Our Future Democracy

Amongst the hundreds of articles, discussions, and books addressing the ills of today, there are many that speak of what the future could look like.  Visions, dreams - utopias even.  Most of these scenarios of the future look to societies using renewable energy, highly efficient public transport, organically and locally produced food, sustainable fabrics, green housing, satisfying work that provides sufficiency without exploitation, and a raft of other aspects of human life.

Often within those visions there is mention of governments being receptive to this new thinking, and acting in a way that will enable this new society to emerge.  Social action groups too, when determining their strategies, will often target their elected politicians.  There will be talk of deputations, letter writing, petitions, rallies on parliamentary steps, sometimes even support for particular candidates.

That journey, however, is a dead-end one.  Our present democratic system – electoral, representative democracy – has failed.  It has failed to deliver the promise of equity and equality.  It has failed to provide us with a sustainable future.  Most importantly, it has failed in it’s most fundamental raison d’etre – it has failed to be representative.

“What?  Not representative!”  I can hear the shouts of alarm and incredulity now.  Just look around, look at our politicians.  How many of them are like the person next door, or the shop assistant at the supermarket?  How many look like the barista pulling your morning coffee?  Very few I would suggest.  Furthermore, for how many of them is politics their career?  The sad fact is that it is increasingly so that those who are represented in our democratic chambers are – career politicians.

And that is not good.  Electoral democracy is giving us decision-makers drawn from less and less sectors of society at the very time that the world needs greater diversity of representation in its public decision-making.

So, when we envision new societies we need to also think of new ways to conduct our pubic decision-making.  We need to rethink our democracy, rather than accept it as a given.

Samuel Alexander is a writer who has given much thought to what he calls the “sufficiency economy” – a post-growth economy and society that “is shaped by an acceptance that ‘just enough is plenty’ … (that is) nothing short of revolutionary.”  Alexander notes that, from our current perspective, the shift to this new society “will not arise in liberal democracies until there is a culture that wants it, at which time those cultural values will be embraced by representative politicians and used to shape public policy in order to keep or win office.”  However, as Alexander goes on, “this understanding of representative democracy might be nice in theory, but it assumes that democracies are functioning well.”¹ 

Alexander concludes that democracy is not functioning well.  He is one of the few new society visionaries that has dared to raise the question of democracy in that future society.  He raises more questions than answers in his treatment of this topic.  Are there any answers?

Bastard-proofing democracy

Perhaps there are.  The ancient Athenians in creating democratic processes were keen to “bastard-proof their system.”²  One of their primary mechanisms for doing that was to use the lottery system.  Many, if not most, of their representatives were chose by lot – known as sortition.

Anyone who has sat on a jury knows that those chosen represent a diversity of backgrounds and experience.  Those jurors are charged with making the decision on whether a person is guilty or not guilty.  They do so after having heard the evidence of expert witnesses and the arguments of lawyers.  Their decision is based on this input, not on their prejudices or preconceived notions of guilt or innocence.  Why should such a system of selection not work for those charged with making our public decisions?

The claim that we need to elect people who are best suited or competent to represent us in our parliaments, senates and councils fails to convince.  It fails in two ways.  We can all think of politicians who have clearly been incompetent and open to manipulation and being swayed by corporate lobbyists.  Indeed, too many some would say.  Secondly, it fails because it assumes that we do not have sufficient faith in our own common sense.  If we are competent enough to cast a vote, then we are competent enough to take on a public decision-making role.

Dangerous democracy

A further argument for envisioning a new form of democracy lies in the very faith we put in our present democratic outcomes.  All around the world we see examples of people and communities seeking greater say over their lives and affairs.  From the Arab Spring to Occupy, from blockading mines on threatened farmland to indigenous peoples blockading ports in canoes, from divestment campaigns to Transition Towns; everywhere we look people are demanding greater say. 

But governments only know one way to deal with issues – by imposing programmes, laws and restrictions.  The danger then, in putting faith in present democratic institutions to solve our multi-faceted crises, is that we will further enhance the oligarchic approach to public decision-making.  That is a recipe for disaster. 

The original Athenian system provides an example of a way to avert that disaster, for it curbs the accumulation of power.  Quoting Dr Fuller again, “(in the Athenian system) power was possible, power consolidation more of a challenge.”² 

Envisioning sortition

Yes, it is worth giving thought to new ways of doing democracy; ways that enhance representation, ways that reduce the rise of oligarchs, ways that tap into our collective wisdom and common sense.  This blogsite has written about the benefits of sortition elsewhere.  See here and here.

We cannot dream of a new, sustainable, society without simultaneously imagining a new democracy.  Sortition offers one, hopeful, possibility.

