by Ed Doveton
This article was originally written in November 2016, prior to the Momentum coup carried out by its private owner, John Lansman. It was written to address the discussions about what type of democracy the newly-formed Momentum should have. At that time, the idea of One Member One Vote (OMOV) was being strongly trailed by supporters of John Lansman, as a counter to the bottom-up grassroots movement of local group formation.
These local groups, in turn, very quickly began to form regional and area associations, and looked to create a national democratic structure based on the traditions of the labour and trade union movement of delegated representation. One of the most startling aspects of that debate was the dislocation of many of the new Momentum members from those traditions, with many having come from social movements where ‘horizontalism’ was either a feature or some desired ideal. The idea of OMOV, therefore, was strongly attached to the use of e-democracy online.
As it transpired, John Lansman, sent members a yes/no plebiscite question, masquerading as an innocuous “survey” to establish members’ agreement to disband the delegate structure and then move to OMOV. He then used his private ownership of Momentum to unilaterally change the constitution and close down democratic debate, whilst still dangling the promise of OMOV.
The experience of Momentum members has since demonstrated that the problems I highlighted in this article have unfortunately come true – par excellence. Momentum now stands as perhaps one of the most undemocratic organisations in the Labour Party, mirroring Progress (which was also set up as a private company, does not share details of membership and is controlled by the directors of its company).
Because of the intent of the original article, some of the suggestions and its conclusion will be out of date. I have, nevertheless, retained these, as they illustrate the potential that existed at the end of 2016 – a potential that was destroyed by the actions of the coup. I feel that the discussion this article presents about democracy can inform members and also clarify terms and ideas. As the Labour Party moves forward, the question arises as to how the left can effectively organise in a climate where Corbyn will be relentlessly attacked by the establishment – and indeed, by the friends of the establishment within Labour itself.
A WAY FORWARD FOR MOMENTUM
This article looks at the meaning of representative and direct democracy (in its e-democracy format) and explores some of the pros and cons of each. The immediate stimulus for the article is the debate that has broken out in Momentum about which way forward, in terms of structure, is most appropriate for the organisation. The undercurrent to that debate is the one about Momentum’s culture and place within the labour and trade union movement. The article concludes with some suggestions about the way forward for Momentum. I would hope that these are considered in the ongoing debate.
At the time of writing, there has been little substantial and considered writing on this issue within Momentum. The first article of any length was from Paul Mason, Why I Joined Momentum. It is, as Nick Wrack points out, a well-written journalistic piece, containing well-turned phrases, but with little substantive argument. Wrack’s own longer article From social movement to socialist movement, does begin to present substantive arguments for representative democracy, based on the traditions of the labour and trade union movement.
Equally Michael Walker’s A Partisan explainer of Momentum’s latest furore, argues well for OMOV on-line, although in my opinion he does not consider the limitations of this method, some of which I explore in this article.
I am optimistic that the discussion emerging in Momentum about democracy and democratic structures will be a positive experience for the movement. A debate conducted in a friendly and comradely manner will result in a stronger and more fit-for-purpose organisation. I hope my contribution can add to that debate.
The discussion about the structure Momentum should adopt has introduced particular terms used to describe various political organisational structures: “direct democracy versus representational democracy” or “old labour movement practices versus the new horizontalism and neo-Podemos type structures”. Some of the newer members of Momentum may not understand the distinction being drawn with these labels, as they don’t really do justice to the actual relationship of ideas and practice on the ground and in reality. Let us unpick these terms before going on to explore which model best fits Momentum’s purposes.
What do we mean when we call a structure democratic?
Although the exact details of definitions of democracy are contested to some extent, there are several elements that we will all recognise as requirements for an organisation to adopt if it espouses to be democratic. To be democratic, the decision-making process must embody at least the following elements:
- There must be open, free and fair elections in which the electorate (or membership) can fully and freely participate in the election process.
- The deliberations of the representatives (or delegates) should be transparent (to the membership), and the debates between the representatives, their narratives and their voting records should be available. Genuine representative democracy is also what is called “deliberative democracy”, because the final result is the outcome of people interacting and deliberating over the issues.
- Participants in the democratic process should have full and free access to information and knowledge in order to make informed decisions.
- The representatives should be free and able to debate and make decisions, without hindrance. This freedom encompasses issues regarding the time and money to travel to attend meetings, which themselves are accessible to all. It also means that the representatives should be able to make decisions free from any sort of coercion.
