Libertäres Kultur- und Aktionszentrum
What ist inclusive democracy? (en)
(Mit etwas Glück gibt es hier demnächst bei
www.libertaeres-zentrum.de/diskussion/ eine deutsche Übersetzung.) Inclusive
democracy is a new conception of democracy, which, using as a starting point the
classical definition of it, expresses democracy in terms of direct political
democracy, economic democracy (beyond the confines of the market economy and
state planning), as well as democracy in the social realm and ecological
democracy. In short, inclusive democracy is a form of social organisation which
re-integrates society with economy, polity and nature. The concept of inclusive
democracy is derived from a synthesis of two major historical traditions, the
classical democratic and the socialist, although it also encompasses radical
*green, *feminist, and *liberation movements in the *South. Within the
problematique of the inclusive democracy project, it is assumed that the world,
at the beginning of the new millennium, faces a multi-dimensional crisis
(economic, ecological, social, cultural and political) which is caused by the
concentration of power in the hands of various elites, as a result of the
establishment, in the last few centuries, of the system of market economy,
representative democracy and the related forms of hierarchical structure. In
this sense, an inclusive democracy, which involves the equal distribution of
*power at all levels, is seen not as a utopia (in the negative sense of the
word) but as perhaps the only way out of the present crisis.
The conception of inclusive democracy
A fruitful way to define inclusive democracy may be to distinguish between the
two main societal realms, the public and the private, to which we may add an
"ecological realm", defined as the sphere of the relations between the natural
and the social worlds. In this conception, the public realm, contrary to the
practice of many supporters of the republican or democratic project (Hannah
Arendt, Cornelius Castoriadis, Murray Bookchin et al) includes not just the
political realm, but also the economic realm as well as a ‘social’ realm; in
other words, any area of human activity in which decisions can be taken
collectively and democratically. The political realm is defined as the sphere of
political decision-taking, the area in which political power is exercised. The
economic realm is defined as the sphere of economic decision-taking, the area in
which *economic power is exercised with respect to the broad economic choices
that any scarcity society has to make. Finally, the social realm is defined as
the sphere of decision-taking in the workplace, the education place and any
other economic or cultural institution which is a constituent element of a
democratic society. It is therefore obvious that the extension of the
traditional public realm to include the economic, ecological and ‘social’ realms
is an indispensable element of an inclusive democracy. Correspondingly, we may
distinguish between four main constituent elements of an inclusive democracy:
the political, the economic, the ecological and ‘democracy in the social realm’.
The first three elements constitute the institutional framework which aims at
the equal distribution of political, economic and social power respectively; in
other words, the system which aims at the effective elimination of the
domination of human being over human being. Similarly, ecological democracy is
defined as the institutional framework which aims at the elimination of any
human attempt to dominate the natural world, in other words, the system which
aims to reintegrate humans and nature.
Political or direct democracy
In the political realm there can only be one form of democracy: what we may call
political or direct democracy, in which political power is shared equally among
all citizens. Political democracy is, therefore, founded on the equal
distribution of political power among all citizens, the self-instituting of
society. This means that the following conditions have to be satisfied for a
society to be characterised as a political democracy: that democracy is grounded
on the conscious choice of its citizens for individual and collective autonomy
and not on any divine or mystical dogmas and preconceptions, or any closed
theoretical systems involving natural or economic *‘laws’, or tendencies
determining social change. that there are no institutionalised political
processes of an oligarchic nature. This implies that all political decisions
(including those relating to the formation and execution of laws) are taken by
the citizen body collectively and without representation; that there are no
institutionalised political structures embodying unequal power relations. This
means, for instance, that where authority is delegated to segments of the
citizen body for the purpose of carrying out specific duties (e.g., serving in
popular courts, or regional and confederal councils, etc.), the delegation is
assigned, on principle, by lot and on a rotational basis, and it is always
recallable by the citizen body. Furthermore, as regards delegates to regional
and confederal bodies, the mandates should be specific. that all residents of a
particular geographical area (which today can only take the form of a
geographical community), beyond a certain age of maturity (to be defined by the
citizen body itself) and irrespective of *gender, *race, *ethnic or cultural
identity, are members of the citizen body and are directly involved in the
decision-taking process. However, the institutionalisation of direct democracy
in terms of the above conditions is only the necessary condition for the
establishment of democracy. The sufficient condition refers to the citizens’
level of democratic consciousness, in which a crucial role is played by paedeia
--involving not simply education but character development and a well-rounded
education in knowledge and skills, i.e. the education of the individual as
citizen, which alone can give substantive content to the public space. The above
conditions are obviously not met by parliamentary democracy (as it functions in
the West), soviet democracy (as it functioned in the East) and the various
fundamentalist or semi-military regimes in the South. All these regimes are
therefore forms of political oligarchy, in which political power is concentrated
in the hands of various elites (professional politicians, party bureaucrats,
priests, military and so on). Similarly, in the past, various forms of
oligarchies dominated the political domain, when emperors, kings and their
courts, with or without the co-operation of knights, priests and others,
