[AL]
I'm surprised there hasn't been much response to the excellent analysis
quoted below. Still hoping a copy will be put on the web site.
[John Paul Esposito] I think that the major thing that cripples the
democracy of an embyonic organisation (which does not have a vision of a
major goal within immediate reach) is the logistical difficulty of
getting people to do work in their spare time --- which by definition is
a scarce resource --.
Precisely because time is scarce, those who do the work are the most
passionate about the cause -- and such people inevitably take a dim view
of others 'interfering' when they care so much and are giving up their
valuable time . Democracy takes time and this is something small
organisations have very little of -- so the temptation is for people to
run off and do their own thing -- which is the antithesis of
organisation.
[AL] We've had that problem in "campaign mode" during the 1996 and 1998
elections when there simply wasn't time to involve many people who were
not able to just act on their own initiative.
But the only reason that remained the situation in 1998 was a total
failure to do anything much from 1996 to 1998. The feedback was as
positive as any small group could possibly expect - many hundreds of
people getting in touch with phone calls, letters and donations
over just a few short weeks, effectively from scratch. But nothing was
done to follow up. I really don't know why but suspect it had more
to do with the factors mentioned in your paragraph below about
depression than this one.
[JPE]
Fortunately, as someone else pointed out -- the smaller the
organisation, the less need for formal organisation-- and the use of
lists and bulletin boards such as these can enormously facilitate the
exchange of information [John Paul Esposito] -- which is really how
you build any community -- letting each other know what we're thinking,
what we want to do at any particular point and to define ourselves and
our positions viz-a-viz others. If ideas can get tossed around without
anyone having to agree to interminable meetings -- and if everyone has
'the minutes' everybody is as empowered as their involvement has
permitted. None need wait for another to speak -- and none need wait so
that they can listen.
[AL] Yep, and it can even work for extremely large communities -
consider Usenet with tens of thousands of newsgroups distributed via
thousands of distribution sites to millions of people organized entirely
online.
[JPE]
It seems to me that we all must know people who potentially could be
involved -- and who'd like to be -- and if each of these people in turn
go to their circle of acquaintances and so forth -- well you get my
drift. Eventually we'll have a sizeable political community --
[AL]
Damn right we do - and the Neither Office has a database of several
hundred. If they aren't notified soon we'll have to organize an armed
assault to grab the list and do a mailout ;-)
We already KNOW that there is a sizeable political community potentially
open to working with Neither. Nearly 50,000 people put the ALP and
Coalition last in 1996 - a "spectacular sixfold increase" according to
the AEC, directly resulting from our tiny 1996 campaign (and our
opponents blunders in putting me in prison). 50,000 is quite small but
it's nothing to get depressed about and it got our opponents so worried
that the AEC wrote a whole book of submissions to the Joint Standing
Committee on Electoral matters detailing the failure of their attempts
to suppress us, from which the same politicians who unanimously enacted
s329A concluded that they had no choice but to equally unanimously
repeal it.
That book seriously distorts what actually happened - but it's well
worth reading to realize that what we achieved was seen as IMPORTANT by
our enemies. It's available online at:
http://www.aec.gov.au/law/cnet.pdf
(Requires Adobe Acrobat reader, available if not already installed from
PC magazine CDs or online from:
http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html )
Once we actually get down to work, contacting people and asking them to
contact others, I
don't see why we couldn't reach a large part of that 50,000 or why their
contacts could not influence a significant percentage of the Australian
people. The mood of disgust with the two party system is stronger than
it's ever been. All that's missing is a force willing to organize it.
[JPE]
And if we fail to create such a community -- it will be because at this
point in time -- an insufficient number of people existed who were
driven by what we had to offer in the way of political discussion and
community.
Is this so? Obviously I think not. But this is something to be tested in
practice. There never are any guarantees in politics -- or anything else
for that matter. You can't even be sure that the toaster you bought from
the shop this morning will work. You've just got to open the box and see
what happens.
[AL]
That seems to have been the problem after 1996, the people involved may
have been too depressed
about past experiences with pointless political campaigns going nowhere
that they weren't willing to "open the box and see what happens". We
didn't offer anything in the way of political discussion and community
so naturally anybody interested was driven away.
[JPE]
Maybe a ruthless bunch of overtoasted self-serving careerists will
emerge. But I'd bet against that -- we're nowhere near important enough
for that yet.
[AL]
One advantage of the depressing situation that has existed in Australian
politics for many years is that a lot of people who were bewildered and
didn't know how to deal with that when it emerged, have now had enough
experience of it to know how to what to do about it when we do get
important enough for it to be a problem.
[JPE]
Maybe everyone (or most) will decide it's all too hard and depressing
and pointless. That's more likely -- but anyone who thinks that is
always going to be disappointed -- and is always really asking someone
else to take responsibility for them. And it's up to those of us who
think otherwise to keep the organisation from getting cliquey and nasty
- instead keeping the discussion focused, fresh and with a sense of
perspective.
[AL]
That's been the problem up to now. It could still easily happen in the
formative stages of this
web site and email list. As you say, it's up to those of us who think
otherwise to get things moving in the right direction. So keep firing
away!
[JPE]
If we keep the exchange of ideas going, if we can focus on achievable
stuff which we enjoy doing and which satisfies the yen we all have in
the here and now to make as much trouble as possible for the reactionary
farts who run the system, then most of us will have a sufficient pay off
to keep being involved.
[AL]
I think we can make BIG trouble and have a LOT of fun doing it by the
following achievable goals:
1. Being responsible for the defeat of the Republic referendum.
2. On a campaign that highlights just how far out of touch a Parliament
has got from the people it is supposed to represent when it can almost
unanimously enact a decree ordering voters to vote in favor of
candidates they want to vote against.
By doing that they have left themselves without a leg to stand on.
Material explaining it and linking it to other issues can be got into
lots of mainstream publications, talk back radio etc
(there was a small flurry of letters to the editor during and
immediately after the election despite Neither's paralysis). A mass
signature campaign for a communication to the International Human Rights
Committee might be interesting.
3. A "people's charter" signed by a majority of the Australian people
instituting free elections and a representative legislature may not be
an achievable goal at present but could become one after a defeat for
the phoney Republic. Meanwhile a lot of satisfaction could be gained by
more achieveable goals for tens of thousands of signatures. Going around
talking to people about ENACTING a Constitution rather than just voting
for one proposed by "them" would be an interesting experience that could
of itself introduce a fresh idea into the "republic debate".
(The history of the original chartist movement is worth studying - they
defeated the oligarchy with a mass petition plus "unlawful drilling" - a
century later it could be possible to bypass the "petition" stage and
make it a Bill for an Act to be directly enacted by the Australian
people instead). I'm putting a preliminary draft in another message.
4. A lively "Parliament of the net" with higher level debates than
Canberra and the mass media could be achievable.
[JPE]
That's why I don't think spending a significant amount of time working
out how to stay democratic is really time well spent -- at least not
yet. First, we have to survive and grow. People don't join an
organisation because it's democratic or 'grass roots'. They join because
they like its goals, think them achievable and find a space to work
towards these which fits their particular persona. In the long run, the
best way to meet this last criterion is through something usually
regarded as 'democratic'. But to go back to metaphor, rotating the job
functions on a crusie ship for the sake of demonstrating democracy isn't
much use unless there is a cruise ship and somewhere worthwhile to go.
Paul
[AL]
We have a web site, an email list, an adequate supply of sunglasses and
we're on a mission from God... let's go!
Advocacy of Optional Preferential Voting.url
PDF.url