- The representatives should be answerable for the decisions they make to their electorate — normally through the election process, although the “right of recall” can also be advocated.
What exactly do we mean by representative and direct democracy?
Representative democracy can exist in several different incarnations. Slight variations and differences are critical and can produce very different outcomes. You can have the type of representational democracy we currently have in parliamentary elections, where only a percentage turn out to vote, and where the electorate are presented with a limited choice of candidates who they have in all likelihood never met, to vote for once every four or five years. At the other end of the representational democratic spectrum we might have an active trade union branch that elects a shop steward from amongst their number, and they see the steward at monthly meetings and several times a week in the work place. S/he is their representative, and as a representative is an organic part the work-based community. Both these cases are categorised as “representational democracy”.
Equally, “direct democracy” can have different meanings. It can be where people are actively engaged in and make decisions about their life and community. A good example is asking local people about putting up a statue (a common thing in the past) or where to build a local scout hut (an example from my own area). Yet, under guise of “direct democracy”, dictators have sustained their legitimacy by using plebiscites put to the entire population. Both these situations are categorised as “direct democracy”.
In both representative and direct democracy, the “devil is in the detail”. The [National Momentum] Steering Committee acknowledged this in their deliberations in the 2 November meeting. So, applying this aphorism to what is critical to the establishment of representational democracy within the structures adopted by Momentum, we need to first establish what are the social and political relationships involved, and ask where the power lies within them.
In parliamentary democracies, we see that the divorce between elected MPs and their constituents tends to create an elite in parliament, with a further tendency for these elites to control what is going on. This, then, creates a sense of alienation in politics. Equally, the plebiscite method of direct democracy, while giving the electorate a vote, actually denies them any real power or decision making. Both representative systems and direct democracy only truly reflect democratic processes and involvement of people if the electorate are genuinely participating in the process. To do that, they need to be able to effectively participate, from an informed and knowledgeable basis – that is, they require access to all relevant information and different arguments regarding the questions they are being asked to cast a vote on.
What does representational democracy look like?
The reason why labour and trade union organisations tend to adopt a model of representational democracy is generally explained from the practical point of view that you cannot have thousands, or even millions, of people in the same room all debating. Hence, the members need to elect representatives to represent them and their views.
This short-hand explanation ignores the process that then goes on between the representatives, and it is a process that is also a key part of democracy. After all, the label “representative democracy” is two words. The first part is to do with representation, the second, the democratic process itself, which is more than mere representation.
Regarding representative democracy as deliberative democracy is important, because we get to the heart of the “democratic” bit, bypassing the superficial view that is often dominated merely by structures, committees and other organisational concerns. Rather, the heart of representative democracy, and, indeed, what makes it legitimate, is that decisions are preceded by authentic discussion and debate between people, and where either a consensus is reached, or a decision is taken by a majority vote.
This is what is supposed to happen in Parliament. But in Parliament the process is distorted by the government’s control of much of the parliamentary timetable and the restrictive forms in which any discussion takes place. Not to mention that our “representatives” have come through a distorted selection process and were elected with First-Past-The-Post. Nevertheless, where there is authentic discussion in an organisation with representatives, and they meet the five criteria of democracy (as defined above), we can say that real representative democracy is being practised. And whatever system Momentum decides to adopt should aspire to meet this criterion.
What are the drawbacks of representative democracy?
One of the most visible weaknesses in a representative democracy is that once representatives are elected, it is only these few people who are then more intently engaged in the political process than if all members were continually involved, as in the ideal model of participatory and direct democracy. Even with full reporting back and the five democratic elements above in operation, there will always only be a minority of people making decisions.
Moreover, the creation of delegated representatives can lead to the development of cliques, either formal or informal, within the branches and the wider organisation. There is an anxiety that these bodies of representation are potentially liable to be unduly influenced by sectional groups.
Research into representative organisations does support the view that they can be susceptible to cliques and controlling groups. Most often, these cliques are benign and are formed as a result of friendship networks within the wider organisation. At other times, a clique can become discriminatory. This might include women or other minority groups being excluded, not by rules, but by the attitudes of patriarchy and privilege. And at times, representational systems can be subject to disproportionate influence exerted by sectional interests.
As we are considering the future structure that Momentum should adopt, we do need to address this concern. Like sexism, or other forms of discrimination, being blind to it is the first problem, and “seeing” the problem is the first step towards a solution.
What do we mean by e-democracy?
