This summer, I plan on traveling to Cambodia on a group volunteer project. I'll be spending about two weeks there with the other volunteers, working at orphanages, street outreach centers, and more. I'll also be doing street and documentary photography in order to raise awareness of the human rights crisis in Cambodia.
In preparing for this trip, one of the main problems I encountered was finding funding sources - the entire project costs in lieu of four thousand dollars. I was hoping to get a scholarship that could help with the funding, but was unable to find one that give money to projects not organized by an academic institution. I thought perhaps I could get a grant, but discovered that grant awards are generally only given to official non-profit organizations, not to individuals like myself.
Frustrated, I thought - why not create such a non-profit organization myself? An organization can collect funds far more easily than an individual. An organization specifically designed for people planning trips to volunteer abroad could assist such individuals with both funds and helpful information.
Having been impressed by what I read about participatory democracy in Francesca Polletta's book, Freedom is an Endless Meeting, I decided to use its principles in determining how the planned organization would organize and function. The main principles I will be using are:
-Personal involvement of each member in discussions, decisions, and activities, as opposed to the system used in representative democracy, where the involvement of the individual is often limited to voting for a representative.
-Consensus. Instead of using the model of representative democracy, where decisions are primarily made by representatives, decisions will be made be made by the individuals themselves, and only through compromise and consensus, so everyone ends up agreeing with the final decision.
-No authoritative leadership. Instead of having a single leader, like the presidential elections in representative democracy, a single person who has authority over the rest, all organization members will be considered equal. Some might naturally lead more than others, and some might take more initiative than others in organization and activity, but none has authority over an other.
-Leadership development. Participatory democracy aims to develop all people into leaders, not just a select few. All people should be encouraged to develop their leadership abilities.
Historically, participatory democracy is known primarily for its significant role in furthering human rights and civil rights. For instance, SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), an organization mostly operating in the 60s and using participatory democracy, is particularly well-known for its work in the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement. Another such organization, SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee), is known for being one of the principle organization of the American civil rights movement of the 60s.
I believe the non-profit organization I am planning fights for the same things that these, and other, historical participatory democracy groups have fought for - equal rights and opportunities for all beings. In my own volunteer trip to Cambodia, I will be working to further the rights of Cambodian children - much as the students of SNCC worked for the rights of blacks to vote.
Every type of volunteer project is, in some way, fighting for human rights - whether it's something direct like working with Cambodian children in their home country, or something seemingly almost unrelated, like protecting an endangered species, which may, in turn, lead to an impoverished area to become a popular tourist destination.
The next part will focus on how participatory democracy can help my organization achieve its goals. If you enjoyed this post, please rate it and check out the rest of my blog!
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I use consensus discussion in the various anarchist groups I'm in. It works pretty well when people agree, but has a tendency to turn into a pressure group if you don't have a facilitator who isn't willing to let a proposal fail. The consensus system only works if you have strong facilitators who are willing to take charge, stop people if they are talking to much/get off topic, and make sure that things aren't being repeated.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Hence, alternative, non-authoratarian leadership rather than no leadership.
Yes, I'm aware. I'm just saying that you have to make sure you have assertive facilitators, otherwise the system goes to shit. I've been part of both successful consensus discussions and unsuccessful ones.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
When I participated in a mini government reform plan with some of my friends, built along similar principles, the ideas that we came up with that might be relevant to this were two:
1. When having group discussions, it helps to have some device like the "talking stick"--we used a Rubik's cube. Only the person who has it can talk.
2. When you're having a meeting/discussion/whatever, it might help to designate someone as a discussion leader: the discussion leader is in charge of whatever device you're using for talking and of making sure everyone gets a voice.
I hope this goes well for you. More participatory/direct democracy initiatives need to get off the ground.
As someone who was in a leadership role in a democratic group before, I'm not sure how well not having authoritative leadership will work. Even when there are group leaders present, discussions can run rampant if not properly moderated. I was part of a student government off-shoot in college and our meetings began running 2 hours or more, when things could be sufficiently debated/discussed and all matters attended to in about 30 minutes. Our executive board sat down and decided to cap the comment times to 2 minutes. Our meetings got back to 45 minutes max.
