n ik on Fri, 26 Oct 2001 04:09:02 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime>the myth of democracy and reactivism

Title: Re: <nettime>the myth of democracy and reactivism

Ian andrews wrote:

>"Get back to the 'real' democracy"

  I don't think Marcus said anything resembling this at all.

having now obtained a transcript of his talk, this would be the opening passage from which i based my opinion that the 'tone' of his talk was one of 'gettting back'...

"I am going to try and talk a little bit about democracy today because I believe that the root of the problem of our politcal environment are not questions of particular individuals - as easy as they are to demonise - or particular issues and their outcomes - as important as they may be. The crisis at the root cause of the problem is that we have stretched an anicient system of representation into a 21st century society and it no longer delivers on its most basic promise: to ensure that views of all people are represented in the decision making process and in the exercise of power."

seems to me here that he is setting up a mythical 'ancient system of representation' as the real democracy that has been perverted or some such...

I did hear him
say something about resurrecting useful tools from the historical concept
of democracy such as the "seperation of powers" (police, judiciary, church,
parliament, etc.).

i agree. he did talk quite extensively on this. the point i was trying to make was the way democracy has been used (through the various seperate powers) throughout its history stands in opposition to the "promise" of its myth - its most basic promise was never delivered, and IMHO, will never be delivered.

I would argue though, that democracy as it currently exists amounts to little more than 'the rule of the few'. again, from his talk:

"At the heart of our democratic system is a clear notion of the seperation of powers within our society. This takes the form of seperating notions of church and state, seperating the legislative, and executive roles of government; seperating the judiciary and law enforcement. It is an opportune time to revist this idea: to look at the role of corporate power, the mass media, and multilateral institutions from other forms of power. This takes practical form in removing donations from corporate interests to political parites, diversifying the mass media and seperating the ownership of media power from other commercial and other interests. "

I fail to see how a) this could possibly be achieved as a reform of current democratic systems, and b) how this seperation would stop any informal coalitions, networks, etc coming into being and and developing massive and overwhelming influence. I would say that it is, and has largely always been the informal networks and connections that have driven and maintained the current systems of democratic rule.

 Its not a question of a return to some previous era, or
some idealised past. Its more a question of utilising tools, finding new
mechanisms, creating new structures that can help provide a means toward
affirming social change, while avoiding the duplication of current power
relations, and avoiding the solidification of these ideas into doctrine.

i agree totally - which is why i objected to utilising the 'myth' of democracy. All of what you talk about has been addressed in countless alternate structures, processes, and systems. Why do we need to use a term that has such a tainted past? There an many examples of democracy being a myth that has been utilised for progressive social causes/ gains / etc. But there is a long and weighty history of it being used otherwise - to mask inequity, oppression, colonisation, etc....What I objected too most in marcus' talk was the re-deployment of the 'myth' of democracy...But I would be happy with a little more care used with the word (i know its not going anywhere...)

The suggestion that some kind of society
that can naturally evolve outside of the nation-state schema, that  would
be a "society in which we wish to live" simply by _not_ being a
nation-state, this simple state-denial, embodies an even greater idealism
than the ideal of democracy.

so, there weren't societies before there were nation-states? surely i've read this wrong, b/c as far as i remember, nation-states are a fairly recent phenomena. could you expand on this society without state = state-denial point?

This particular anti-state brand of idealism
seems to carry with it all the problems of right-wing born again Christian
idealism, or even neo-liberal free market idealism, for me to feel
comfortable with it.

how did you get from society without state = state-denial point to state-denial=right-wing born again christian??
I am perhaps reading you wrong, but I would have thought the claim that anti-state 'idealism' = right-wing born again christan would be evidence of someone who could not imagine any other way of life than the one they currently enjoy...
but perhaps you can explain this point as well... how does anti-state politics equate to right-wing born again christian beliefs?

For example, one of the most urgent questions of today involves the
question of resposibility.

i disagree. the most urgent question is the same as it has been for the entire history of the era of modern democracies - who has the power. The myth of democracy makes this question one of "who should we choose to give our power too so they can take responsibility for us"...and the reality is "those with the power make it their responsibility to make sure they keep it"

Who will take responsibility for the dispossed,

...perhaps the dispossed should get back the power to take care of themselves



The answer
must be "all of us." But we need some mechanism to do this. I can't say
what this could be, at the moment, but I would suggest that it involves a
number of strategies, including the rethinking of the concept of the state
that radically distances it from paternalism, and that incorporates, as
Marcus suggested, the idea (from the liberal democratic state) of the
seperation of powers, and a multiplicity of channels (perhaps through
autonomous social actors).

...and i would say that yet another 'reform' of this system will not get us very far. But i have no grand plan in front of me for another system - there are plenty out there though (a decent place to start to look through them would be the World Social Forum - http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/). My main point was that democracy has *never* been the promise that marcus talked of - and that it had in fact been used to obscure this fact, and promote itself as a system worth fighting / living / voting for (as though you ever had any real choice in the matter)

Also the relationship of activist groups to the (a) state also needs to be
rethought.   I find highly problematic the familiar situation where
activist opposition _to_ the very concept of the nation-state is presented
simmultaneously with demands for responsibility _from_ the nation-state.

do you find it problematic on a strategic or idealogical front?

a quick response to this would be,

a) there is no one set of activist groups - they are all different, and use different tactics. so of course there will be 'inconsistencies' between them.
b) these inconsistencies can be useful - consider it a swarm attack. Multiple attacks from multiple angles (the refugee / borders campaigns is a case in point - a combination of refugee action collectives, human rights NGO's and no borders activists all working to attack a single entity to achieve differing aims. Is this useful? This is an interesting question...)
c) when one group does it, it could be a difference between strategies (long term goals and direction) and tactics (short term goals and aims). A 'holding' action could aim for legislative change, whist the group maintains its 'anti-state' strategic goal...