Having explored the merits and demerits of representational democracy, it is important that we do the same to the model of direct democracy that is being proposed, sometimes referred to in discussions as e-democracy. This type of democracy is often conceptualised as an aggregate whole, where a full membership is engaged, on-line, in some undifferentiated mass.
An essential element in democracy (criteria 3 in our definition) is that participants need to have full and free access to information and knowledge in order that they can make informed decisions. This is one of the major advances brought about by the internet and e-communication. We are no longer dependent upon the mainstream media for information; nor does a physical barrier prevent us from accessing books and articles.
However, all is not perfect in the virtual world of information. Google and Facebook’s algorithms filter that information, and important academic articles and discussions are locked away behind paywalls of the commercial companies that control journals.
Nevertheless, much is possible.
For Momentum, the virtual world opens up the possibility to make discussions at national and regional meetings available to all members. Filmic and audio recordings of proceedings, live-streaming of events, online polls, all make the sharing of information and knowledge far more accessible than ever before.
Using these tools to shape an electronic form of direct democracy gives Momentum the possibility of reaching a much wider audience than local physical meetings ever can. This medium arguably also has the possibility to reach a different audience, wherein people who are unable or unwilling to attend local meetings, but do have access to the internet, are brought into active participation. It also addresses the wider exclusion of direct participation which is the inevitable result of a delegate-based system. E-democracy, therefore, opens up possibilities of wider engagement, be it in a specific virtual form.
It also facilitates the possibility of regular and rapid communication between members and those they have chosen to represent them. No longer do representatives undertake mysterious activities, only vaguely understood by or shared with the broader membership. E-democracy opens up multiple channels of communication delegates can use to report back and inform those members who have elected them. Equally, members have channels through which they also can to communicate with these representatives. Online forums and tools can also facilitate discussion and debate within members, so that deliberation can take place.
How does e-democracy facilitate or inhibit access?
Just like there are real barriers for some to access to physical meetings — such as those members with young children and care responsibilities, or those who are working long hours — there are also barriers to participation in virtual democratic meetings. Deliberation and informed voting on-line is not a level playing field.
Michael Walker’s article is right to point out that the use of social media has the ability to reduce the isolationism that is a feature of on-line voting. However, problems remain. Firstly, not all Momentum members are engaged with social media. I can think in my own area of several local leading activists who do not have Facebook accounts, and more that do not use Twitter, as well as others who only log-on occasionally.
If by making on-line deliberation and subsequent voting the only means of participating in a democratic process, we would end up excluding some people, either completely, or in part — depending on their access to the online resources and their frequency of use. I should also add that in my area, which is regarded as reasonably affluent, there are still a number of households without internet access. We have fought local campaigns to enable libraries to have sufficient free internet access points for people, to enable them particularly to do job searches and fill in forms for the Job Centre. I would expect that in less affluent areas this is even more significant. It would be ironic that as a socialist movement we created exclusion from the democratic process based upon insufficient income to purchase access to the internet, or inability to pay for a large data contract on an iPhone.
Whilst on-line deliberation can create its own virtual community — a community which would be valuable and would undoubtedly contribute to the democratic process within Momentum — this community will be of a specific type and composition. In part, it will reflect the differing time, energy and writing talents of those participating. We see this already with blogs, Facebook and Twitter.
Not all individuals are equal in the blog-sphere. Some people appear to spend many hours of the day at their keyboards, and are rewarded correspondingly with disproportionate voice and, therefore, authority on social media. Some people are fluid writers, others are more prone to re-post, and others are lurkers.
The idea of direct e-democracy and full participation by the membership on-line has an immediate appeal. What, after all, can be wrong with that? The problem lies not in the ideal vision of such a democracy, but in its practical application. For while the internet may give ACCESS to the many, information overload and the ability to access information, immediately begins to EXCLUDE. Whereas in a representative system, your voice will imperfectly contribute to the whole, in e-democracy there are no checks and balances to champion those excluded due to this information overload or lack of a platform.
What is the effect on the creation of communities of practice?
However, there are additional critical reasons why deliberation and voting on-line — as the only method of participation — is a problem. A virtual community created on-line will not be reflective of the actual communities and communities of practice, that Momentum members will find in their localities.
The politics of the left is concerned with local hospital closures, the academisation of schools, the lack of affordable local housing, the price of food in the shops or the injustices we see around us. And these are the issues that we want to bring to our local communities, those same communities that are directly related to the local Labour Party.
