mandated, recallable delegates

I was just thinkng about the traditional anarchist decision making structure, i.e. federation of local groups where.

1. You have an agenda (to which all groups can contribute) circulated among the groups.
2. Each group makes up their mind on the issues, and mandate their delegates to a conference
3. The delegates meet and vote as they have been instructed by their groups.

It seems to me that there is a flaw in this scheme, because it has to carry out two tasks, which are irreconcilable within this framework:

1. Giving everyone a direct and equal influence on decision making.
2. Facilitating deliberation and compromise between, as well as within groups.

In order to fulfil fuction 1, the delegates have to vote EXACTLY as they have been mandated, otherwise they arre usurping the power of those who elected them.

However, in order to fulfil fuction 2, delegates from each group have to be able to discuss issues as if everything is on the table, and to alter each others views. Otherwise what is the point of a meeting - if everything has already been decided, the groups might might as well just communicate their decisions to each other electronically, on the phone or through some sort of internal bulletin.

So I propose a slightly different system (although somebody else has probably already come up with it), which combines inter-group deliberation with direct democracy.

1. You have an agenda (to which all groups can contribute) circulated among the groups.
2. Each group makes up their mind on the issues, and mandate their delegates.
3. The delegates meet and discuss the issues at hand, initially representing the views of their group, but then throwing the discussion open. The meeting is purely deliberative (appart from agreed admin tasks upon which delegates may or may not be issued binding mandates).
4. The delegates return to their local groups, and report on the discussions at the conference, giving the local group the benefit of the views and arguments of other groups. Conferences could easily be recorded on tape etc. as well.
5. Following these reports, each group discusses and votes on the conference proposals, making up their mind for a final decision.
6. They communicate their vote results to the other groups, and they are published on an IB. For example, the post conference IB might read:

   Proposal 1: to recall the national secretary

   Liverpool: 15 for, 12 against, 0 abstain
   London: 12 for, 12 againt, 3 abstain
   Worcester: 10 for, 12 against, 0 abtsain.

   Total:

   37 for
   36 against
   3 abtsain.

   How's that for a proposal? I think it sums up what people like Kropotkin were saying when describing the role of delegates in an anarchist society, based on:

   "free agreement, by exchange of letters and proposals, and by congresses at which delegates met to discuss well specified points, and to come to an agreement about them, but not to make laws. After the congress was over, the delegates [would return] . . . not with a law, but with the draft of a contract to be accepted or rejected."