Revolution (39 page)

So that’s one idea, that in my view is a piece of pipsqueak reformism and not worth dying for, that no party in the “democratic” space would ever propose, because it conflicts with what Chomsky outlined for us earlier as the true function of power: to protect itself and to control us. What the above example does is demonstrate another alternative to “the way things are” and shatters the convenient lie that there are no alternatives.

Here’s another example of things being run differently. This time it’s truly representative democracy—that means “something worth voting for”—a system that actually means the will of the people can be manifested.

It’s called participatory democracy.

In Porto Alegre in Brazil, a city with a population of 1.3 million, 22 percent of whom live in shantytowns and slums where typically people aren’t that well educated or affluent, large-scale participatory democracy has proven to be very successful.

Since 1989, the expenditure for the whole city has been designed as an annual participatory budget so people can decide how the money is spent. That seems unfeasible. All these slum-dwelling,
City of God
–emulating, barefoot-with-an-orange-football-on-the-beach folk are each year involved in the economics of their community—it can’t be done. Alright, how is it done?

Okay, so people understand that they are part of a community and can take part in its management.

I see, so the first meeting, the micro meeting, is to establish priorities—some people might want to have more-regular refuse collection, others might want more community housing, others might be worried about immigration. Bring it up at the micro meeting, work it through, then take it to the assembly the following month.

So there’s a representative element, but it doesn’t feel as dislocated as our politics; there’s a sense that you are making decisions that will affect your life. I bet if we were able to present that information interestingly, people would be as interested in that as they are in
Dancing on Ice
.

Mayor, hey? How did he get that gig? I don’t remember voting for him. The title “Mayor” would have to go in Matt Stoller’s utopia and the incumbent of the role entirely beholden to the people in Dave DeGraw’s. Like with the Revolutions we’ve read about, we’re under no obligation to replicate their ideologies wholesale; we can democratically cultivate our world together.

Sounds like a lot of bureaucracy, and I bet it fucking is. That’s what politics should be: admin. No power, just clerical work, enacting the will of the people. The mayor doesn’t get to make any crafty moves to help out his banker pals or get bikes named after him; it’s just graft and service.

Real-life democracy, where the issues that you care about are addressed. Me, I don’t see immigration as a real issue; for me an immigrant is just someone who used to be somewhere else, and the sooner we unite and organize to dismantle the structures that prevent all of us being free, the better I’ll feel.

You might feel differently, though. You might want strict border controls, like Bill O’Reilly or Nigel Farage.

Now, whilst I’d argue that the only reason we even think stuff like that is because we’ve been given duff and manipulative information, you may not care. In a truly representative democracy, we’d be presented with the arguments, then we’d vote. If after all the
pleading and exposure of actually culpable bankers and corrupt politicians, there was still a determination to blame immigrants, some crazy racist deal could be voted in.

Given that we’re all meant to be deeply apathetic, our refusal to vote regarded as slovenliness rather than an unwillingness to participate in a system that knowingly harbors and protects political pedophiles, the concern would be that no one would bother to take part in this new, empowering system.

Well, 31,300 people took part in the process in Porto Alegre in 2002, up from 1,300 in 1989. This goes to show that participation escalates when people see that they’re not wasting their time. Also, it clearly wasn’t as boring as I worried it would be; it caught on like Rubik’s Cube, or, if you’re young, and I hope you are, loom bands.

That’s a huge number, positive in itself but, imagine, also to the increased sense of community and connection. Compare this to what we’re mugged off with by way of democracy:

Sounds like there’s a bit of wiggle room there.

When this new type of democracy was implemented in Brazil—let’s call it actual democracy—the majority of participants were women and “poor people.” Isn’t that what we need in all democracy? Underrepresented groups to come to the forefront? I think our communities would greatly improve if more women and blokes that hadn’t all gone to the same school got stuck into running them.

What happened when they got involved in Porto Alegre?

That’s what happens in representative democracy—people get represented, instead of mad policies that allow spying, new water cannons, arms deals, and the carving up of health services. Generally speaking, when empowered as a community, or common mind, our common spirit, our common sense reaches conclusions that are beneficial for our community. Our common unity.

T
HESE MODELS ALREADY EXIST
. T
HEY ARE ALREADY WORKING
. W
E
know the current system isn’t—shrug—“not perfect, but the best we can do.” It’s fucked, and it’s fucking us, and it’s obsolete. Now there are alternatives. We have the means; we just haven’t used our power to assert our will. The technology that enables us to vote for TV talent shows can be used for truly representative, localized democratic process—that’s common sense.

The trade agreements that benefit transnational corporations can be rewritten to provide food and resources for the people of the world.

The utilities and facilities of major corporations—Monsanto, Apple, Time Warner—can be confiscated and given to democratic collectives so we can have food, technology, and communication on a local level without needless global tariffs, Mickey Mouse product updates, and senseless ecological damage.