Sustaining, interacting with, and giving voice within Momentum to these communities of practice — this real-life context — is critically important if Momentum is to be at all successful in changing the Labour Party. Having an organisational structure, gives form to communities of practice, facilitating the political and social interaction of people who share a concern or passion. Momentum’s community of practice facilitates the coming together of people interested in left politics and their shared vision of working to have the policies and programme that Jeremy Corbyn represents manifested in a majority Labour government in 2020.
The only communities of practice that can be created in the virtual world are virtual communities. Such communities cannot live and breath the politics of their local area and in turn will be ineffective in achieving change in the Labour Party and in local communities. A lot of fun can be had virtually, and “big” events can be organised, but the substance of change within communities will be minimal or absent. What will be done, will be what is already being done. Making Momentum, as an organisation in the locality, redundant. What purpose would it have after all?
While this e-democracy model at first appears more democratic, it assumes the act of participating and voting on-line as a functional act, abstracted from these social relationships. In it, each individual is assumed to make a rational choice in the isolation of their own bedroom or kitchen or wherever. The interaction is with the laptop, mediated through a software programme.
The operative norm in the e-democracy model is “the individual” as an atomised person (personalisation as it is sometimes called). As such, it is rooted in the norms and ideology of neo-liberalism, and from the tomes of the “post-democratic” debate. Gone from this structure is community and social class. In this model, the individual is detached from his or her social relationships with others, distant from their community, trade union or other organisations that represent their locality.
Yet politics is not an isolated individual act; it is a social and political act involving social relationships. We function as members of a community, of a society and of a social class. Abstracting politics minimises, and in some cases denies, this reality.
What is the experience of e-democracy?
A primary error in the populist proposition that favours e-democracy over representative democracy is that an energetic activist movement can be sustained without the life-blood of democratic involvement. This has hardly proved to be the case in those places that have put e-democratic structures in place.
For example in Spain, Podemos’ use of on-line voting has been shown to be more like a plebiscite than the visionary ideal of continual participatory democracy. There has essentially developed a concentration of power at the centre, which directs and controls the primary narrative. Rather than creating and fostering a living, breathing democracy, a proto-oligarchy can get created.
It is important to note that the type of representative democracy offered by online structures and processes is qualitatively different from merely adding up preferences from tick lists or statements. In an e-democracy, or where the electorate are asked to vote in a plebiscite, the lack of deliberation distorts the democratic process, as the ‘unequalness’ and inequalities across society is often replicated in mere aggregation. The implicit idea of horizontalism, of an organisation without many layers of bureaucratic hierarchy, was a natural reaction to what was seen as an over-structured political system controlled by elites.
Yet the concept has moved from a healthy counter idea, into some kind of icon of virtue. A feel-good phrase that can be trotted out, but which is little examined by those using it.
Horizontalism works best when the numbers of people involved are small. What happens in such groups, but remains unspoken, is that there are continuing democratic checks between the people as they dialogue and talk to each other in a horizontal system. In other words, they undertake deliberation. Writ large, this same horizontalism, as it increases the quantity of people involved, changes its qualitative nature. When large numbers of people are involved, the unspoken checks and balances of the small group fall by the wayside. What was previously a dynamic form of social interaction, ceases because it is no longer practically possible.
What replaces it are forms of plebiscite behaviour, controlled by an elite, who are whoever controls the channels of communication between the mass of people involved. A system of horizontalism which originally emerged as a counter to elites, itself becomes embodied elitism par-excellence.
With a large membership, people are only metaphorically able to “tick the box”, regardless of whether this “ticking” takes the form of sentences and paragraphs. The absence of intermediate, mediating structures, places all power at the centre. The very absence of structure between the atomised membership (separated from each other behind their i-phones and laptops) and the organised and central headquarters in control of the channels of communication, creates the illusion of democracy and participation, but manifests itself in practice as centralism and oligarchy. Is deliberative democracy possible within e-democracy?
In theory, deliberative democracy is possible both within representative democracy and in the sort of direct democracy heralded by e-democracy, as it is theoretically possible to have deliberation using on-line methods (whatever they may be). Broadening access by not restricting it to only those who can physically attend a meeting (point 4 in our definition) is a good thing. The problem comes, however, not with access to the debate, but with the logistics of participants potentially having information overload. In such a situation, many voices become drowned out, undermining real deliberation. There may be a semblance of the democratic process being enacted, but the reality of deliberation for everyone is missing. That is why one of the features of representative democracy is a reduction in the number of people who deliberate between each other to a more manageable number; this enables genuine deliberation to take place, with refinements of opinions and positions happening throughout the debate.
