Politics and Democracy: time for a rethink

From Rethinking Democracy – Are Societies becoming Less Democratic and Citizens Less Knowledgeable? by J. Rogers Hollingsworth

The dynamics of a system in which information grows at an exponential rate but in which understanding or knowledge grows at a very modest rate pose severe problems for a democratic society. Democratic governance is based on the assumption that citizens and/or their elected representatives have an enlightened understanding of the issues confronting their society. However, the increasing specialization and fragmentation of the production of knowledge has become so vast and complex that no person can authoritatively know more than a fraction of all that can be known on any important issue of the day. Elected officials increasingly rely on specialized staffs and bureaucrats for information about critical issues. But even their advisors have only a specialized view of the world and generally fail to comprehend the interconnections among issue areas. Increasingly, elected officials as well as citizens conclude that the only way to know something is to rely on the word of an alleged authority in a specialized field. Hence, our societies are slowly moving toward more authoritarian political cultures despite traditional commitments to the traditions of democratic ideals and beliefs. The basic argument here is that the lack of knowledge of citizens and their elected representatives is creating a widening gap between the democratic ideals which our societies profess and the way that we are actually governed.

At a surface level, it has appeared for several decades that the world was becoming increasingly democratic. By the end of the last century, almost every nation-state made some claim to legitimacy by contending that it was democratic. During the 1980s, the People's Republic of China, the Soviet Union and various regimes of Eastern Europe proclaimed that they had democratic governments. A few years ago, the sense of optimism about the future of democracy had become so prevalent that one prominent social critic suggested we had reached the end of history (Fukuyama, 1992). In this spirit, it seems appropriate in this volume which focuses on democracy and knowledge that we confront the question of whether such optimism about the future of democracy is excessive, or whether such a view is a mere illusion. This essay focuses on several trends which suggest that there is worrying evidence that the world is becoming less democratic – especially if we assume that democratic governance means that citizens have an enlightened understanding of the issues confronting their societies and are in positions to participate effectively in shaping political agenda, decision making, and outcomes and to hold decision makers accountable for their actions. We must recognize that virtually all political philosophers who have discussed democracy in the past have correctly recognized that all systems which have been labeled as democratic have always fallen short of an ideal democratic system. But the following discussion suggests not just that reality falls short of democratic ideals but that there are a number of uncontrollable historical forces which are reversing the potential of “modern” societies to be democratic.


From The Fallacy of American Democracy by Devon Campbell

Even a representative democracy may afford a small bit of influence to the people--if it works. Ours does not. It has not. It will not in the near future without serious reform. That's where it really breaks down. Most people who are able to vote are near the middle of the US political spectrum. This means they are not interested in changing things very much. For virtually any politician to suggest far-reaching changes of the electoral system would not only mean almost certain failure of said changes but would also be political suicide. The reform needed to fix the system cannot happen because the system will not let it.

It's the best system out there.

In our examination of the power granted to people by democracy for self-governance, we have established that our democracy, in its current incarnation, is almost hopelessly flawed. There was another popular political system which, in one of it's largest incarnations, was flawed:

"Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers." (via Wikipedia)

Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting communism as an ideal alternative. (Hopefully, this will head off the anti-communist zealots!) However, what right do we have to wave the flag of superiority when the factor which lead to our victory in the Cold War was most likely nothing more than the fact that we were able to spend $8 trillion fighting it?


From Missionaries of Democracy by Stephen C. Preston

Representative democracy, especially as practiced in the "Western democracies," involved a periodic choice of a set of dictators (called "representatives") who decide policy and create laws among themselves. Even before we get into the problems resulting in the implementation of democracy, we find problems with the concept even abstractly.

The main problem is that by delegating the responsibility for major decisions to representatives, the people have forfeited any direct control over government. The representatives are not compelled to act in the interests of their constituents once they are elected, except through the implicit and often illusory threat of being voted out. Thus they are led to vote in their own personal interests, and corruption is absolutely inevitable.

