A. People appoint or elect delegates to represent their opinions at regional and national meetings, a delegate's mandate is determined by the group they represent. The delegate doesn�t have the power to make decisions on behalf of the group that they represent. At a regional or national meeting, delegates present the position of the people they represent. Once the delegate�s positions have been articulated, they discuss the problem at hand, examine solutions that take into account the decisions made by the communities they represent and decide on a position that is acceptable to the delegates present. The delegate then reports back to the people who have given them the mandate to act on their behalf. At this point the local meeting has a number of options, they may accept the delegate's arguments and ratify the decision made at the regional or national meeting. They may decide not to accept the decision made at the regional or national meeting and ask the same delegate to return back to the regional or national meeting to explain why they have made such a decision or they may not be happy with the delegate's performance and appoint or elect another delegate to represent their position at the next meeting. If consensus cannot be reached at a regional or national delegate's meeting, delegates have a number of choices. They can recommend to the local groups that they represent, that the decision be abandoned, as consensus cannot be reached. If the decision discussed does not challenge the principles of association that bind that society together, delegates holding both majority and minority opinions can go back to their local groups and ask them if they want to try to implement the decisions made by both groups, as no compromise is possible. In this situation the resources that have been allocated to implement the decision to be made, would be divided amongst both the majority and the minority. Each group would receive a percentage of the resources available that reflects the number of people holding each position.
Q. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DELEGATE AND A REPRESENTATIVE?
A. People tend to talk about delegates and representatives as interchangeable terms. Delegates and representatives are as interchangeable as chalk and cheese. Although they may have some superficial similarities, they don't taste the same when you sink your teeth into them. A good way to understand the difference is by comparing the roles delegates and representatives play with the role cheques play in commercial transactions.
The mandate given to a representative is similar to the role a blank cheque plays in a commercial transaction. The representative has the power to write whatever amount they like on a blank cheque. Their mandate is an extensive one. They have the power to make decisions on behalf of the people they represent irrespective of the wishes of the people who elected them.
A delegate's mandate is much more limited than a representative's mandate. The cheque that a delegate has been given has been signed and the amount has been filled in by the people the delegate is working on behalf of. A delegate does not have the authority to work on projects outside of the specific mandate they have been given. Delegates coordinate decisions with other delegates they don't make decisions on behalf of the people they are acting for.
The difference between a representative and a delegate reflects the difference between representative and direct democracy. Representatives are given a signed blank cheque. They have the authority to fill in any amount they want. A delegate is given a signed cheque with a specific figure written on the cheque. Representative democracy is based on blind faith. Direct democracy is based on the idea of giving people the authority to carry out specific decisions. Using the analogy of a signed blank cheque and a signed cheque that has a specific amount written on it is a good way of explaining to people the difference between a representative and a delegate.
Q. WHAT RELATIONSHIP DO ANARCHISM AND DIRECT DEMOCRACY HAVE?
A. Anarchism and direct democracy are not interchangeable concepts. Direct democracy is a mechanism by which people involved in a decision make that decision. You can have a society based on direct democratic principles that is competitive, capitalist and authoritarian. Anarchists [1] have always had an interest in direct democracy because it�s less likely that people who are directly involved in making decisions about how they live, are likely to make decisions that strip other people of their inalienable rights. Direct democracy in a society where the means of production, distribution, exchange and communication are held in the hands of a monopoly is easily able to be exploited and manipulated to suit the interests of those who hold power. A society based on direct democratic principles shares power among everyone not just one particular group.
An anarchist society - a society without rulers, is based on the principles of people having the power to be directly involved in the decisions concerning them and on their ability to use the common wealth for the common good. You can make all the decisions you like, but if you don�t have access to the resources to make them a reality, nothing happens. Involvement in struggles that promote direct democratic principles, raises question about how decisions are made, who makes decisions, how decisions can be coordinated in communities that are not willing to let rulers dictate how they live and who are not willing to give representatives a signed blank cheque to make decisions on their behalf.
Although direct democracy and anarchism are not interchangeable, they are interconnected concepts. The struggle for direct democracy is essentially a struggle to put power back into the hands of the people. The struggle for anarchism is the struggle to put both power and wealth back into the hands of everyone not just a minority. The struggle for direct democracy is interconnected to the struggle to create an anarchist community.
Q. COULD A CITIZENS-INITIATED REFERENDUM (CIR) BE UNDEMOCRATIC?
A: Potentially, yes. If the outcome of a referendum happened to increase the concentration of political, informational, economic, or religious power into the hands of elites, then this would be an undemocratic outcome. But it is unlikely that holding referendums on important issues would be any more undemocratic than the current system which basically allows politicians and big business to do what they want.
The average person, when they are given the facts, has more common sense than all the elite classes put together. Australians are naturally suspicious of giving more power to state bureaucrats, politicians, religious institutions or big business. In the last ten or so years public opinion has been against the Iraq War, the sale of Telstra, the GST, the privatisation of public utilities, 'Workchoices' etc. Politicians were quite aware of this but then went ahead and carried out these 'reforms' anyway.
Politicians and business elites are always looking at opinion polls. If they don't like the results of those polls they will deliberately send out a bunch of spin-doctors and 'experts' in order to massage public opinion. (This is currently being done on such issues as the lifting of bans on GM foods, Nuclear Power, and the 'Access'(ID) card.) Most people are aware of this and continue to show a stubborn resistance, or at least skepticism on these issues.
If people are clever enough to vote for a politician or a political party, then they are clever enough to vote directly on a specific policy. If we make the wrong choice then we will only have ourselves to blame.