Democracy, Power, Structure, Policy, Rules, and Authority

NOTE: I've distributed this at Occupy San Francisco and so far have received only positive, sometimes enthusiastic, feedback.

To be directly democratic, a community itself decides what it wants to do, with each member hav-ing an equal voice. Within the Occupy movement, the General Assembly (GA) is the body that has the authority, or legitimate power, to direct the community.

Theoretically, the GA could micromanage every decision. But pragmatism requires that the GA dele-gate specific authority to specific agents, whether individuals or working groups. When it does so, it needs to establish written policies that clearly define and limit the powers and responsibilities held by its agents. This delegation of authority is the basic structure to the community.

Then the community must assure that their decisions are implemented. If the community does not like what its agents are doing or not doing, the community can change the policies that guide its agents and/or it can appoint another agent or agents to implement its policies.

Within the framework of Occupy SF, these goals could be achieved by having the GA adopt descrip-tions that define and limit the rights and responsibility of each Working Group (WG). The GA could also appoint one or more individuals who would be responsible for convening and coordinating the work of each WG. Those Coordinators would also presumably report to the GA concerning the work of the WG.

To maximize understanding and consistency, those key decisions, or policies, need to be placed in writing, compiled into one well-organized document, quickly updated as needed, shared widely, and made available for reference if needed at GA meetings.

Individuals are not always free to do whatever they want. Any random member, for example, is not automatically entitled to take the community’s money and spend it at his or her own discretion. If an authorized agent mishandles money, the community, or its designated agent, has the right to take away that individual’s authority to handle money and transfer that authority to some other agent.

Thus, while Occupy SF members should be free to establish informal working groups, the GA needs to oversee official Working Groups, establishing and dissolving them as need be.

If and when it chooses to do so, the GA could delegate any of its authority to some other body, such as a Coordinating Committee or a Council of some sort. But the ultimate authority must rest in the hands of the GA, which is able to intervene and re-direct the work of its agents at any time by adopt-ing new policies or appointing new agents.

The General Assembly is also responsible for protecting individuals from abuse. Typically, this goal is achieved by establishing rules, like no smoking in the GA. If individuals violate the rights of oth-ers, they are not entitled to do whatever they want. The community has the right to ask violators to stop violating the rights of others. If the community is unable to resolve the situation and the viola-tors persist in serious, obvious violations, the community has the legitimate right to insist that they leave.

In this way, by establishing a balance between freedom and responsibility a democratic community is empowered while it empowers its members. With a proper balance, a compassionate community fos-ters personal development, which is a central purpose of community.

These principles may seem obvious. But in the West, widespread hyper-individualism fosters notions that each individual should always be free to do whatever he or she wants to do, which undermines the growth of democratic community.

Unfortunately, this hyper-individualism is not uncommon within Occupy SF and our community has had trouble asserting its power to assure that its rules are observed or that designated agents do what they are supposed to do.

Rumblings are surfacing, however, and hopefully the community will soon accept its responsibility to establish its authority.

The words “power,” “structure,” “policy,” “rules,” and “authority” often seem to push buttons with certain people, partly due to how they’ve been used in the dominant culture. So perhaps we can agree on alternate language. But what is most important is that we examine the substance of the issues, re-gardless of the terminology.

Sometimes objections are voiced in terms that characterize “individualist anarchism.” I don’t know whether there are individuals within Occupy SF who identify strongly with individualist anarchism and fully embrace its ideology, but one often hears that kind of rhetoric. Hopefully by addressing these arguments openly and considering the issues logically, we can agree that hyper-individualism is hopelessly idealistic.

As the wikipedia states:

Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anar-chism or similar dual classifications…. Where individualist forms of anarchism emphasize the individual and his/her will over any kinds of external determinants such as groups, soci-ety, traditions, and ideological systems, social anarchism sees "individual freedom as concep-tually connected with social equality and emphasize community and mutual aid" [and favors] self-governing communes … organized by direct democracy and related to other communes through federation.

Individualist anarchists tend to believe that individuals have the right to do whatever they want to do even if they violate the rights of others, favor chaos for the sake of chaos, reject all forms of authority even if it is democratic and accountable, refuse to empower the community to exclude seriously anti-social individuals who disrupt the community, and seek confrontation with government-sanctioned power whenever they can precipitate such confrontation.

This hyper-individualism is reflected in the following comments that I’ve heard or seen at Occupy SF:

· “No one is in charge. If you don’t like something, do something about it and you are in charge.”
· We need group agreements that are never formalized (that is, put in writing), never enforced, and never used to kick someone out of camp.
· “We should speak as free sovereign individuals, not as a representative enforcing anything.”
· The Occupy movement is “a movement inspired by the advances of communication that have allowed us to function without authority (emphasis added).”
· “I don't think that the GA is a ‘governing body’ in the way we are used to thinking/defining that concept. It doesn't govern by making rules which will be enforced by relations of power.”

At Occupy SF, one often hears references to so-called “sovereign” individuals. Such a notion does not make sense. A sovereign is an individual or a group who exercises supreme, permanent political authority over others. A sovereign is above all others. But in a democracy, individuals are equal and the community is the ultimate authority, with limits on its power. The tension between the individual and the community is reconcilable if a partnership and mutual respect are established. But if each individual is considered sovereign, the community is disempowered.

Fortunately, it seems that this thinking is not as powerful in all of the occupations around this country as it is in San Francisco.

I was invited to join a community rooted in direct democracy dedicated to challenging the corporate corruption of our government. I was not invited to join a community that is unwilling to enforce any rules and rejects all forms of government.

My hope is that democratically inclined members will assert themselves and make Occupy SF truly democratic.