The most profound instance of this, which now occurs on a regular basis, is the declaration of war. Immanuel Kant once explained that if given a choice, people would rarely choose to fight a war; but in a dictatorship, the dictator loses nothing from declaring war. Kant was right here; but the problem is that no modern democracy actually asks the people for their consent in going to war. In fact, the Ludlow Amendment of the 1930s, which proposed to hold referenda on the question of declaring non-defensive war, was ridiculed by many of the liberals at the time. In representative government, the representatives do not sacrifice anything by declaring war, and so they readily go to war. America itself has been at war many times this century, demonstrating the fallacy of the "peaceful democracy."

So representative democracy is inherently inferior, in this aspect, to more direct forms of democracy, including referenda. But even supposing representative democracy was the only practical form of democracy and thus the ideal, its implementation in non-Western countries has often been flawed. A good implementation of representative democracy requires "free and fair" elections and a genuine choice of candidates. Implementations supported by the United States, however, have sometimes deliberately fallen short of these conditions.

The phrase "free and fair" implies a choice that is made free of coercion. Our government, however, often explicitly tries to coerce people in other countries to vote the way it wants. Most notoriously, the US, after having imposed a blockade and economic sanctions on Nicaragua for 12 years, declared that sanctions would be lifted only if the Nicaraguans voted for the American-endorsed candidate. The US is now using the same tactic in Serbia, to coerce Serbs into opposing Milosevic in the next elections by starving them with sanctions.

The issue of a genuine choice between candidates is a problem not only in the fledgling democracies, but here as well: the official candidates all agree on most issues. In South Korea's recent election, for example, the IMF demanded that all Presidential candidates support IMF proposals; this was a serious restriction, since most of the population did not.


From Who Is Represented By A "Representative Government" by Craig J. Bolton

The fundamental fallacy of the contemporary analysis of representative government is that representative government will, or is suppose to, "represent the people." The only reason that classical liberals generally preferred "representative democracy" or republicanism to monarchy was that it was possible to change rulers without the social disruption of revolution. The notion that the legislature was inherently a repository of liberty, since "the peoples' representatives" would never tyrannize the people was abandoned by all legitimate liberals who were attentive to the history of the French Revolution and the American Civil War well before the close of the early 19th Century. Representative government was the lesser of evils, not a good in itself.

It is time to reevaluate the traditional liberal commitment to "representative democracy" as the best of the available forms of government. The technology existing today, which is progressively more accessible to "the masses" as well as "select elites," makes direct democracy or even unanimity more feasible than it has been since the days of the city state. Since democracy is inherently divisive, it is to be expected that a commitment to democracy will also be associated with a rejection of large scale political institutions such as the nation state. Whereas representative government makes feasible the large scale tyrannies of the 20th Century, pure democracy will tear apart such structures in favor of the self rule of groups of people with common values and ideals. Democracy is not freedom, but it is one of the several tools that may enhance the chances for the triumph of freedom. .


From We again confront the core meaning of a representative democracy by TahitiNut

In a very real sense, it seems, even self-proclaimed "democrats" are accepting the corrupt meme of an elected dictator ... which, I assert, is the most fundamental corruption of today's GOP. George W. Bush called it a "mandate" and proclaimed his authority (in 2005) to enact HIS agenda irrespective of the fact that it, in MANY instances, reflected the will of a narrow minority with an unbounded appetite to assert their will on the majority. That's the essence of what most see as fascism ... under the specious cover of an 'election.' It does NOT become less dictatorial by having an 'election' every four years ... any more than if we were to assassinate a dictator every four years only to have the reins of power taken up by his relative or crony.

What's even MORE appalling is the indolent willingness of the electorate to "Let George Do It" ... and ignore any moral duty to TAKE back our responsibility for self-governance. The elimination of ANY mandatory national service of ANY kind only serves to enable and facilitate such moral cowardice. IMHO.


From Exclusive Interview with Ecuadorian President by Oscar Sanchez Serra

"I insist on the idea that Latin America is not experiencing a time of change, but a change of era. If you compare the Latin America of today, its rulers, its leaders, with the Latin America of 10 years ago, the difference is enormous. Remember the Latin America of Menem, Collor de Mello, Fujimori, Jorgito Endara in Panama… today we have rulers who are more autonomous, more sovereign, more progressive. Neoliberal governments collapsed like houses of cards; a few of them are a still surviving here and there, but generally speaking, there have been many successive victories of leftist governments.