1. Samuel Alexander, Sufficiency Economy, Sufficiency Institute, Melbourne, 2015, Chapter 4.
2. Dr Roslyn Fuller, Creating a Framework for Sortition.  Dr Fuller is a lecturer in International Law based in Ireland.  Her forthcoming book is Beasts and Gods:  How Democracy Changed its Meaning and Lost its Purpose to be published in November 2015 by Zed Books.

Building Alliances of Mutual Aid and Respect

"Cowboys and Indians" coalition march on Washington

In today’s inter-connected and complex world it would seem that building alliances between differing issue groups would be straight forward and simple.  Alliance building is often crucial to the success of most campaigns.  But sometimes in our focus on the issue that concerns us we can neglect this aspect of community organising.  Within that last sentence lies the key to building those alliances.  What concerns each of us is what motivates us.  Extrapolating that, it becomes clear that what concerns others is what motivates them.

If in my self motivation I can seek out and find what motivates you, then together we may be able to form an alliance that fulfils each of us.  That is no less true of groups than it is of individuals.  You could say that our mutual self-interests are what builds the alliance.  It is important to note here that self-interest is not the same as selfishness.  Selfishness claims that my cause, my issue, my concern is paramount and that all other causes, issues, and concerns are not only of lesser importance, they are of no worth at all.  Self-interest on the other hand, speaks more to who I am  and what my aspirations are; to my essence.  Indeed, the word essence and interest have the same root, esse. 

Looked at this way, it is possible to discover that my self-interest and that of someone else share something – a common humanity.

Noticing this common humanity it becomes much easier to build alliances.  No concern or issue today stands alone.  All are interconnected.  All issues, and their solutions, have an impact upon other issues.  When that too, is understood, it becomes much easier to build alliances.

Easier – yes!  Doing so, however, requires intent and it requires thinking “outside the box.”  It requires each of us momentarily dispensing with our self-interest and listening to, accepting and understanding the self-interest of others.  Oftentimes that can be difficult to do when we get caught up in the issue that is of concern to us.  We see our issue as urgent, a priority, and we see our campaign building entirely from within this perspective.

We must learn to look outside our own perspective.

Two Examples

Perhaps one of the most intriguing alliances that has been built in recent years (at least in the western world) has been that of the Cowboys and Indians coalition.  Intriguing because of the nominally politically incorrect name, but also because of the historic animosity between North American native peoples and the European settlers who invaded their lands in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The two groups, as well as environmental organisations, came together to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline¹ that threatens both the Cowboys and the Indians.  The ranchers and farmers are opposed to the pipeline because of their lands being confiscated for the building of the pipeline.  Native American organisations (such as Idle No More) claim that sacred lands are being desecrated, resulting in health and environmental perils.

This example brings together at least three concerns: loss of land/livelihood, health threats, and climate change activism.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, in Australia, the Lock the Gate coalition has also brought together often disparate groups.  Farmers,  Aboriginal owners, environmentalists and others have joined forces to stop the coal seam gas and coal mining in rural areas of Queensland and New South Wales.  The alliance has successfully overturned gas license applications as well as declaring 280 communities across Australia to be mine-free.  The importance of this alliance in the opposition to fossil fuel exploitation cannot be overstated, with Australia being one of the world’s largest exporters of coal.

These two examples are of large, nationally-based alliances; however, the need to seek alliances even at small, local level is just as important.  No issue is paramount.  No concern is of greater urgency than any other.  No cause has priority.  All are interconnected and supporters of one cause will find that by seeking alliances with other groups, that there will be common ground.  That common ground is often our common humanity.

The case for building alliances can best be summarised by an African proverb:

“If you want to go fast, go alone.  If you want to go further, go together.”

1. The XL pipeline is a 3,500 km pipeline planned to be constructed from the Alberta (Canada) tar sands drilling grounds southwards, across the USA, and terminating at the refineries in Illinois and Texas.  It is estimated to cost $7 billion and produce release approximately 1.37 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over its 50 year timeframe.

Ars Longa, Vita Brevis: art in social movements

Pablo Picasso, Guernica, 1937

Ars longa, vita brevis is one of those Latin maxims that occasionally gets quoted.  Translated as art is long, life is short, the saying is full of meaning.  One of those possible meanings is that the art we create today may survive not only our individual lifetimes, but possibly have significance well beyond the space that we inhabit.

If art is long then those of us working in community development, advocating for social justice, or seeking sustainable futures, cannot ignore its power.  Art can inspire.  Art can be a learning aid.  Art can send a message.  Art can unleash our creative talents.  Let’s use it.

