What are anarchist perspectives on democracy?
This is something I’ve been thinking about in the wake of the EU referendum. Of course I knew that the whole thing was a farce but I still had some respect for the word ‘democracy’ although with an anarchist view on it with no state, collective control of the means of production, decentralised communities organised under direct democracy, where everyone has an equal say – that sort of thing.
Now though I’ve come to really dislike the word, and would like to disassociate from it as I’ve come to see it as totally a bourgeois liberal term.
We voted on a question we had no say over, only had two options which were both bullshit, and because a slightly higher majority voted to leave that’s enough for us to be pulled out of the EU, no further consultation on the matter is needed. If that’s what’s called ‘democracy’ then I can’t see in any way how this should be celebrated, how even in a liberal sense this is ‘fair’ and gives the general public ‘say in government’.
Liberals seem to have caught on to this too. I've seen terms like 'post-democracy' and 'post factual democracy' being shared around by liberal leftists on social media and referring to the EU referendum.
However, both terms have problems. The first 'post-democracy' conveys the idea that our 'democracy' has become a shadow of its former self and that all our democratic institutions have fallen under the control of a political-economic elite, so essentially our democracy is broken. The second 'post factual democracy' which recently a financial times journalist Nicholas Barrett said Britain now is after the EU referendum and has been shared around a lot on social media refers to the idea that the general public have ignored 'expert views' of economists and at the same time fallen for the lies of people like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, people who are of the elite but claim to be against it, so essentially it means people are too stupid for democracy and justifies elitist, vanguardist politics.
I am not sure which line to take as an anarchist then, obviously don’t agree with the mainstream liberal interpretation of democracy, at the same time though I don’t think the problem is that ‘our democracy is broken’ and lastly certainly don’t support authoritarian politics or believe that people are too stupid for democracy or controlling their own lives.
I think now seems a good time for anarchists to state their position on democracy and whether we associate with this term, or have in mind something else.
Anarchist 'takes'on democracy
Anarchist 'takes'on democracy vary. However there are a lot of critiques of the 'democratic form' and 'democratic ideology' on this site. Perhaps start with this very short text: http://libcom.org/library/notes-democracy-against-sleep-nightmare and then this longer text here: http://libcom.org/library/a-contribution-critique-political-autonomy-gilles-dauve-2008. There are others along a similar theme if you search them out in the library.
The problem is that it is
The problem is that it is vague, and abstract, and does not immediately bring to the fore the necessary questions of class.
The EU referendum is like a 'plebiscite':
pleb·i·scite
ˈplebəˌsīt/Submit
noun
the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution.
synonyms: vote, referendum, ballot, poll
"a plebiscite for the approval of constitutional reforms"
But it in the context of a semi-generalized suffrage, constitutionalism, capitalism, where the question (as you note) comes from a bourgeois party, the question has to be asked: Is it really "democratic". Further, the content, has little to do with the majority of the population engaging in open and substantive debate with most or all of the relevant information, and then deliberating.
The *principle* of democracy seems like the core of anarchism (or any anarchism viable for the working class). If we had not rule-of-law constitutionalism, but true democratic-republicanism, with recall-ability, etc. then the majority of non-owners in society could out vote the small minority of owner/capitalists.
But we don't. So how do we get there? By arguing for the long term alternative of a system of planned production on democratic lines, and in the short-term forming working class defense and political organizations founded on democratic principles which show the effectiveness in the immediate present.
All the while, we have to expose the corrupt 'democracy' of capitalism; the purchase of elections whether through outright corruption, or lobbyists, the monopolization of the news media by advertising-funded businesses, donation-funded campaigns, etc. The reactionary judiciary, the useless (in ya'lls case) Monarchy, and Executive branch as impediments to the rule of the legislature, etc.
Now I don't believe that the working class can elect it's way into power directly, but the struggle for a more democratic society today helps educate our fellow workers about the limits of reform, the corruption of the system, and the need for the alternative of working class taking power and building socialism.
My two cents. I also think that anarchism is compatible with a technical division of labor and paid staff in revolutionary unions/political orgs, with the principle that the staff are subordinate to the membership and that they're not paid more than the membership, who would set their pay.
There is this critique of
There is this critique of democracy made by crimethink:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzGsAYnD6LM
In general the problem with democracy is that it consist of rule of the majority versus the individual having autonomy over itself.
So there is a midway or a compromise which in practice i believe would satisfy most anarchist and that compromise is that instead of having only a parliament, there will be a plurality of meetings.
The meetings are being held locally in factories, in farms in cityhalls etc.
That way, the majority deciding over the minority, will be a small majority (like 20 people instead of 20 million people) and the majority will be better at understand the minority since they are living in the same place and experience the same things around them.
And when the majority is smaller it also means it is less rigid.
Local meetings also means that those exempt from the mass media can still apply a good amount of influence through manual propaganda
In state democracy you also find democracy being connected with the economy. It gives the capitalist a much bigger influence than their amount of heads would suggest.
Tons of
Tons of stuff:
http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2016/03/16/series-the-anarchist-critique-of-democracy/
I’ve no problem with direct
I’ve no problem with direct democracy. Though it is not perfect - nothing is.
The big problem with a referendum is it reduces things down to yes or no and the dictatorship of the majority. No room for amendments or minority rights and a great stage for demagogues.