That means that we are in agreement about many things, and like never before, there is a pro-integration determination and spirit, but integration that we must materialize into concrete, tangible facts, into benefits for our peoples. In this context, there is a more united Latin America, with more agreement, more of a pro-integration spirit, and one palpable demonstration of that was the meeting in Salvador de Bahía, where Cuba joined the Rio Group. That was something that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago; it would have been necessary to ask the permission of a certain power in the North.

In the social aspect, I think much remains to be done, and that not much can be achieved while the same systems of before persist; it is not more capitalism, more neoliberalism or more markets that will solve these things. Latin America needs an alternative system, and in some countries — Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, Venezuela — there is an attempt to do this.

In the social aspect, unfortunately, I think that Latin America has not made much progress; we need to advance much more rapidly. That is the case in the economic aspect, as well. We still have very vulnerable, dependent systems, and it is very costly for us, for example, when there is a crisis that was not of our making, of which we have not been the originators or accomplices or anything like that. We are, perhaps, the principal victims of this crisis. The great challenge, then, is to create models that are more autonomous and less vulnerable, development that is truly endogenous, and as an essential part of that strategy, aim for a regional integration that would make us less vulnerable to external factors.

I think that the political aspect is changing, but in the social and economic aspects, we still have an extremely long way to go."


From Democracy in a panic by Avirama Golan

Disqualifying Israeli Arab citizens from participating in public life is the essence of his worldview. It is the Kadima and Labor Knesset members who voted for the disqualification that spell the danger to democracy.

Their vote, which was influenced by considerations connected to the upcoming election in the shadow of the war, prove the justness of another section in the Neiman decision:

"It is not desirable to grant the authority for disqualifying a candidates' list according to considerations of content and essence to a body that is composed overwhelmingly, with the exception of the chairman, of representatives of political bodies whose considerations are likely to be ideological-political," Justice Menachem Elon wrote.

These are the roots of the evil: A faulty political mechanism and a faulty understanding of the concept of defensive democracy that dictated a vague and potentially dangerous amendment to the law. What is so threatening about a party that champions a model other than "Jewish-democractic" or that seeks to replace the concept of "independence" with the concept of "Nakba?"

Do they have the power to undermine the Jewishness of the Jews or the Israeliness, Zionism and the sovereignty of Israel?

In the name of defense, democracy has security services, the police and the courts, which are charged with preventing any activity, including treason and incitement, and with punishment leading to a ban from the political arena.


From Towards a 'collective government' for the Union?

The EU is not and will not be a super-state. But a government without a state - and a community of people feeling part of it - has never existed, and many consider it will never, as it would lack the basis for its legitimacy and strength. That being said, European integration has always been an essentially political process and European decision-making is a highly political game. However, the EU does not have a body responsible for leadership, strategic policy-making, policy coordination, and emergency decisions: a government.

On the other hand, both the increased heterogeneity of a Union at 25+ Member States and the nature of the policy areas currently on the agenda for further integration - all with implications for the core of national sovereignty - demand solutions which require the Union to develop a 'government'.

The Union must show EU citizens that joint action is best suited to confront many urgent needs and to provide credible and sustainable solutions. That is true both with regard to the internal security of the Union (including cross-border issues of international crime, immigration, asylum, environmental protection etc.) and if the Union is to play a serious role in world affairs including a contribution to future global governance. Fragmentation and divergence between a range of national preferences, and resistance on the part of Member States to relinquish further their formal sovereignty, may otherwise prevail, in the absence of a more authoritative framework of reference for decision-making.

This is the assumption that inspires this paper: qualitatively new circumstances, affecting both the size of the Union and its core-tasks for the future, require strengthening the executive power in the Union.

Any reform of EU executive powers, which aims at providing the Union with an institutional framework backed by credible political authority and leading to more efficient decision-making, must lead to a sustainable, transparent and accountable mechanism which allows the various actors to play their part with effect.