concentrated political power in their hands. However, several attempts have been
made in history to institutionalise various forms of direct democracy,
especially during revolutionary periods (for example, the Parisian sections of
the early 1790s, the Spanish collectives in the civil war etc.). Most of these
attempts were short-lived and usually did not involve the institutionalisation
of democracy as a new form of political regime which replaces, and not just
complements, the State. In other cases, democratic arrangements were introduced
as a set of procedures for local decision-making. Perhaps the only real parallel
which can be drawn with respect to Athenian democracy is that of some Swiss
cantons which were governed by assemblies of the people (Landsgemeinden) and, in
their day, were sovereign states. The only historical example of an
institutionalised direct democracy in which, for almost two centuries (508/7 BC-
322/1 BC), the state was subsumed into the democratic form of social
organisation, is that of Athenian democracy. Of course, Athenian democracy was a
partial political democracy. But, what characterised it as partial was not the
political institutions themselves but the very narrow definition of full
citizenship adopted by the Athenians—a definition which excluded large sections
of the population (women, slaves, immigrants) who, in fact, constituted the vast
majority of the people living in Athens.
Economic Democracy
If we define political democracy as the authority of the people (demos) in the
political sphere—which implies the existence of political equality in the sense
of equal distribution of political power—then economic democracy could be
correspondingly defined as the authority of demos in the economic sphere —which
implies the existence of economic *equality in the sense of equal distribution
of economic power. And, of course, we are talking about the demos and not the
state, because the existence of a state means the separation of the citizen body
from the political and economic process. Economic democracy therefore relates to
every social system which institutionalises the integration of society and the
economy. This means that, ultimately, the demos controls the economic process,
within an institutional framework of demotic ownership of the means of
production. In a more narrow sense, economic democracy also relates to every
social system which institutionalises the minimisation of socio-economic
differences, particularly those arising out of the unequal distribution of
private property and the consequent unequal *distribution of income and *wealth.
Historically, it is in this narrow sense that attempts were made by socialists
to introduce economic democracy. Therefore, in contrast to the
institutionalisation of political democracy, there has never been a
corresponding example of an institutionalised economic democracy in the broad
sense defined above. In other words, even when socialist attempts to reduce the
degree of inequality in the distribution of income and wealth were successful,
they were never associated with meaningful attempts to establish a system of
equal distribution of economic power. This has been the case, despite the fact
that in the type of society which has emerged since the rise of the market
economy, there has been a definite shift of the economy from the private realm
into what Hannah Arendt called the "social realm", to which the *nation-state
also belongs. But, it is this shift which makes any talk about democracy, which
does not also refer to the question of economic power, ring hollow. In other
words, to talk today about the equal sharing of political power, without
conditioning it on the equal sharing of economic power, is meaningless. On the
basis of the definition of political democracy given earlier, the following
conditions have to be satisfied for a society to be characterised as an economic
democracy: that there are no institutionalised economic processes of an
oligarchic nature. This means that all ‘macro’ economic decisions, namely,
decisions concerning the running of the economy as a whole (overall level of
production, *consumption and *investment, amounts of work and leisure implied,
*technologies to be used, etc.) are taken by the citizen body collectively and
without representation, although "micro" economic decisions at the workplace or
the household levels are taken by the individual production or consumption unit
and that there are no institutionalised economic structures embodying unequal
economic power relations. This implies that the means of production and
distribution are collectively owned and controlled by the demos, the citizen
body directly. Any inequality of income is therefore the result of additional
voluntary work at the individual level. Such additional work, beyond that
required by any capable member of society for the satisfaction of *basic needs,
allows only for additional consumption, as no individual *accumulation of
capital is possible, and any wealth accumulated as a result of additional work
is not inherited . Thus, demotic ownership of the economy provides the economic
structure for democratic ownership, whereas direct citizen participation in
economic decisions provides the framework for a comprehensively democratic
control process of the economy. The community, therefore, becomes the authentic
unit of economic life, since economic democracy is not feasible today unless
both the ownership and control of productive resources are organised at the
community level. So, unlike the other definitions of economic democracy, the
definition given here involves the explicit negation of economic power and
implies the authority of the people in the economic sphere. In this sense,
economic democracy is the counterpart, as well as the foundation, of direct
democracy and of an inclusive democracy in general. A model of economic
democracy, as an integral part of an inclusive democracy, is described in the
first book-length description of Inclusive Democracy which was published in 1997
(see further reading). Briefly, the dominant characteristic of this model, which
differentiates it from similar models of centralised or decentralised Planning,
is that, although it does not depend on the prior abolition of scarcity, it does
secure the satisfaction of the basic needs of all citizens, without sacrificing
freedom of choice, in a stateless, moneyless and marketless economy. The
preconditions of economic democracy are defined as follows: community
self-reliance, community (demotic) ownership of productive resources, and
confederal allocation of resources.
