representation and the Occupy governance process

Hello All!

I'm responding to an invitation from Stephen to begin using this blog as a place to air and discuss perspectives on Occupy. In particular, my interest lies in our system of Governance otherwise known as our General Assembly. There are many thoughts and threads on this topic in our Occupy community and I'm curious to hear yours, if you have one. In honor of my desire to spark constructive conversation, I'm sharing below something that I wrote in response to the question: who has the right (or how do we obtain the right) to use the label "Occupy" when organizing an action, be it a demonstration or a blog post? This question has been bundled into a title loosely called "representation" for the time being.

In order to respond to this question of representation,  I think it's useful to step back from the specifics and look for a moment at two poles of values that I see this movement holding on this topic: autonomy and community. I would like to start by placing the dilemma of this polarity at the core of human governance from time immemorial, in other words, as humans we have had to resolve this polarity in order to function and have done so in many ways over history. Most of those ways have involved coercion in larger or smaller ways. Most of us reading this today, would likely stand against the use of coercion but face a historic challenge: in the absence of coercive methods and models, and in the presence of a deep valuing of all perspectives (diversity), how do we create a new way of governing ourselves that equally honors and values maximum autonomy and maximum community?

In service of answering this question, I’ve heard some of us speak to core principles for guiding this new way of governing ourselves. These principles are close to our hearts, vital for our human evolution, and difficult to enact consistently or to hold each other accountable to. I posit that we need a system, think of it as a practice, that can allow us to enact these principles concretely and consistently over time.

As I explore some possibilities for governing ourselves in a manner that maximizes both autonomy and community, I’ll be outlining just a few of the principles that I've heard identified and highlighting how those principles are enacted through some simple shifts in the GA understanding of itself and it’s processes. I’m not trying to be exhaustive here in all the principles that could or do guide the GA system, I’m just calling our attention to some of the ones that bear on this question of representation. Please note that I've used verbiage from writing done by both Ben and Stephen on the wiki on this topic, so if you recognize some phrases, that may be one place you've seen them, I'll be highlighting those passages so you know what you're looking at.

1. Principle: Autonomy for all/equal authority of every person/or the right to self-organize:

We are all autonomous beings that deliver far greater creativity and energy when enabled to act independently. This principle applies both to individuals and to groups.

a. Proposed Policy #1: Occupy Burlington GA shall honor the right of every duely formed working group or individual to self-organize and will not exercise any coercion or control over their actions that lie within their clarified and documented ‘accountabilities’/‘distributed authorities’ (defined below).

b. Proposed Policy #2: insofar as any actions taken by a duely formed working group or individual are out of alignment with the aim and/or current strategy of Occupy Burlington or constitute an attack upon Occupy Burlington, those conflicts shall be brought the GA as ‘tensions’ to be processed through governance to a change in the ‘accountabilities’/‘distributed authorities’ of that working group or individual.

c. Proposed change to GA process to enable this: each working group earns the right to self-organize by:

i. taking responsibility for delivering on a clearly identified and recorded portion of the work of the Occupy movement, called an ‘accountability’ or ‘distributed authority’ which is verbiaged and passed through governance in a GA.

ii. agreeing to use the Occupy meeting process to run it’s meetings, including making decisions as they relate to it’s ‘accountabilities’, and reporting on it’s business to the whole GA.

2. Principle: freedom of association/consent to represent

No one may speak or act for or on behalf of an other without that other's explicit consent.

a. Proposed Policy #3: anyone or any working group wishing to act or speak on behalf of the social formation known as Occupy Burlington must receive consent for such representation from the appropriate decision-making body, be that a working group or the GA.

b. Proposed change to GA process to enable this: proposals for representation may be processed in a working group, provided that working group has a recorded ‘accountability’/‘distributed authority’ for planning and executing such types of representation, and in the absence of defined ‘accountabilities’, proposals for representation will be processed in the GA .