From The US Government's “Collective Society” Fantasy

“Nanoscience and nanotechnology development are necessary contributing
components in the converging advancements in S&E, including those
originating in the digital revolution, modern biology, human medical and
cognitive sciences, and collective behavior theory.”

“Efforts must center on individual and collective human advancement, in terms of an enlightened conception of human benefit that embraces change while preserving fundamental values.”

“Table 1. Main improvement areas relative to an individual: External, collective Enhanced group interaction and creativity Unifying science education and learning”

“Figure 2. Vision of the world as a distributed, interconnected brain with various architectural levels that can empower individuals with access to collective knowledge while safeguarding privacy.”

“A networked society of billions of human beings could be as complex compared to an individual human being as a human being is to a single nerve cell. From local groups of linked enhanced individuals to a global collective intelligence, key new capabilities would arise from relationships created with NBIC technologies.”

“Far from unnatural, such a collective social system may be compared to a larger form of a biological organism. Biological organisms themselves make use of many structures such as bones and circulatory system. The networked society enabled through NBIC convergence could explore new pathways in societal structures, in an increasingly complex system (Bar-Yam 1997).”

[ ... ]

“Social science advances (obtained from studies of real systems as well as
simulations of complex adaptive systems composed of many interacting
individuals) will provide fresh insights into the collective IQ of humans, as
well as interspecies collective IQ and the spread of memes. A meme, which is a term coined by the author and zoologist Richard Dawkins, is a habit, a
technique, a twist of feeling, a sense of things, which easily flips from one
brain to another.”


From Fredrich August von Hayek Quote    

"The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization,
which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ,
but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization,
against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better."

by: Fredrich August von Hayek (1899-1992), Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences 1974

[ ... ]

It's a common fallacy that democracies hold a monopoly on voting or "voice of the people" systems; historically, republics have also shared in the ability to elect representatives. There are two kinds of democracies: direct and representative. The common fallacy is that we're a representative democracy, but this is not true as well--the constitution was not structured this way. There are also several forms of republics; however, ours was established on laws that the founders saw existed outside the rule of the majority--laws that would protect the minority, no matter what the majority said. Things were to be done BY the majority, so long as they didn't infringe upon these natural rights and laws. Our constitution states specifically that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." (Article IV, Section 4). The fact that we're a republic was very much planned; nothing fell "out of the sky." The Articles of Confederation very much prove the founder's disdain for democracies, although the Articles failed miserably. Someone can correct me, but I believe the delegates were representative from the states, not the people themselves (much like the dichotomy between the original House of Representatives and the Senate). A reading of the constitution shows the strenuous measures that the founders took to take the electing powers OUT of the direct hands of the people--the only branch of government to be elected directly by the voice of the people, per the original constitution (before the 17th Amendment), was the House of Representatives. The Senate was voted by the states, the President was voted by other delegates, and to-date the Judges have never been chosen by the voice of the people. This is clearly not a "democracy," wherein all things are done by the direct or representative voice of the people. The movement over the last 100 years has democratized our system, but this was not the original formation. The constitution came into operation, and was ratified, not directly by the people, but by the particular state's representatives--it was the states that gave direct orders for the delegates to only "reform" the Articles of Confederation, not the people; however, as we know, the delegates reformed it right out of existence. So, the answer was that it was neither a majority "of the American People in Congress Assembled" nor by "some beneficent minority," but by the representatives of the states.
 -- Logan, Memphis, TN


From Government without Politics

Because government powers are rights to commit acts, which, if committed by persons not having these rights would have constituted crimes or civil wrongs, it is necessary to ensure that these powers are not abused, that is, that governments do not indulge in politics.

To achieve that purpose it is necessary to define strictly and clearly the duties of government in each sphere of the government activity.

Without such definition, there is no way of determining, whether the government is performing its duties correctly or not.

If houses were built with the same degree of understanding what the resulting house should be, as politicians have of the result and purpose of their activities, no house would ever be finished, and whatever parts of houses happened to be built would be either collapsing or dismantled and rebuilt, as the understanding of the builders what they are doing would be constantly changing (with the changes in the 'political' climate).