The use of the arts in social change movements has a long and proud history.  One of the earliest examples of activist theatre, for instance, dates to 425 BC when Aristophanes play, Acharnians, was performed at the Athenian Lenaia.  More recently we have seen the development of guerrilla theatre, emerging especially from within the anti-Vietnam War movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

This highly public, in-your-face, form of theatre brought the anti-war message into the public sphere perhaps more than any other medium did.  It could not be ignored.  Guerrilla theatre struck a chord not only for those who witnessed it, but also for for those who performed – most of whom were not actors in the traditional sense.

In another art form Picasso’s Guernica is one of the most recognisable paintings in the world.  The painting is an indictment of the use of warfare in resolving differences.¹  Painting too has been taken to the streets, and street walls.  Who can dismiss the impact that Banksy has had on our awareness of consumerism, globalisation, and corporate misdeeds?

Musically there have been artists moved by a desire to create music that ranges from anti-war anthems such as Buffy Saint-Marie’s Universal Soldier through to those, like John Lennon, imagining better worlds.  More recently, the current shootings of black people in the US have spawned dozens of rap, hip-hop and other protest songs.

Literature too has been a favoured medium by many that would seek a more socially just world, or warn against techno-corporate takeovers of our lives.  Books such as 1984, Brave New World, Animal Farm, and The Dispossessed, come to mind.

But art and social commentary does not, and should not, start and stop with the professionals.  Those of us working in social movements can use art just as creatively and usefully as those for whom it is their livelihood.

Guerrilla theatre has already been alluded to, but even within our collective learning endeavours using art can have great power.  We can use paint, collage, movement, role-playing, songs, poetry, drums, clapping, chanting, or story-telling to explore our understandings and create visions of the futures that we want for ourselves and our grandchildren.

Indeed, the more we use the arts the more we tap into creative sources and intuitions that we did not know we had.  We can all be creative and artistic.  We may not pen a tune that will rise to the top of the hit parade, we may not paint a portrait that hangs in the Louvre, and we may not write the bestseller reviewed by Oprah.  But we all have some degree of creativity within us.  For some it may be a few words of a poem, for others it may a splash of colour on a poster, and others it may be a particular dance that evokes connection with the earth.

For those facilitating social action groups it is important to remember that everyone is different and that we have differing learning styles and differing ways of expressing what we feel and think.  The greater the variety of methods used the better.

Art is definitely long.  Art is also able to change the world.

1. Pablo Picasso’s Guernica hangs in Museo Reina Sofia, Madrid, Spain.  It was painted in 1937.  Widely recognised as one of the world’s most powerful and moving anti-war paintings, it is huge, measuring 3.49 metres in height and 7.76 metres in length.  Picasso is believed to have painted it in response to the bombing of Guernica, a village in the Basque region of Spain by German and Italian planes.

Communication is Precarious

Communication is a skill that is a crucial one in the community development worker’s tool kit.  By practicing effective communication the community development worker is better able to do their job, as well as providing a good role model to those around them.

Talking, speaking, hearing, listening.  What could be easier?  After all, we have grown up doing it, haven’t we.  As babies, we heard our parents, or other adults voices.  We learnt to imitate the words and then tested them out, by speaking.  Simple, piece of cake.

So, how is it that communication can be so difficult sometimes?  Why does apparently simple communication break-down?  Simply because there are at least six processes going on in the simple transaction between one person and another.  Think about it.  Before I say something to another person I must first have a thought or intuition.  Then I must put that thought into words, before finally speaking those words.

The person to whom I am speaking then goes through the opposite three stage process.  First, they must hear my words.  Then they interpret those words, give the words meaning and finally, derive a thought from that interpretation.

That’s six steps.  I am not suggesting that every communication flows in this logical step-by-step manner, nor am I suggesting that any of it is necessarily conscious.  However, each of these elements is involved in some way in my communication with one other person.

That means there are six ways in which communication can break down, can go astray and lead quickly to mis-communication.  And, that’s just with one other person!

Learning Listening and Speaking

Effective communication is something that can be learned, but rarely do we take the time to do so. 
How can we more effectively listen?  We can learn to focus on the speaker and their words by not interrupting, avoiding distractions, watching for non-verbal cues, not pre-judging, and not making assumptions.

As a speaker we can improve our communication by focussing on our internal thought processes.  One technique is to use the THINK acronym, by asking ourselves whether what we want to say is:

• Truthful
• Honest
• Inspiring
• Necessary
• Kind

Next time you find yourself in a conversation that seems to have become derailed, step back and see if you can figure out where the problem may be.  It may be in your thinking patterns, in the words you use or in the speech you have just given.  Similarly, it may be that you were distracted at a crucial time that someone was telling you something and you never heard the words, or that you interpreted their words in a different way to that in which the speaker intended. 