The U.S. writer Walter Mosley said: “We have the formal structure of a democracy, but not the substance.”

The structures exist, the resources exist; the only thing that stands in the way of this necessary Revolution is the venal entitlement and self-interest of the people who benefit from things staying as they are.

Now, as David Graeber said to me once, these people aren’t going to just stand aside, say, “We see your point,” and let us get on with the Revolution. When fear and propaganda finally fail—and that process has begun—they will, of course, use force.

Military force, police force, and private security. The good news is, as Che Guevara pointed out, the people that do all the work in those institutions are getting shafted like the rest of us and will only go so far for a pension. Their compliance is kind of a habit. Habits are hard to break, but—and this I know from personal experience—you are more inclined to break them when they stop working for you.

As the degeneration of our governing institutions becomes more blatant, more and more of the brave men and women that have sworn to protect and serve the people are going to see that oath runs directly counter to what they’re being paid to do.

The battalions of ex–service people living on the city streets of the UK and United States are a cruel testimony to the true sentiments of our governments towards those that are willing to give their lives. Sixty thousand homeless people in the States, and 25 percent of all London’s homeless, have formerly served the country that now does them such a rank disservice.

What would happen if we tried to create regional participatory democracy? What would happen if we tried this out in London, New York, or Barcelona? What would it be like?

What if in London we used the existing democratic structure to return power to the population of London?

Every major decision within the current jurisdiction of the mayoralty could be voted on directly by the people, like in Porto Alegre. In actual fact, the Mayor of London—thank God—has only limited power, but we could all vote on issues that would immediately change the vibe of the place, like:

One of the things the mayor could do—and the one London has now would never do—is only grant development contracts to ethical businesses that behave themselves. My feeling is that even with the above stipulations, like paying people properly, empowering
your workforce, and responsible reinvestment, these exciting new enterprises could give snidey outfits like Boots, Starbucks, and Vodafone a run for their money.
*
We as a community might prefer to get our stuff from outlets that aren’t ripping us off and not contributing. I’d vote for it.

London doesn’t have enough affordable homes. The Mayor of London could ensure that new developers addressed this by building some. It’d also go some way to alleviating the spiritual stain of urban homelessness. That’d be cool.

The Mayor of London has power over the Metropolitan Police Force and could ask them to stop bugging casual drug users. In fact, all drug users. The War on Drugs has been lost. People take drugs, and that’s that. All we can do is create conditions that are as safe as possible and result in as little criminal activity as possible for something that remains illegal. Most police I’ve chatted to think it’s a ball-ache nicking drug users and would be glad to drop it. We could have a vote on that.

This is another area where the mayor’s authority over the police could save a lot of aggravation for them and the community. Actually, given the mayoralty’s power over development contracts, how about a vote for the city’s residents on this subject:

Imagine that! No homelessness; an end to the inhumane twitch required to steel ourselves for the guilty march past street sleepers.

Even though 20 percent of Londoners don’t have Internet access, which seems mad to me in my bubble, it would be good if the relationship between city administrators and the electorate became complete and ongoing. In fact, given that one-fifth of the population are offline, how about:

The advantage of using the preexisting infrastructure of a metropolis like London is, it gives us the opportunity to demonstrate a new politics. A politics that spreads power as widely as possible and represents people directly.

As we have seen from the United States’s treatment of any nation that tries to step outside of the capitalist paradigm, any attempt to reduce corporate influence and empower people is met by extreme external pressure. That would probably happen to any public official who sought to truly devolve power.

That’s why the chance this office gives to rally for wider change ought be exploited. Regular referenda could be held to form a powerful “people’s lobby” to pressure national government and international organizations to align with the needs of the people they claim to represent.

London could become a paragon of advancing consciousness, an awakened society that organizes a good, fair, empowered life for its citizens and campaigns for global change for everyone.

The ideas I’ve collated in this book are clear, simple, and necessary.
This is continually obfuscated by the representatives of a dying system that requires our docility for their ludicrous prosperity.

The feeling you have of anger is real and just; the feelings of hopelessness and despair are not.

We all have a choice. We are the creators of our reality. All we have to do is make a decision to take collective responsibility for change. Do you really think that the Revolution is a ridiculous proposition? That we cannot engineer our own structures?

What’s ridiculous is the system we have now. If we were starting society anew, who among us would propose a monarchy, an aristocracy, a financial elite that exploits the earth and farms its population?

If at one of the local or regional meetings that we have to govern our community someone proposed that, instead of equality, that all of us, including the poorest among us, donated a percentage of our income to a super-rich family with a little old lady at its helm who would turn up annually in our parliament draped in jewels and finery to tell us that austerity had to continue, you’d tell them they were mental.