Forum Post: Is the GA consensus process truly democratic?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 1:12 p.m. EST by LetsGetReal
(1420)
from Grants, NM
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This is an interesting critique of the consensus process:
"the General Assembly is at any given time composed of the people that are there. Therefore the most dedicated members will have more say over the movement than those who are unable to contribute as much time. This is not democratic; we cannot build a mass movement if we expect people to have to assemble daily. Daily assemblies may be fine for a small time, but it is not sustainable in the long run. The General Assembly model leaves no room for those with jobs and other responsibilities. In effect, the General Assembly excludes the vast majority of the 99%."
It is isolating potential supporters.
No, it's not democratic. It whittles away participation of dissenters and creates an isolated, self-reinforcing thought enclave that convinces itself it's representative of the larger population.
They need to separate the decision making about "life in the park" from the decision making about policy & direction for the movement.
The former should include only the people camping in the park. The current model might be workable for that.
The goal-setting and policy-making needs to be inclusive of people who support the movement but who don't camp out and should not be based on the consensus model. There should be some kind of online voting set up (which I think they might be working on) and have majority rule. 90% consensus and letting individuals have such powerful veto power is not workable for larger goals or a group that wants to encompass as much of the 99% as possible.
I agree with protesting for the purpose of working with government and through government to affect positive change. I do not support Direct Democracy or any form of anarchy for our government. But that is what the OWS GA wants.
This experiment in Direct Democracy by anarchists has been effective in attracting alot of attention. This movement has managed take advantage of every social/political/economic frustration to gain attention.
However, Direct Democracy in a park will not translate to the government of a country that is the greatest country on earth and leader of the free world.
Our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, gave us a Representative Republic. No way is a group of anarchists going to improve on what our Founding Fathers gave to us.
I suppose the 98.99% should give proper credit to the anarchists for launching this experiment. It has helped us to discuss and speak out about many legitimate frustrations and problems in our country.
However, no OWS GA will ever take up the legitimate demands of the majority (ie: campaign finance reform, financial reform, corporate personhood) with the purpose of affecting change through government. Because this is not their goal. Their goal is to use the majorities legitimate frustration to gain support for one thing: Direct Democracy and some brand of anarchy.
I believe that 99.99% of people will reject Direct Democracy beyond the park. It is up to the 98.99% to move our legitimate issues with government out of the park. To work with government and through government to enact the positive changes that we want for our country.