Occupy's 99% = Bottom-Up Participatory Democracy

The Question and Objection to the Occupy Movement


One recurring complaint/ question I have heard from the media, as well as those who oppose or  confused about the Occupy protests is this: What do you all want anyway?  For the rich to pay more taxes?  For an apology from Wall Street? What???  On one hand, "What do you want" is a good question being asked of the 99% protesters.  This is a common question asked whenever there is a movement protesting perceived wrongs.  If you have a problem with something, what is your proposed solution?  However, this is a "top-down" representative democracy approach to problems, rather than a "bottom-up" participatory democracy philosophy. The Occupy movement is a bottom-up philosophical movement.  As such, it is important to understand the difference between these two approaches and why the "what are your demands" question is not really an appropriate question to ask at this moment in time.

Image by Don Ryan/AP, and linked to from: "Occupy Wall Street" @ NPR.org

A Top-Down Approach

From the "Top-Down" perspective, it is expected that a centralized group of people/leaders organize, make demands, form a plan, and encourage the masses to follow the laid out plan.  Like a representative democracy, the followers select not simply the message or the plan, but the leaders they trust to facilitate that message and plan. If the plan or message runs into roadblocks, we can then feel comfortable that our leaders will make the adjustments needed. Power lies in the leader rather than the plan or demands. Thus, this mode of power/problem solving suggests that if we select the right person for the job, those people will act in our self-interest, and not just their self-interest.  In effect, this is the philosophy of a representative democracy since our focus is more on the elect rather than simply the plan of action.  Plans and "party philosophy" is important in this paradigm, but what takes focus are the leaders and their ability to make things right for us.

A Bottom-Up Approach

Conversely, a "Bottom-Up" participatory functions within an opposite paradigm.  Here, people who agree on a general protest idea or grievance, in this case the problems of capitalism and regulation of markets, come together to negotiate and work through the core problems or concerns at hand.  The focus is on the problem, the many possible solutions, and negotiation. The focus is not on absolute leader(s) who will make these decisions for us.  Process before a decided end result is emphasized because people recognize that one plan, one demand, will likely NOT be sufficient.

The Occupy Movement and the Bottom-Up Approach

Within the 99% Occupy Movement, it seems to me that an important fear about making specific demands at this moment is this: one solution will likely only benefit a portion of the population, not solve the root of the problems, whereas the hope is to benefit 100% (no one wishes to harm the 1%) and heal the roots. So, for example, maybe taxing the 1% is a good idea, but it is NOT the only good idea and more investigation is needed.  To reach this goal, we must negotiate over the use of language and action; we must negotiate everyday practices and ethical/social values between our personal self-interest and the interest of the collective (our local, national, and Global Community).  This is a "double process" of consensus, which takes much longer to accomplish then the top-down approach discussed above. This is why I call the occupy movement a "Bottom-UP" movement, and why this global group of people are an example of participatory democracy.

I suspect a plan and demands will come in a more concrete form later on, but right now what we are witnessing is a global discussion process of consensus building.  Such a discussion takes a lot of time and a lot of endurance.  As such, is it a waste of time?  This too is a good question.  After all, absolute consensus is almost always impossible to reach in a small family, let alone a nation or a global community.  But I would argue that the answer to that question is a resounding NO.  Equality in economics, politics, and social arrangements can only be reached through the consensus process. We no longer live in a world were we can allow ourselves to make top-down decisions for the global population.  This approach ends in increased conflict and war and, I would continue to argue, is a good part of the reason we are in the mess we are in right now. 

A Cosmopolitan Movement

The 99%ers are a cosmopolitan group functioning within the tradition of the World Social Forum and participatory-democratic philosophy - it is a new way of thinking.  A way of thinking that must trust wide participation in the democratic process (not simply a process based on voting), and one that must trust the chaos of that process, and the uncertainty of that process.  In the end, I suspect if we follow this approach through, we may end up with plans that support the majority rather than the minority of the population.

For more on cosmopolitan democracy and my thoughts on process (bottom-up), over end (top-down) approaches, you might wish to read: Toward a Cosmopolitical Democracy: Process over Ends.

I would love your thoughts on this!