The third condition in particular implies that the decision mechanism for the
allocation of scarce resources in an inclusive democracy should be based at the
confederal rather than the community level, i.e. at the level of the
confederation of communities (demoi). This is in order to take into account the
fact that in today’s’ societies many problems cannot be solved at the community
level (*energy, *environment, transportation, communication, *technology
transfer etc.). The mechanism proposed to allocate scarce resources aims to
replace both the market mechanism and the *central planning mechanism. The
former is rejected because it can be shown that the system of the market economy
has led, in the last two hundred years since its establishment, to a continuous
concentration of income and wealth at the hands of a small percentage of the
world population and, consequently, to a distorted allocation of world
resources. This is because in a market economy the crucial allocation decisions
(what to produce, how and for whom to produce it) are conditioned by the
purchasing power of those income groups which can back their demands with money.
In other words, under conditions of inequality, which is an inevitable outcome
of the dynamic of the market economy, the fundamental contradiction with respect
to the market satisfaction of human needs becomes obvious: namely, the
contradiction between the potential satisfaction of the basic needs of the whole
population versus the actual satisfaction of the money-backed wants of part of
it. The latter is rejected because it can be shown that centralised planning,
although better than the market system in securing employment and meeting the
basic needs of citizens (albeit at an elementary level), not only leads to
irrationalities (which eventually precipitated its actual collapse) and is
ineffective in covering non-basic needs, but it is also highly undemocratic. The
system of allocation proposed by the Inclusive Democracy project aims to satisfy
the twofold aim of meeting the basic needs of all citizens-- which requires that
basic macro-economic decisions are taken democratically and securing freedom of
choice-- which requires the individual to take important decisions affecting
his/her own life (what work to do, what to consume etc.). Both the
macro-economic decisions and the individual citizens’ decisions are envisaged as
being implemented through a combination of democratic planning-- which involves
the creation of a feedback process between workplace assemblies, community
assemblies and the confederal assembly-- and an artificial ‘market’ which
secures real freedom of choice, without incurring the adverse effects associated
with real markets. In a nutshell, the allocation of economic resources is made
first, on the basis of the citizens’ collective decisions, as expressed through
the community and confederal plans, and second, on the basis of the citizens’
individual choices, as expressed through a voucher system. The general criterion
for the allocation of resources is not *efficiency as it is currently defined,
in narrow techno- economic terms. Efficiency should be redefined to mean
effectiveness in satisfying human needs and not just money-backed wants. As far
as the meaning of needs is concerned, a distinction is drawn between basic and
non-basic needs and a similar one between needs and ‘satisfiers’ (the form or
the means by which these needs are satisfied). What constitutes a need --basic
or otherwise-- is determined by the citizens themselves democratically. Then,
the level of need-satisfaction is determined collectively and implemented
through a democratic planning mechanism, whereas the satisfiers for both basic
and non-basic needs are determined through the revealed preferences of
consumers, as expressed by the use of vouchers allocated to them in exchange for
their ‘basic’ and ‘non-basic’ work. Basic vouchers (BVs--allocated in exchange
for ‘basic’ work, i.e. the number of hours of work required by each citizen in a
job of his/her choice so that basic needs are met) are used for the satisfaction
of basic needs. These vouchers-- which are personal and issued on behalf of the
confederation-- entitle each citizen to a given level of satisfaction for each
particular type of need which has been characterised (democratically) as
‘basic’, but do not specify the particular type of satisfier, so that choice may
be secured. Non-basic vouchers (NBVs—allocated in exchange for non-basic work)
are used for the satisfaction of non-basic needs (non-essential consumption) as
well as for the satisfaction of basic needs beyond the level prescribed by the
confederal assembly. NBVs, like BVs, are also personal but are issued on behalf
of each community, rather than on behalf of the confederation. Work by citizens
over and above the ‘basic’ number of hours is voluntary and entitles them to
NBVs, which can be used towards the satisfaction of non-essential needs.