For example, let’s say that Education has an accountability for “dreaming up and operationalizing regular teach-ins on behalf of Occupy Burlington.” And let’s say that a member of Education has an idea about a teach-in focused on sustainability issues. That member of Education would bring that proposal to an Education Working Group meeting, not the GA, where it would be taken through the Occupy governance process to a decision. Let’s also say, for example, that during that teach-in, one of the speakers threatens to blow up the state house (this constituting an ‘out of alignment’ breach named above). Any member of Occupy attending the teach in could bring that breach, or ‘tension’ to the next GA and formulate a proposal for new accountability for the Education Working Group. For example, perhaps, ‘screening all speakers for their willingness and capacity to represent the current aim of Occupy Burlington (which presumably in this case would not be oriented to blowing up buildings). That proposal would then be taken through the governance process to an outcome in the form of a new accountability for the Education Working Group.

So in answer to the question “how do we create a new way of governing ourselves that equally honors and values maximum autonomy and maximum community?”, I am proposing an iterateable and transparent system of governance which includes everyone’s voice (maximum community) that distributes clarified nuggets of authority to individuals and working groups (maximum authority). We have the first part of such a system, an “iterateable and transparent system of governance” in the GA process. What we don’t quite have yet is an understanding and use of this governance system to distribute authority through the creation of distinct ‘accountabilities’ that may be governed by policies. My proposal is that we simply begin to use our GA governance process to clarify accountabilities and policies (that can be changed or updated at any time as issues arise or situations change) which define the limits and grants of authority Occupy gives to it’s working groups and/or individuals delivering on the work of the movement. Within those grants (and limits) of authority, each working group is free to enact it’s own work including actions in the name of Occupy. If issues arise, as they will, they’ll be brought by the persons sensing those issues to the GA for processing into updated grants or limits of authority on the requisite working group or individual.

In support of Stephen’s proposal that the solution to the question of representation be to focus on developing our relationships, I would like to say that it has been my experience that any time a group of people have actual physical work to do, something they wish to accomplish or change in the world, that we are deeply supported in both the capacity to deliver on that work and in the relationships that form as a container for that work, when we have distinction and clarity around that work flow and a concrete and effective means of integrating diversity of perspective. When diversity, or conflicting perspectives, can be efficiently, effectively, consistently, and transparently metabolized into decision and action on behalf of the community, we actually have more room for relationship, and more energy to build relationship, which then feeds back into the work that we have chosen to do together. Thus I believe that relationship is a critical and vital essence of the movement, but that in order for relationship to flourish over time in a variety of circumstances that we will be well served to focus on developing our decision-making systems into a well oiled, continuously evolving engine that can efficiently and effectively make use of our divergent perspectives.

The Occupy Brand

Using the community brand, "Occupy Burlington".

I begin with premises which are various and might lead to conflicting conclusions.

§ We believe in the equal authority of every person. § We believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person, and the obligation of the community to create that space in which personal decisions can and will be respected, for every person. § We oppose doctrine, hierarchy, and systems of power which function without the consent of those affected by its actions. § We imagine that we represent the interests of the 99% of Americans who are disenfranchised from the ultimate power in our country. § We believe that diversity of opinion is a strength, and that with commitment to the unity of our community, diversity can be used to strengthen our movement and the culture of our community. § We believe that our power comes from each other, from our sense of shared fate, and the commitment we live to act in solidarity and in support of each other. § We are building a community of solidarity (in which institutions may arise to provide certain services, but is not itself an institution). § Although our roots are in anarchist philosophy, we are not obligated to them. Our consciences guide us.

Why do we need to define who can use the label "Occupy Burlington"?

Within the Occupy movement are uncountable different approaches to the best outcomes, strategies and tactics. Among these may be goals and actions we do not agree with. The danger this question responds to is that someone, somewhere, will use the Occupy rubric to cover an action we do not support.

