AUT: democracy: reply on zap paper 1

[Massimo De Angelis <M.Deangelis@xxxxxxxxx>]

thanks to Monty and Zeynep about their comments. I have decided to
approach the different themes raised on separate postings, so as
perhaps we can extent the discussion beyond my paper and can focus on
different themes as they are all important. Here I want to deal with
the question of democracy raised by Zeynep and then by Monty.

The substance of Zeynep's point (Zeynep posting and my quote is
reported at the end of the message) is that I refer to indigenous
democracy based on consensus while in reality in the villages of the
indigenous community the reality is far from perfect (Voting occurs
when consensus is not reached; minorities, individuals and women are
not respected, etc.). Zeynep is right to point out all this, but I
guess my point was of a slight different nature. I did not mean to
claim that the indigenous communities represent a model we
can/should/ apply in the west as it stands (like in the old days some
of the Italian communists warned "big mustache will come" addaveni
baffone). What I was trying to say is that the elimination of the
ejido represents the elimination of the opportunity for the
indigenous community to construct their autonomous ways of lives,
ways of lives that already embeds element of direct democracy far
superior than those existing in the West. However, I am sure that the
way this is constructed will depend a lot about the struggles WITHIN
the indigenous communities themselves, struggles of women first of
all, but not only.

 In a later part of the paper I refer to this when I talk about
"indigenous culture": "it is the indigenous individual as social
being that dies with NAFTA, it is that culture as condition of its
own development and growth and freedom that would die. Thus, the
preservation of life for them means much more than the preservation
of their mere material existence or survival as individuals. For
example, the defense of indigenous culture is not defined as
museum-like preservation, but it corresponds to the defense of
symbolic, material, and spiritual framework within which to live
practices of self-government. In this context, culture itself can
change, as shown by the aspirations of indigenous women fighting
against patriarchy in their communities."

 [Short detour: In some recent private posting with some Italian
friends, I realized that this same question of the "preservation" of
culture (which means preservation of "inadequate" forms of democracy)
is very similar to the theme of "historical memory" and the question
of its importance. In Italy "historical memory" has a tremendous
value among the comrades involved in movements, and rightly so. But I
feel there is the risk that the importance of this "historical
memory" means essentially its "preservation" , rather than its
"activation" within the circumstances and forms of the present. The
"preservation" of historical memory easily turns into dead ideology,
repetition of all values and language which originated in
circumstances which were different from the one we face today.
Activation of historical memory means tapping into the past, into our
collective historical experience, and turning all this experience and
cultural/subversive wisdom into an ingredient to make a new world
starting from today's' world. Isn't this exactly what the indigenous
women are doing?]

 In any case, I should rewrite my sentence, in this
way: "The ejido is not only land used for economic purposes. To a
certain extent it gives people autonomy and ******it constitutes the
material basis for ***** indigenous traditional forms of collective
democracy." And perhaps I will add a note. Thanks for the comments,
it helped clarifying.

 Now, on Monty's comment on the same subject of
democracy. Monty writes: "2) I was going to raise the issue of
democracy, but Zeynep did a better job of it than I would. I would
only add that later when you note women fighting patriarchy within
the Zapatista communities, this implies possible problems with
consensus as practiced there and suggests more broadly that consensus
can apparently occur in situations of inequality within the community
in which people agree to support those with more power. "

1. Isn't the "support" of "those with more power" itself the source
of this "more power", of social power? What else is power then? 2.
Furthermore, here Monty is raising a parallel problem that can be
generalized beyond the indigenous village and into many of our
practices. The question that I believe Monty is rasing is
fundamental: Can consensus occur in situations of inequality? I don't
even dare to suggest an answer at this point but, doesn't the answer
depends on the kind of inequality we are talking about and the
conditions within which it arises?


@@@

Sat, 15 Nov 1997 20:55:26 -0600
From: Zeynep <zeynept@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Massimo,
You have the following claim in your paper.

"The ejido is not only land used for economic purposes. To a certain
extent it gives people autonomy and it constitutes the material basis
for indigenous traditional forms of collective democracy. It is the
basis of indigenous traditions of collective democracy, in which a
community, a village, a region, takes decision affecting everybody's
life collectively. Decisions may range from the sending of a child in
need to a hospital, to the decision to refuse the last government
offer at the negotiating table. Decisions are taken in ways so
different from western democracies, based on the forced separation
between the people of a community (10), separation that is only
mystically overcome at the moment of the vote (once every 5 years
(11)). Consensus seeking, rather than voting, is their way to
democracy. Consensus seeking requires time and ability to listen. But
it does not produce majorities or minorities, it does not promote
victory and defeats, vanity and resentment. Take away their common
land, further worsen their condition of living , and you have also
destroyed indigenous democracy, their way of living, and their
opportunity to practice a different life. This comes about through
three weapons associated to the implementation of NAFTA."

 I went to a village in the Zapatista controlled territory recently,
interviewed villagers and internationalist activists who had been
living in the region for a while. While I agree with what you say
about voting, their "collective democracy" isn't that ideal a model
in many respects. All villages still have council of elders, who do
exert a considerable influence, sometimes overriding the majority
decision. We asked them what they did when they couldn't reach a
consensus and they replied that they voted. There is very little
recognition of minority or individual rights. Women are NOT listened
to very much, no matter what the women's revolutionary laws says.
They are clearly regarded as second-class. There are all sorts of
power relations within the village, albeit much smaller scale than we
have in "first-world". The "consensus building" works to the degree
that it does because villagers interact with fellow villagers all
their lives and the numbers are small, not very applicable to
environments with larger populations. I agree that things might
be/are very different in the EZLN army itself, this was a village,
which I was told wasn't a "backward" example at all, but even
somewhat progressive because it is built on occupied land, which is
rare in Zapatista territories for reasons I won't go into in this
post. Don't get me wrong, I support the Zapatistas and I think the
EZLN has many important achievements in all areas, including
consensus building and women's rights. I find the troublesome aspects
like the position of women to be understandable, and I am well aware
how the EZLN and women within the EZLN are struggling against
patriachy and achieving important victories. I realise how hard it is
to eradicate such deeply entrenched forms of oppression and I
recognize that it takes time. I am merely stating the level the
struggle seems to be in as far as I can see. I agree with what you
say about voting, and I do see consensus building as much as possible
and all forms of participatory and direct democracy to be very
important for all progressive activism. I am just curious why you
think the Zapatistas are a good example, and about your sources of
information. I would be very happy to learn that my impressions were
wrong and isolated.

Zeynep


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---