Not many builders build houses that way, but this is how most of the government activities are performed: education, healthcare, policing, railways, the Dome ... , in fact, anything politicians do.

While there are cases when private people engage in business activities without understanding what they are doing, if they fail, it is themselves who sustain the loss.

Government activities are not financed by politicians out of their own private funds, they are financed from taxes taken from private people.

Like driving a car, government is a dangerous activity. But while the danger that can result from driving a car is usually restricted to damage to a few people (seldom more than 10, and very rarely more than 100), misuse of government powers can result in damage affecting millions of people, and billions worth of damage to property. In the course of the 20th century alone, crimes committed by various governments around the world have caused more deaths and destruction of property, then crimes committed by private criminals throughout all the history of mankind.

But while to drive a car one is required a third party insurance and passing a driving test, the only requirement for being in government is membership of a political party, of a group of arrogant, ignorant, vain and ambitious individuals, craving for power to impose their will on others. It is obvious that belonging to an organisation is no substitute for a third party insurance or a driving test, but on the basis of membership of a party alone, politicians obtain access to practically unlimited powers to cause practically unlimited damage.

So while politicians do not want to limit their 'powers' or accept any responsibility for the results of their own actions, it is necessary for the purpose of honest government that the duties of government be strictly limited and clearly defined, and that those in government be made responsible for the results of their actions.

Honest people in government will understand the need for such limitations, in the same way as honest traders understand the need for the Weights and Measures Act. It is time that an equivalent of the Weights and Measures Act be enacted to help those in government to perform their duties with the same level of honesty, competence and responsibility as we expect from a girl at a supermarket checkout. Politics, that is, any abuse of government powers, has to become a crime punishable by 5 years imprisonment and disqualification from holding a public office for life.

From CFP: A World Without Politics?

Call For Papers:

In addition to these, we are looking for several junior scholars (recent
appointments, post-doctoral researchers and PhD candidates) interested in
delivering a paper (15-20 minutes, 20 minutes for discussion). If you would
like to be considered please send your name, academic affiliation, and a
two-page abstract to anya.topolski@hiw.kuleuven.be by April 1st 2009.

Here are some possible topics for the junior sessions.

*       Is cosmopolitan global governance a-political?
*       Is cosmopolitan global governance cloaking ideological or imperial
power structures?
*       Do human rights discourses lead to a depoliticization of world
politics?
*       Is there still a role for sovereign nation-states in the new world
order?
*       Does global democracy rule out national self-determination?
*       Is the concept of sovereignty outdated? Can or should it acquire a
different meaning?
*       Should we move from global governance to global government?
*       What forms of political opposition are possible on the world level?
*       Would an evolution towards a multi-polar world order consisting of
regional power blocs be desirable?
*       Are representative forms of government on the global level
desirable? Are they possible?


From Politics and Political Science by Jason Yonan

Politics. It is possibly the most hated word in the English language. Most people hate politics and government without really knowing what they are. Many different definitions of politics exist. One definition defines politics as the conflict between groups over something they both want. Another similar definition calls politics the "who gets what, when, and how." Government is defined as the institution that has the enforceable right to control people's behavior. But why do people hate politics and politicians? Is it because politicians cannot be trusted, or maybe because they spend too much money? Whatever the reasons are for hating politics and government, both are needed as a mechanism for people to protect themselves. Possibly, if people developed a better understanding of politics and government, they would change their views about the subject. This could come about by looking at the various types of government and how they evolved.


From Government without Politics.

Politics suck.
Politicians suck.
True democracy would be better served by eliminating representatives.
With the computer and telephony technology now commonly available,
it would be a simple matter to directly empower the people to make
decisions for themselves by a large-scale voting system.  There is
no need to hire an expensive, exploitive, unsavory staff to fill
unnecessary offices of government.  The entire infrastructure of a
democratic government can be implemented with a computer system to
tally votes and disseminate information.  Every person in the US
could place votes by telephone or internet.  Secure algorithms with
traceable accountability could be used to guarantee the integrity
of the system.