I'm not saying that no authoritative leadership won't work. You just have to have a lot of very like-minded people who will be considerate, polite, and know when an argument is over before it gets beaten to death. But generally that's not the case. Most people in a participatory democracy are there to participate and make their voice heard. And that's a hard thing to really control and have go smoothly and efficiently without some type of single or group leadership.
She never said anything about not having leadership. What she said was that there would be no authoritarian (not authoritative) leadership. That is, there would be someone to direct the discussion, but no one in particular controlling it.
Participationist groups are usually run by a facilitator (sometimes two) who calls on people to speak (often taking stack - the order in which people request, by raising hands, to be called). As well, it is cose job to make sure that the discussion stays on topic, and that people aren't restating what has already been said.
In addition, some direct democracy groups have various hand signals that help keep things flowing:
-Direct response - Used when someone gives an incorrect date/doesn't know the date for an event, or other vital information that should be given with something someone is saying
-Clarify - Used when a person is unclear on a bit of terminology, how a proposal was made, etc.
-Point of Process - Used when a participant (i.e., not facilitator) believes that the conversation has veered from the topic of discussion (usually to a theory debate)
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Ahhh ok. I hadn't heard the term "authoritative leadership" before, so I interpreted her description in the post as meaning that no one was designated to be a leader.
Out of curiosity, what are the hand signals that go along with direct response, clarify, and point of process?
I still stick by my first statement that you will need to have a lot of like minded people in order to make this work. And I don't know if you can necessarily get everyone on the same page. There are too many people out there who will beat a dead horse when it comes to debate. And there are too many people who think their opinion is always the most important one, even the only one that really matters.
Direct response - raise your index finger on each hand, putting them parallel to each other in front of your face. Move them alternately towards and away from your face in opposite directions.
Clarify - Make a 'C' with your hand
(Louder - Make an 'L' with your hand)
Point of process - make a triangle with your index fingers and thumbs
Also, if you agree with something, you don't have to say anything, instead you just kind of shimmy your fingers. That way, you don't have a bunch of people raising their hands to say "I agree with what co said."
As to the problem of beating a dead horse - that's where you need strong facilitators to move discussion along to a vote (if need be).
Voting in consensus is fun:
Thumbs up - motion to pass
Thumbs sideways - stand aside, don't particularly support it but wouldn't be opposed to it passing
Thumbs down - block proposal, you have an objection to the proposal because you think it runs counter to the groups message, your personal ethics, whatever. In a real consensus system, if there is one thumbs down the motion does not pass.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
I like your concepts, but there a so many problems with them. There is a reason that dictators throughout history have had such power and sucess. People often respond better to this type of leadership. In such a setting the role is clear cut.
Im not against your ideas, but I dont see how well they'd ever work.
They're practiced successfully in various anarchist groups as well as SDS and other radical groups.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Lazy people react better to authoratative leadership, but authoratative leadership certainly isn't better for them - it can be corrupted into dictatorship, for instance.
They have worked. Take a look at the civil rights movement in the 60s.
You're misusing the word "authoritative". What you mean is "authoritarian". Authoritative means having authority in terms of special knowledge or skills. Authoritarian means oppressive and non-democratic.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
It'll work just fine unless the group gets too large.
Should that happen, they'll have to settle for splitting up or a hierarchical organization.
There's also a larger obstacle that needs to be addressed -- the long, tedious process of becoming a 501 (c) 3. There is an application process (with fees) at the state and federal level in order to find out if you qualify as a charitable organization. I'm not sure of all the details because I've never helped to apply for non-profit status, but I know there are a lot of hoops one must jump through first. Big headache.
There are also a lot of requirements that must be fulfilled once a non-profit is up and running ... including the development of bylaws and a mission. .... lots of stuff. Really, its like starting a small business but with more restrictions placed on how things are run.
so good luck.
myownworstenemy