change the recipe. To do this we will have to step outside of reactive and parliamentary boundaries and create a new terrain for ourselves in which we can combat the causes of war and exploitation. This calls for a redefinition of the notion of 'politics', through which politics can become something for and by everyone, instead of being defined by elitist big-wigs. This could be realised by setting up different direct democratic organisations which, through their organised structure and means of practice, are actually accessible for large groups of people. Amongst these organisations' aims would be the identification of the most pressing causes of social unrest, and areas in which people can be organised. Direct democratic alternatives could be formulated on these grounds, and through means of direct action these alternatives could actually be realised or demanded.
It is actually quite incomprehensible that within the anti-authoritarian movement for a different globalisation, that little or no attention is given to the promotion of direct democracy as an alternative to authoritarian capitalist structures. Despite the amazing amount of energy and originality that has been shown by the direct democracy movement in past years, little has been done to explain the basis and conditions of our alternative to the people, namely direct democratic control and decision making over the way in which we want society to be organised. Even though the undemocratic nature of free trade organisations (where states coordinate trade policies), and the undemocratic consequences thereof, is often pointed out, the emphasis is on criticising policies and organising actions. A clear and emphatic plea for radical democratisation of society and the economy, supported by the construction of accessible direct democratic organisations, is missing completely or is snowed in under all the anti-arguments (2).
It's not possible to give one clear cause for this. Within the anarchist (1) movement, for example, it is tradition to differ on how, why, in what form and of course, even if, a formal form of organisation is desired. There are however a number of modern movements which help understand why the reactive struggle dominates the proactive struggle. Two of these are activism and the role of 'internetworking'.
Trends in the movement Trends in progress
Without doubt, activism is of great importance in determining the (public) face of the western direct democracy movement. Activism, through means of non-parliamentary methods (actions), aims to realise a political goal. In the Netherlands there are a lot of people who are structurally involved in activism. These activists meet in and around so-called 'action-groups'. These groups are subject to constant change as regards composition, and organisational structures are usually informal (3). There is no talk of formal membership. To become 'active' within such a group one has to be introduced by another activist, otherwise the only other option is to wait until a public action takes place and then try to make contact with the group. These tactics make it difficult for the authorities to get a good idea of how the groups work or to establish any form of control over a group's actions.
At the same time this lack of a defined structure is also the Achille's Heel of the group. This (lack of) structure, with informality as the most important mode of organisation, tends to make the majority of groups inaccessible, non-transparent and elitist.
The closed shop character of action groups is often justified by the argument that secrecy is necessary for certain actions. Of course, this cannot be contradicted, but a consequence of this is that the political arena through activism is being constricted instead of being widened. These action groups create a new category of professional politicians, while the main aim of the direct democracy movement should be making 'politics' accessible.
Possibly a part of this activist culture can be explained by the fact that the majority of the actions are instigated from a luxurious position. Here, unlike in the more impoverished countries in the south, there is seldom the question of activism in order to save your life. (4)
Another important trend within the movement for a different globalisation is the increasing role of the internet. Not only the exchange of information via internet sites, but also 'internetworking' has increased rapidly since the mid- nineties. A non-transparent maze of flowing, informal, internet communication and cooperation platforms determine for a large part the practices of the movement for another globalisation. Without these (for a relatively large group of people, accessible) possibilities of the internet, which connect social movements around the globe, the world would probably never have heard of the movement for a different globalisation.
Although the internet seems to have unlimited possibilities, there are however a number of drawbacks. In practice it seems that taking an active role in 'internetworking' means belonging to a select group of professional desktop activists, in other words activists who mainly carry out their political activities on-line. It is obvious that the majority of this group consists of 'reasonably financially independent white men' (with a lot of leisure time). Women, manual-workers and non-westerners are less frequently on-line, and subsequently miss out on communication and gaining information. People and social movements in the south are way behind when it comes to internet use. (5)
A consequence of the above is that those who suffer the most under oppression and exploitation can make little or no use of the international co-ordination platforms that strive (also) for their freedom.
There are, however, more disadvantages to moving the struggle into cyber-space. In practice, many of the discussions and decision-making processes have migrated to the internet. This is true mostly for international co-operation, as the distance between the participants means that internet is the most important communication and coordination platform. The result of this trend is elitism and the undermining of the conditions of democratic decision making, such as transparency, accessibility and accountability. One dollar one vote is thus replaced by one modem one vote.
The way is the goal
There is nothing wrong with activism or networking as long as it happens within the boundaries of direct democracy and does not become a goal unto itself. If building up counter-power is the aim, then we will also have to give form to our direct democratic alternative to capitalism and authoritarianism within our own organisations. The way is the goal. Elitist activism and the undermining of the direct democratic decision making processes by the internet should not be allowed to happen. Building a durable direct democratic opposition cannot happen by way of networking and activism alone, but demands accessible direct democratic organisations.
Anarchists can only regain their inspiring and directive role within the much wider movement for a different globalisation when they renew their theories and practices, and manage to organise the ideologically floundering masses within a new type of organisational structures. The old and authoritarian left was and is unable to do this. Time is of the essence as it's clear that only the populist right is winning as a result of this eroding of ideologies.
The new organisations should not limit themselves to traditional radical left-wing issues, but must manifest themselves in all areas that are of importance to society. They should, in time, make the state superfluous. They should able to offer a home to the large and growing group of people who have had enough of market politics, and who see no alternative offered by the welfare state, nor by the "workers' state".
A number of important lessons can be learned from the movement for a different globalisation. An inspiring side of the movement is that it is searching for means of co-operating within a non-restrictive political and organisational form, and creates space for different cultures of cohabitation and co-operation. With this practice, much has been achieved over the last few years, and for this reason deserves an important place within the new-to-be-formed direct democratic organisations. Regarding the new organisations' activities, they should be 'for' rather than only 'against' (6), for example the development, promotion and realisation of direct democratic alternatives.
Lastly, our organisations should also be places where people can dance and celebrate, and not only celebrate the ultimate victory, but also the fact that we fight together and are together, because in these difficult times there is a lot to be said for even that.
- – Marco - From Dusnieuws magazine, Eurodusnie collective leiden, the Netherlands
Januari 2003
- Anarchists are pro direct democracy and associate with this particular political positions (for example in relation to the state)
- There are always points of exception. Over the last two years initiatives have been made in the US to form regional anarchist federations. For quite a while already anti-authoritarian movements have existed such as anarcho-syndicalism and communalism. Their aim is the realisation of a completely alternative social model organisation
- Read also Tyranny of Structurelessness (in English) http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html
- Read also Give up Activism http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/activism.htm. The epilogue takes back a lot of the criticism, which is unfair and in poor taste in my opinion.
- Read also Kommunikatietechnologie. Gouden kalf of paard van Troje? (Commincation technology: Golden Calf or Trojan Horse?) (in Dutch). http://squat.net/eurodusnie/articles/dusnieuws/2000/troje.htm
- By 'direct action' is meant forms of action which are supposed to achieve direct results through non-parliamentary means
|
|