From Consensus Rule Processes

Consensus processes require that everyone at the table agree on all decisions that are made.  There is no majority rule voting or decision making by one person in authority.   Rather, the whole group examines the problem, brainstorms about possible solutions and then works together to develop a solution which everyone can support.  This kind of process is being used more and more often in the United States to deal with difficult public policy issues--environmental conflicts, for example.  Although consensus cannot always be found, it can be developed more often than might be expected.

The advantage of consensus processes is that the resulting decision is one that meets the interests of all the parties and that everyone can support.  The disadvantage is that developing such a decision can be a very slow process, involving many people over a long period of time.  There is also a relatively high probability of failure. If a quick decision is needed, the consensus approach may not work.  Consensus rule processes also tend to favor those that oppose change and want to preserve the status quo. All these people have to do is refuse to support any consensus compromises and they will win (at least as long as they can delay change).

Successful consensus building also requires successful efforts to control escalation so that people will focus upon the issues and not inter-personal animosities. Consensus building also benefits from strong fact-finding capabilities and an ability to deal with a variety of procedural problems  including: persuading people to participate in the process, developing a workable process structure, ground rules, and representation.


From John C. Calhoun's Consensus Model of Government

This extraordinary assumption perhaps explains why Calhoun did not even consider the chief objection to the jury analogy, the disinterestedness of jurors as opposed to the interestedness of legislators. For once one adds Calhoun's key assumption about the psychological effects of a consensus rule on the legislative process itself, the essential contrast between jurors and legislators vanishes. He remarks at one point that with jurors “the love of truth and justice” will induce them to agree as long as this motive is “not counteracted by some improper motive or bias.” He then immediately goes on to argue, in directly parallel fashion, that in governments of the concurrent majority, “love of country” is the most powerful of motives “if not counteracted by the unequal and oppressive action of government.” 19 Calhoun clearly believed that the operation of a consensus rule, by eliminating the possibility of “unequal and oppressive action,” would have the effect of converting legislators into something like impartial jurors, capable of acting according to pure “love of country” and “love of truth.” Calhoun seems to have believed that critical legislative and constitutional contests that occupied him as a statesman were clashes between true and false principles; compromise and balancing of interests were a secondary matter to be done only after agreement was reached on true principles. His critique of the protective tariff and his recommended remedy of nullification presupposed that he and his state were right – morally, economically, and constitutionally – and the protectionists wrong. Interests could be compromised and balanced (by phasing out protection gradually) only after the principle had been established that protective tariffs were wrong. In allowing three- fourths of the states to override a single state's nullification, Calhoun was in effect setting up the co-states as a “jury of one's peers” to determine which version of national political economy was true and which interpretation of the Constitution was correct. On matters 19 Disquisition, in Lence, ed., Union and Liberty, 51. 16


From Rethinking Democracy Promotion in the Middle East

Once lauded as a new but vital keystone of American foreign policy, the promotion of democracy in the Middle East is now seen by many as a costly endeavor that has brought few positive benefits for the region or for the United States. As security challenges escalate, and as enduring regional conflicts receive renewed attention, there is a real possibility that democracy promotion will be demoted among the priorities of U.S. foreign policy.


From The Consensus

News

"There are some people who live in a dream world,
and there are some who face reality;
and then there are those who turn one into the other."
--Douglas Everett

Global Principles

So today we have the paradoxical position espoused by the 'globalists'. On one hand they claim that the nation state is an anachronism whose time has passed. On the other they are terrified when non-viable states break apart. Even when this has actually happened they still maintain the fiction that these continue to be 'nations'.

The resolution to the seeming paradox is quite straightforward. It is that the 'globalists' still need the trappings of the nation state to pass and enforce laws to hold their citizens in line and simultaneously provide free reign for the new transnational economic order. As an added bonus they rather favour nations that are 'multicultural' so as to fragment any consensus against them, and indeed, appear to offer solutions for problems of their own making. Of course, the irony here is that 'multicultural' is only to be approved of as long as all those internal 'cultures' accept the common economic wisdom that greed is good and the market is the metaphor of choice. Those that do not get demonised, whether they are 'nationalists' or Moslems.