R

"The Elders" and the Rest of Us

The Elders :: theElders.org

So, a friend on Facebook posted this link (see above) to The Elders' website, a new site offering an old idea.  If you have not heard, The Elders are a group of powerful Men and women focused on helping solve global problems.  This impressive list of include: Nelson Mandela, Graca Machel, Desmond Tutu, Kofi Anna, Ela Bhatt, Lakhdar Brahimi, Gro Brundtland, Fernando H. Cardoso, Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson, Muhammad Yunus, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

Under their history page, it states:

"1999. Peter Gabriel begins a conversation with Richard Branson about the Elders -- a new gathering of world leaders who will come together to guide and support our 'global village.' for their model they looked to traditional village elders, trusted by their people to resolve conflict within their communities.

In 2001 Gabriel and Branson take their idea to Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel.  Mandela is immediately enthusiastic and, with the help of Graca Machel and Desmond Tutu, sets about bringing together the group of Elders you see here today.

Never before has such a powerful group of leaders come together. Free from political, economic or military pressures.  The only agenda of the Elders is that of humanity.  And their only purpose is to easy human suffering in these essential areas:

1.  Offering a catalyst for the peaceful resolution of conflict.

2.  Seeking new approaches to seemingly intractable global issues.

3.  Sharing wisdom: reaching out to grassroots Elders and to the next generation of leaders.  Listening and helping to amplify voices for good all over the world."

On the surface, this feels like a good idea.  In fact, several of my personal heroes are in this group including Mary Robinson and Jimmy Carter.  Next, I am sure that this group has "our" best in their sights.  And like these "Elders," I also wish to see our "global village" a peaceful one.  Indeed, my dissertation is about how we can build cosmopolitical solidarity  rather than simply a focus on economic globalization.  Yet I am uneasy.

Why?  Because unlike the claim made above, powerful groups like this has existed in the past and will exist in the future and I am not sure that a "top down" approach is what we need.  A village that utilizes any type of "elder," utilizes a hierarchal structure where the most powerful among us tells the rest of us what is good for us.  When thinking of Kenneth Burke, the communication theorist, I agree that we are goateed by hierarchy, but I do not think this is always a good thing--and we should fight our urge to reproduce strict hierarchal forms.  Yes this group consists of impressive and compassionate people and are great women and men, but they do not speak for me necessary and to assume to do so is bothersome.  I did not elect them . . . they elected themselves.  I may accept their advice, be in awe of their power, their compassion and their strength, but part of cosmopolitanism must be a global process where we, as the so-called village, work from the bottom-up to create this new world.  Again, we must create a process of learning and growing together from a bottom-up, not a top-down process (and yes I see the irony of this post in that simply suggesting this adjustment is a top-down approach).  Regardless, all I am hearing from this website is that these "Elders" will let us bottom feeders know what to do.  It may be harsh, my usage of bottom feeders, yet that is the inference.

The WTO, the World Economic forum, the G8, the World Bank as well as other organizations are all filled with their own elders telling us how to be, what to do, and when to do it.  It has not worked.  Granted, this organization sounds much different than those listed, but still there is the problem of the top-down approach, and what about global inclusion, transparency in activity, and decision making and the like?

Further, just like the other listed global organizations, "The Elders" are not free from political, economic, or military pressures.  None of us are and if we think we are, we are fooling ourselves.  You cannot work in any nation today without dealing with these pressures.  If you are helping to resolve a conflict, you are likely dealing with one of the three above "evils."  If your are talking any global issue, you are definitely dealing with economics, military might and political pressures.  Finally, the sharing of wisdom about our communities and how our communities can live, compete and function globally, you must also deal with specific military, economic and political pressures.  They exist and effect all us us--including "The Elders."

What I would beg of "Elders" is this: help facilitate and participate in a forum where process from the bottom up is encouraged among the people of this world.  One reason I like President Elect Obama so much is his insistence and encouragement of "service" from not only those at the top, but all of us (at the bottom). Encourage a type of cosmopolitical building as we see with the World Social Forum who, as an organization (World Social Forum Official Web page), refuses to create mandates but offers space for local groups to learn how to work together globally (read their charter of principles here).  In fact, they work against hierarchy and for a parallel approach to peace and change.

I must admit that only having the "Elders" website to go by, I have no real idea of their concrete work.  Yet going from the wordage of this organization, I see more of the same - the now deemed elite directing the chorus.  Nothing new there.

R