Discussion

Religious communities and institutions of every kind (for-profit, non-profit, governmental) seek to identify a single coherent explanation of beliefs or policies. These orthodoxies, when vested with the power of money or of the police power, become the basis of oppression. The orthodoxy that privilege is deserved and deserves to reinforce itself is one of the principle reasons the Occupy movement has become necessary. As this orthodoxy spreads its influence, the police state is strengthened and diversity of opinion is suppressed. I believe we must stand for diversity of opinion.

Diversity of opinion is inherent in any human community, and the health of that community depends upon its tolerance for or even celebration of that diversity.

Moreover, we cannot expect to build a community and a movement of solidarity, in which every person has equal authority, without diversity of opinion. Without a tolerance - or better, a celebration - of diversity, we will fail.

But with diversity comes the nagging problem, what if someone renders actions, under the banner of "Occupy", which are fundamentally at odds with our values or just our strategies? Or worse, what if someone co-opts the rubric, perpetuating a media campaign to discredit us?

There are two dangers. That we are too narrow in who we allow to use the rubric. This implies that our response is too institutional, and that we cannot tolerate diversity. That we are too broad in who we allow to use the rubric. This endangers the credibility of the movement and our community.

Solutions

The usual solution - which we can challenge because we are seeking fundamental change - is to institute rules or policies. This way leads to hierarchy and inequality of personal authority, and limits on diversity.

An alternative solution is to build a culture of mutual respect and accountability. I believe we have all entered the movement ready for mutual respect and mutual accountability.

For this to work, we must re-commit ourselves, often, to relational solutions to our conflicts. How can we eschew hierarchy and instituted power, and avoid relationships too?

Everything the Occupy movement stands for, in my mind, implies relationships. Establishing relationships, bonding with each other, resorting first and foremost to relationship-based solutions to our conflicts.

Under these terms, Everyone is held accountable for how they use the Occupy rubric. Everyone is free to use it, and everyone must learn to make judgments about when and how it is used. When in doubt, they should consult the group. When mistakes are made, mutual accountability will make it known. Hopefully tolerance for diversity will assist in the resolution of these conflicts. When poor judgment is exercised consistently and damagingly to the movement, the person doing can be challenged or even discredited.

Under these terms, When someone tries to co-opt the rubric to damage the movement, we must be ready to confront, disavow, and discredit in return.

Recommendation:

Build relationships, build culture, build mutual accountability, party and train together, bond, establish trust groups and trust group clusters, engage in actions together, engage in mutual education, build practices which support members to have families, and empower everyone through our community of solidarity.

Welcome To Occupy Your Opinion

You are welcome to post to this blog. Ask me to invite you
(OccupyYourOpinion@gmail.com)
and if there is a slot available (right now there are plenty), I will invite you.

If you didn't ask but were invited to post, you have been chosen according to the random criteria that when I looked at my address book and my email, I recognized your name and thought "Hmmm. That person is interesting. Why not?" If you wonder why you were not invited, even though I know you, it's because I didn't recognize your address.

Although intended for folks around the Burlington Vermont Region, I have invited some folks who are from the Equality Trust in Britain. If we are lucky, one of them will opine now and then on subjects of interest to Occupiers here and elsewhere. I will invite others from afar if anyone asks me to.

My hope is to create a forum for lots of Occupy supporters, and maybe friendly disputants, to make claims, challenge each other, argue their case, and generally stimulate each other to stronger more powerful thought.

The blog format is like a forum or "bulletin board", but in my opinion, is much more friendly to read and comment. My goal for this blog is to fill a gap in our present constellation of media.

Any one who would like to post is welcome to request authorization. Blogger allows up to 100 authors. So people who don't respond or do not use their slot can be dropped from the list if ever there is demand enough to need the slot.

I hope you'll accept the invitation, and I hope you'll use it. I'd like this to be a lively forum for news, discussions and mayhem of many kinds, and you're participation will help it to happen!

Stephen Marshall