When we talk about e-democracy there is a tendency to blur together the tools and the process. An i-phone or laptop are in and of themselves merely machines and lumps of plastic and metal, they only become a given tool when used by humans in a given social situation; it is the material object and human interacting that creates the dynamic. What is true for the hardware, is similar for the software that influences the framing of what happens. For example, the capabilities and form of social interaction that takes place varies when we use different types of software to communicate. Skype allows for dynamic interaction between the parties concerned, whereas e-mail is a sequence of linear responses in text, and a discussion forum can contain elements of synchronous communication.
Therefore, in the context of this current discussion about the structure that Momentum should adopt in order to be as democratically participative as possible, it is not an unimportant question to ask whether the software exists, or is within our power to create, that can facilitate deliberative interaction between thousands of members, on-line at the same time, in some type of conference situation.
A Way Forward for Momentum
Neither e-populism nor representative democracy are perfect vehicles — their merits and shortcomings lay in the operation on the ground and within the social relationships and relationships of power that they create.
The way forward should not be a case of one or the other. If both have merits, then let us utilise those merits to the full, but guard against and minimise the de-merits. In terms of Momentum’s future organisational structure, a combination of e-democracy and representational democracy may be able to blunt and diminish some of the de-merits of each model of democracy, whilst retaining the advantages.
The problems in each method can be minimised by inserting into Momentum a political system in which there is a separation of powers, and a system of checks and balances that can prevent the concentration and abuse of power. Such a system was conceived of at the beginnings of democracy itself, in Ancient Greece, and has been utilised in other democratic systems since.
Although the American system is now corrupted by big money and capital, its theoretical model works well. In it, an executive (the President, who appoints a cabinet) is elected by the whole population, while a legislature is elected to represent areas (Congress), and a Supreme Court is used as a check on both of these bodies.
There is no reason why all members of Momentum, using online voting, cannot directly elect a small executive, of say ten to twelve people. A National Committee can be elected through a branch and regional structure (which may include Unite-type “community” branches for those in areas where branches are not constituted). The National Committee could also include representation from interest groups, such as Momentum Women, BAME, LGBT, etc. (who, under e-democracy, would have no vehicle for direct representation). The National Committee could then act as a check upon the Executive, whilst the Executive has the authority to act by dint of being directly elected.
If such a structure was adopted, a two-thirds majority of the National Committee should be able to overturn Executive decisions, putting their decision to all members via an online voting mechanism. The National Committee should also have a defined role as the scrutiny body over the conduct and practices of the Executive (much like the developing scrutiny function emerging on local councils). Thus, the National Committee would be the voice of the activist network in branches, which is critical if we are to be successful in transforming the Labour Party. The National Committee should have an input into policy and programme development, along with the Executive. But a policy and programme development should involve all members through an on-going on-line discussion of these issues.
An on-line discussion period involving all members can be part of the policy and programme development leading up to an annual conference. But the conference itself, in practical terms, would need to be a delegate conference. As explained in this article, an on-line discussion of thousands during a live conference, while allowing potential access, in volume terms, would exclude. The process, within the short time span of a day or two-day conference, would not allow for genuine deliberative democratic discussion. It would, inevitably, merely in statistical and practical terms, exclude and marginalise the many. In spite of the limitations of representative democracy, discussion within a conference format — drawing on and debating the outcome of the on-line pre-conference period discussion – may be the best synthesis for democracy.
There is a further advantage to this synthesis. The plebiscitary tendencies within the e-democracy model will be tempered and soothed by the existence of the debate and deliberation of the representative system. The representative system’s tendency to cliques, will be countered by the mass democratic input of e-democracy. The two systems complement each other and act as checks and balances, producing a much better chance of a healthy democratic organisation thriving and growing.
These are, of course, suggestions on my part, presented here to illustrate the type of relationships that might be created, and the practicalities of checks and balances that could be agreed upon. The precise details and relationships I am sure can be more solid and imaginative than my few suggestions, but the principles I have presented here are critical if Momentum is going to be successful.
A movement around the Corbyn leadership which can potentially be spearheaded by Momentum, offers the best opportunity for progressive change in Britain. It is the duty of those working in this movement to strengthen and bring together the forces for change. Let us hope that Momentum, as it develops does not let us down.
Posted April 5, 2018