It may be worth talking about the mis-communication.  This time listening attentively and speaking thoughtfully.

Refugees: Some Perspective Needed

Source: polyp.org.uk

It is impossible these days to watch TV, read a newspaper, or even log into social media and not find a story about refugees.  Those of us in the rich, western-styled nations display two, opposing, responses.
 
On one hand there are those that want to reach out to refugees, who want to embrace them and welcome them into their homes and homelands.

Then there are those who want to “protect our borders,” “turn back the boats,” or “keep our country for ourselves.”

I am no expert on refugees, but it does seem that some historical perspective needs to be taken on the refugee crises.  It can be humbling and revealing to take a long-term, historical and cultural perspective on the issues.

The Word Refugee

The word refugee comes from the French refugier, meaning to take shelter or protection.  The first use of the term refugee to describe a group of people fleeing persecution is, indeed, French.  During the 17th century the Huguenots (French protestants) became increasingly persecuted by Louis XIV, with many being killed, and half a million becoming the worlds first “refugees,” fleeing France to other, more tolerant, European nations.

In 1914 the term refugee came to mean “a person fleeing home,” and was applied to thousands of civilians in Flanders escaping the atrocities of World War I and fleeing into Holland, France and elsewhere.  The second World War saw even greater mass exoduses of European people from war, starvation and persecution.

Further Back

For centuries European nations have sought to conquer lands well outside the European continent.  For almost four centuries from the 11th century onwards, nations of western Europe invaded and terrorised those of the so-called Holy Lands via the Crusades.  Many would argue that those attempts at conquest were the genesis of many of the problems in the Middle East today.

Between the 16th and 20th centuries European nations embarked upon another take-over endeavour – this time known as colonialism.  The period saw several European nations expand into and conquer lands in Asia, Africa, Australasia, and the Americas.  The latter half of the 19th century saw massive migration of Europeans to these lands – some 40 million people.

This massive migration had a devastating effect upon the indigenous populations of those lands.  Migrants brought disease, an unthinking sense of superiority, and a destructive force that has not been repeated since.

Reflection

With these understandings in mind those of us in western-styled nations would do well to reflect upon the following when considering the plight of modern-day refugees:

• Europeans were amongst the worlds first refugees.
• Europeans have contributed to the very conditions that many of todays refugees wish to flee from.
• Europeans have been the largest group of migrants in the world.
• Europeans have no moral justification for refusing modern day refugees a right to safety, dignity and freedom.

In the above, by European I include also those people who live in countries outside of Europe,¹ but who trace their descent form European colonisers, conquerors or migrants.

1. The use of the word “western-styled” is deliberate.  There are many nations who are western-styled in their cultural roots, ways of life and belief systems that are not necessarily of the “west.”  These include countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA.

Day of Peace – Oh Yeah?

Earlier this week, 21 September, marked the International Day of Peace.  Not that you would have noticed from the news that day.  Instead we had yet more images of the bombings in Syria, attacks in Somalia, and reports of domestic violence in the homes of our nations.

Although the day was established in 1981 by the United Nations you could not be blamed for not noticing it for all that the media took note.  The decade following the UN adoption of the Day of Peace was the bloodiest on record since the end of the second World War.  The highly regarded Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) notes that 2014 saw more wars than any other year since 2000.  Even on the website of SIPRI, with it’s vision of “a world in which sources of insecurity are identified and understood, conflicts are prevented or resolved, and peace is sustained,” it is difficult to find much data or information related to peace.  There is much there about military spending, arms manufacture and trading, chemical and nuclear weapons manufacture etc etc etc. 

Peace just doesn’t seem to cut it.  The newspapers rarely mention peaceful solutions, television embraces warfare, and Hollywood movies glorify the carnage and mayhem of war.  Even a search of google results in over 1.3 billion listings for “War 2015.”  A similar search under “Peace 2015” yielded less than half this number.

The nations of the world seem unable to recognise the Day of Peace.  Just two days before the Day of Peace, the Japanese upper chamber overturned Article 9 of it’s post-war Constitution.  That article stated that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes."   The new legislation now allows for Japanese forces to participate in a limited manner alongside other nations in armed conflict in other parts of the world.  Along with nations such as Switzerland, the Japanese renunciation of war as a means of resolving conflict was a beacon of hope.  That beacon now seems to have been snuffed out.

A day for peace.  Surely that is not too much to ask.  Of course, we should be aiming at a Year of Peace, and perhaps even a Decade of Peace.  but if we can’t even manage a day, do we have much hope?