>The question is not "how do we bring about a 'real' democracy", for there
>is no
>'real' democracy to base any comparison on.
 The question is, does this myth
>have an power to bring about a society in which we wish to live?
>
>I'd say no - its (his)tory is so tainted, from mercantilism, imperialism,
>class
>division, patriarchy, racismŠetc, that it is near impossible to 'clear out'
>the concept and make it usable.

Does the concept of democracy neccessarily have to be intertwined with
capitalism, even though its (recent) history has been so?

my understanding is that it *is* intertwined (so closely as to almost be indivisable) - its not a question of rhetoric....I don't know of a period where democracy wasn't explicitely involved in capitalism (or mercantilism & imperialism). But, I'm not an accademic, or a historian, so perhaps someone could set the record straight for me - when was democracy not a front for for capitalism (ah, yeh, i know about Athens, but wasnt that a patriarcal slave trading mercantile power?)

It has been the
familiar line of Western propaganda (particularly US) that the exportation
of democracy can only be achieved by establishing free market capitalism.
The propaganda argument goes something like this: the free market is the
means to democracy, which is the end, ie. the idealised concept of
democracy is used as a justification for capitalism.

i agree completely - jonathan jay posted something on this list a sort time back that said exactly that:

"-= The cynical notion of "Exporting Democracy" is in practice a conceptual
fulcrum, a brilliantly conceived piece of meta-propaganda, effective both
internally and externally to gain policy traction from the political classes
(who pride themselves on proper 'values' while ignoring the fact that mass
politics is a hermetically sealed spectator sport).  The true role of
'democracy' is as a trojan horse to accelerate the the scale-up of Western
Capital's (19th century Imperial fantasy) of Global Neoliberal Empire."

Where as the reverse
is more to the point: democracy is the means to the free market, which
becomes the end.

i'd take issue with this. As far as i read history, the two notions evolved together - democracy (and the work ethic) were intimately bound up in the successsion of the bourgeoisie to the  'throne'. that would make democracy and capitalism both the means and the end for a small section of the global population

Also, the whole history of suffrage, from the time when only the property
holding elite (men) were entitled to elect their parliamentry
representatives, to the present situation of universal suffrage, is
characterised much more as a movement _away_ from class division,
patriarchy and racism.

..though, down here in the arse-end of the Global North, patriarchy is alive and well, racism never went away (from the life expectancy of indigenous australians, to the fear of being swamped by 'asians'), and class division (if we're just measuring the wealth disparity) is growing. But to that last point i would add that you cant measure such ti=hings purely within the boundaries of a nation-state. our economy is so intimately bound up in the global economy, it makes far more sense to take about the global population - and there it is clear that democracy has made the fewest of concessions vis-a-vis suffrage, and generally maintained the class division,
patriarchy and racism that characterise it...

We must
remember that these rights were not "granted" by the ruling class, the
invisible hand of the market, or any of the traditional configurations of
power, but were won by resistance and struggle.

<snip>
This trajectory of democratic reforms had its beginning with
the Enlightenment, and it is precisely this trajectory, away from the
traditions, religion and mythology that fostered patriarchy and racism,
that I would not like to see jettisoned (with the nation-state) in the new
order.


why does the victories won by the multitudes of struggles and resistances form nothing more than a trajectory of democratic reforms? were these reforms the ultimate goal of the struggles and resistances? I'd hazzard a guess that those that were struggling had hoped for much more...


There are also more substantial problems with
>the myth, the issue of 'representation' being the most important. Also, a myth
>so laden with historical baggage is all to easy prey for recuperation by the
>powers that we would claim it from. Its (his)tory makes it an 'unbalanced
>sword', always leaning towards its past of mercantilism, imperialism, class
>division, patriarchy, racismŠetc  in 'mythical' and cultural warfare.
I think what is missing here is the role of the mass media. The mainstream
media, owned by the the ruling class, carry all of this baggage and, to a
large extent, determine what democracy is. I believe that it is the media,
more than any other political institution, that succeed in radically
narrowing the scope of democratic choice. One way they do this is by making
sure that the political adgenda is dominated by economic concerns.
Political parties must play the game and add up all the accounts, balance
the books, and conform to the puritan ideal of "thrift" in order to appear
to be credible.  This limits the possibility of any long term vision, and
hence any possibility of social change.  Progressive political parties,
forced to reduce their ideas to a banal economic register, become pale
reflections of the conservative parties  If anything, the scope of
democracy needs to be expanded, perhaps in much the same way that the scope
of the labour movement expanded in the late 1960s.

there have been massive changes in the make-up of the political landscapes of nation-states and democracy from the time of the early industrial revolution to today, but i would argue that the mass media have not fundamentally changed the way in which the myth of democracy is contructed (its basic promise that is). the selling of that myth has become far more complex and non-linear though...the point being that there was never any 'real' democracy underneath all of the promises and tales told.

There   is no longer any opportunity for making
deals (such as productivity deals) with capitalism (to liberalise it),
since there is no longer anything (like the threat of communism) to bargain
with. We must look for new strategies, new tools....

 i agree totally, which is why i would see the myth of democracy cast aside...

nik

Ian Andrews
Metro Screen
Sydney

--
-->
I was such an optimistic kid. I'm an anarchist because I'm angry about not being able to be an astronaut
<--

--
-->
I was such an optimistic kid. I'm an anarchist because I'm angry about not being able to be an astronaut
<--