To create this illusion they need to perform a curious sleight-of-hand. While claiming that the nation state is dead or obsolete they must simultaneously convince us of the necessity for supra-national power blocs which are giant replicas of that supposedly defunct model. The only real difference being that the power is devolved upwards away from the people who are subject to it. It is very similar to the other favourite method of investing supra-national organisations such as the IMF with great power and no electoral accountability. It is a method of neutralising democracy on a vast scale. Every time you hear how the government cannot act because of 'world conditions' (or whatever…) hear it as a statement that your vote is worthless - a mere placebo.

Nations are the next level up from the trade union in the protection of the people. Once global capitalism swept them aside it was the turn of the nation to be removed as an obstacle to the money machine which exists solely to multiply itself regardless of any cost that can not be quantified in dollars. You might expect to be able to vote for the politicians that supposedly run your country, but when was the last time you voted for who was to sit on the board of Monsanto or Nestle?.

What is truly obsolete is the model of the nation state, for anything but a nation that embodies the ideals outlined at the beginning of this article. Where a nation does not embody these ideals it should be broken up into units that do. And the very last place the trappings of 'nation' should exist is in vast conglomerates of different peoples - or 'empires' as they were once known.

It is important for nations to recognise and accept one overriding truth - that the laws and legitimate exercise of the power of the government of a nation stops at its own borders.

The Consensus Manifesto

Political Reform

    *       Any person elected to Parliament must permanently relinquish wealth in excess of ten times the wealth of the average citizen.
    *      No MP may take any other paid work while during their term in Parliament.
    *      Upon leaving Parliament an MP will continue to receive their salary for five more years, during which they will be barred from taking paid employment.
    *      Upon leaving Parliament an MP will be barred from any work with companies that involves them in government contracts, legislation, or lobbying either directly or indirectly.
    *      The above also applies to senior government ministers, but the period is for life.
    *      Those who are elected by the community to represent its interests must not belong to exclusive or secretive organisations.
    *      Political parties are to be funded solely by the state and/or individual membership fees.
    *      Promises made by a political party in order to get elected are to be legally binding.
    *      Proportional representation is to be instituted.
    *      A wide ranging Freedom of Information Act is to replace the current legislation, and the public to be given far greater access to all aspects of government decision making and information.
    *      Wherever possible all decisions will be made by one named individual, supported (if necessary) by an advisory committee, who will bear sole responsibility for such decisions. As far as possible the anonymity of 'collective responsibility' is to be abolished. Every decision will have a name attached.
    *      Power will be devolved to the lowest practical level in all instances.

Consensus members who are local councillors will have the freedom to campaign on local issues as they see fit - with no doctrinaire interference.

From Reinventing Democracy by David Graeber

This is what the direct action movement is ultimately about: reinventing democracy. Far from lacking an ideology, those new forms of radically decentralized direct democracy are its ideology. If nothing else, the “bad” protesters have managed to prove that they can do anything the (hierarchical) NGOs or unions can, probably much better.

The “hardest of the hard core” showed up—everyone from the notorious Eugene anarchists to the “Urban Guerrilla Division” of the Earth Liberation Front, to groups like the Divas for Democracy and the Tute Neri (Black Overalls). Not only did they respect the mood of the city, they filled it with samba bands, tango dancers, giant puppets of the Statue of Liberty and Ken Lay, and chorus lines of Radical Rockettes.

If anything, they were victims of their own success: When something like 20,000 people magically appeared for the start of the march, the organizers hardly knew what to do with them. But alas, we were not only victims of success. We were also victims of the very logic of our compromise with power—and many of us will not forget this.

Anarchy and direct action are not about transgressing laws simply for the sake of it, but ultimately about creating spaces that can stand outside of power, autonomous zones in which one can begin experimenting with things like direct democracy. It's about a vision for what a truly free society might look like. But in order to do this, one must transgress the law. At least, this is what we discovered as soon as anyone applied for a permit. The moment you start submitting to the logic of the state, everything changes.