So, we must start where and when we can.  We can bring peace into our daily lives.  We can embark on peace within our homes and our relationships.  We can encourage peace in our workplaces and schools.  If the leaders of the world, and those who report the news of the world, won’t encourage or promulgate peace, then we must do it ourselves. 

A Day of Peace.  Oh Yeah!

Day of Democracy

Today, 15 September, is International Day of Democracy.  The day has had this moniker since 2007 when the United Nations declared it such.  But eight years on and democracy as we know it is stumbling.  The people (demos) are disillusioned.  To paraphrase Shakespeare – there is something rotten within the State of Democracy.

Political parties are responding in the same old, tired, ways.  Less than a week before 15 September the UK Labour Party elected a new leader, Jeremy Corbyn – a radical left-winger that some within the party fear will mean the demise of the party.  Meanwhile just the night before the Day of Democracy, the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbot, was challenged for his leadership by Malcolm Turnbull.  Turnbull won and so Australia now has a new Prime Minister.

This is how political parties respond to challenges and issues.  Change the leader, rearrange the cabinet, or shuffle the front bench.  But all that does is change the players, it does nothing to change the system.  Systems thinking tells us that changing the components of a system is the weakest method of bringing about the change we need.  It is akin to changing the tyres on an old, beat-up, rusty car.  You may have bright shiny new tyres but you still have the same car. 

In similar fashion our electoral representative democracy continues to give us:

• an adversarial system where politicians often appear more interested in personal point-scoring than in dealing with the issues.
• a parliament, or senate, or council, that is less and less representative of the diversity within the population as a whole.
• a system that is open to manipulation by powerful and rich vested interests and lobby groups.

That’s just three of the obstacles that our present democracies are stumbling over.

It is time for us to give up our dependence upon electoral representative democracy.  It is, after all, simply a human construct.  There is nothing sacrosanct or inherently absolute about it.  It can be improved.

How?

We could try something really simple.  We could try something really fair.  We could try something really random.  We could try selecting our representatives by lot.  As soon as this notion is suggested hands are thrown up in the air and shouts of “ludicrous,” “impossible,” or “unworkable” are heard.

But it has been done.  The very cradle of democracy, Athens, utilised the selection of decision-makers by lot more often than they did the mechanism of the vote.  This blogsite has written about the Athenian democracy previously.

More recently we have seen a couple of examples of the use of random selection (known as sortition) in politics.

Ireland

The constitutional reform in Ireland that allows for same-sex marriage is now well known.  Perhaps what is less well known is the path that led to this momentous decision.

At the heart of it was sortition.  Following the 2008-09 economic crisis the Irish people called for constitutional reform.  The Irish Constitutional Convention (ICC) was established to consider eight topics for constitutional reform – marriage equality the most notable.  The membership of the ICC was made up of 100 individuals, one-third of them members of parliament, but the other two-thirds Irish citizens chosen at random.  None of these ordinary citizens were there because of vested interest, lobby groups or political affiliation.  They were there as representatives of the demos – the ordinary citizen.  And all citizens had the chance of being selected.  They did not need to be famous, rich, or great orators.

It was from the ICC that the matter of marriage equality was put on the ballot paper that Ireland then voted on.

Belgium

In Belgium many senior politicians are supporting a move to introduce sortition into the Belgian Senate.  Sortition is gaining support from all sectors of the political spectrum.  A former socialist vice-prime minister, Laurette Onkelinx, contends that “traditional politics is ailing and new ways have to be considered.”  

A current member of the ruling right of centre party, the Reform Movement, notes that  “we need to go directly to the people and hear their positions – and sortition is the way.”

Peter Vanvelthoven, a former labour minister, is also supportive, noting that political decision-making needs greater diversity than it presently achieves and that “the pure democratic idea requires more participation of the citizens in decision making – beyond casting one vote in an election once every four years.”

Sortition Benefits

In those two examples we see some of the benefits that sortition can bring, and the means by which the three obstacles mentioned above can be overcome.

• in Ireland the discussion in the ICC was of a more deliberative nature than an adversarial one.  Those chosen by lot do not bring a vested interest or party line to the table and hence, are more likely to enter into true dialogue than adversarial debate.
• The Belgian politicians are recognising that their present Senate is not representing the populace, whereas sortition offers a means by which greater representation could be achieved.
• The ICC achieved a high level of agreement because those chosen to be representatives arrived without pre-existing “positions” and were un-aligned to political parties, vested interests, or lobby groups.  They were there as citizens, as representatives of the demos.

We can’t keep tinkering around with the players.  We have to allow democracy to take it’s next step into the 21st century.  That step can be sortition.