Page for collected info about democracy in the Social Forum movement

Intro
This page is set aside for a full and frank exchange of ideas about democracy and power. It will be a continual work in progress, representing a collaborative effort to understand the way these issues relate to the social forum movement. Our 'facts' in working out what democracy means, and what is desirable, are often the stories of individuals caught up in the myriad experiements in democracy happening around us today. Please add your own.

Note: ''In editing this page please bear in mind that wiki writing works best where you try to work out how your statements and ideas can fit in with others (though that might begin with something like 'an opposite view...'). The opposite - a head-to-head exchange or a list of unrelated comments - quickly seems to lead to difficult to follow pages that stop getting used.''

Democracy - Why, How and When?
Asking 'why democracy?' may seem like asking 'why oxygen?' - we assume that we have a right to a say in the decisions that affect us. But how does this work in our small scale groups - did the Brighthouse management have a right to have a say in the design of our credit leaflet? Well, no. We define our group around some notions of progressive social change that, however vague, exclude those who make a living preying on the poor and vulnerable. But then the notion of rights is already out of its depth, because for a language of rights to be useful, they have to be rules that apply to everybody, everywhere.

So, maybe it is useful to wonder what the value of democracy might mean, after all. The advantage from our point of view is pretty simple, its the age old liberal idea that by excluding anyone's opinion we are more likely to make collective mistakes. Two heads are better than one. (And 60 million in Britain are better than Tony Blair's!) Democracy is a means to an end - it helps us make better decisions in pursuing our objectives; so inviting the Brighthouse managers to our discussion about debt would have been a mistake simply bacause they didn't share our general objectives.

The opposite view of democracy - valuing it without wondering why - makes a fetish of the ritual of elections. This nearly meaningless act in the UK merely serves to rubber stamp the manifestos of whichever of the red or blue authoritarian puppets of the dominant class we want to administer our lives. National elections are more and more obviously a matter of politicians manipulating the electorate which, if we value democracy as a means, is exactly the wrong way around. This is why millions of people across the country looked for ways to influence the decisions of those in power in the lead up to the second gulf war, whether it be by visiting thier MP to give them 'a piece of my mind' or D-locking thier head to a Docklands bound train.

However, this 'means to an end' argument for democracy sounds rather bureaucratic. It is true that the more voices we hear, the more information we gather, the more likely it is that our actions will further our objectives. But what about moral choice? What about setting our objectives? Millions of people didn't take to the streets around privatisation, partly because it seemed to many a matter for the experts - they said privatisation would provide a better service (hands up who still believes them). Leave the administration of things to the administrators, but when it comes to what is right, what people ought to do, then everyone has a right to a say.

Actually, at the most general level it is assumed that everybody has the same general objective. Often this is 'the national interest', though more recently it has become 'lower taxes' (or 'your selfish interests'). In these paragraphs I am using 'progressive social change' though I know others in the group who might use 'revolution' or 'empowerment'.

Testament about the SWP
In the UK the SWP under a number of guises (e.g. Globalise Resistance, Respect) has gained considerable influence in the groups organising the next edition of the European Social Forum (official site | unofficial site). There are many question-marks over the agenda they bring with them to the ESF; however, these sometimes appear to be knee-jerk reactions, rather than fact based. This discussion, intends to be focussed around their vision of democracy (democratic centralism), and thier relation to the social forum movement. Please add whatever information you can about those subjects here.

Fear of the SWP is more damaging than the SWP themselves...

It should be clear that the SWP are not the only problem and all they are doing is putting trotskyite theory into practice. It is easy to blame the SWP for the failings of the activist movement but they are not the only problem. Democratic centralism is a Leninist theory and the SWP is not the only group that practices it.