*‘Prices’ in this system, instead of reflecting scarcities relative to a skewed
income and wealth pattern (as in the market economy system), function as
rationing devices to match scarcities relative to citizens’ desires, i.e. as
guides for a democratic allocation of resources. Therefore, prices, instead of
being the cause of rationing—as in the market system— become the effect of it
and are assigned the role of equating demand and supply in an artificial
"market" which secures the sovereignty of both consumers and producers. The
‘prices’ formed in this way, together with a complex ‘index of desirability’
drawn on the basis of citizens’ preferences as to the type of work which
citizens wish to do, determine a ‘subjective‘ rate of remuneration for non basic
work, in place of the ‘objective’ rate suggested by the *labour theory of value.
As the above brief description of the model of economic democracy makes clear,
the project for an inclusive democracy refers to a future international
*political economy which transcends both the political economy of *state
socialism, as realised in the countries of the ex ‘actually existing socialism’
in *Eastern Europe, and the political economy of the market economy, either in
its mixed economy form of the *social democratic consensus, or in its present
*neo-liberal form.
Democracy in the social realm
The satisfaction of the above conditions for political and economic democracy
would represent the re-conquering of the political and economic realms by the
public realm-- that is, the reconquering of a true social individuality, the
creation of the conditions of freedom and self-determination, both at the
political and the economic levels. However, political and economic power are not
the only forms of power and, therefore, political and economic democracy do not,
by themselves, secure an inclusive democracy. In other words, an inclusive
democracy is inconceivable unless it extends to the broader social realm to
embrace the workplace, the household, the educational institution and indeed any
economic or cultural institution which constitutes an element of this realm.
Historically, various forms of democracy in the social realm have been
introduced, particularly during this century, usually in periods of
revolutionary activity. However, these forms of democracy were not only
short-lived but seldom extended beyond the workplace (e.g. Hungarian workers'
councils in 1956) and the education institution (e.g. Paris student assemblies
in 1968). The issue today is how to extend democracy to other forms of social
organisation, like the household, without dissolving the private/public realm
divide. In other words, how, while maintaining and enhancing the autonomy of the
two realms, such institutional arrangements are adopted which introduce
democracy to the household and the social realm in general and -- at the same
time—enhance the institutional arrangements of political and economic democracy.
In fact, an effective democracy is inconceivable unless free time is equally
distributed among all citizens, and this condition can never be satisfied as
long as the present hierarchical conditions in the household, the workplace and
elsewhere continue. Furthermore, democracy in the social realm, particularly in
the household, is impossible, unless such institutional arrangements are
introduced which recognise the character of the household as a needs-satisfier
and integrate the care and services provided within its framework into the
general scheme of needs satisfaction.
Ecological Democracy
If we see democracy as a process of social self-institution in which there is no
divinely or ‘objectively’ defined code of human conduct there are no guarantees
that an inclusive democracy would secure an ecological democracy in the sense
defined above. Therefore, the replacement of the market economy by a new
institutional framework of inclusive democracy constitutes only the necessary
condition for a harmonious relation between the natural and social worlds. The
sufficient condition refers to the citizens’ level of ecological consciousness.
Still, the radical change in the dominant social *paradigm which will follow the
institution of an inclusive democracy, combined with the decisive role that
paedeia will play in an environmentally-friendly institutional framework, could
reasonably be expected to lead to a radical change in the human attitude towards
Nature. In other words, there are strong grounds for believing that the
relationship between an inclusive democracy and Nature would be much more
harmonious than could ever be achieved in a market economy, or one based on
state socialism. The factors supporting this view refer to all three elements of
an inclusive democracy: political, economic and social. At the political level,
there are grounds for believing that the creation of a public space will in
itself have a very significant effect on reducing the appeal of materialism.
This is because the public space will provide a new meaning of life to fill the
existential void that the present consumer society creates. The realisation of
what it means to be human could reasonably be expected to throw us back toward
Nature. Also, at the economic level, it is not accidental that, historically,
the process of destroying the environment en masse has coincided with the
process of marketization of the economy. In other words, the emergence of the
market economy and of the consequent growth economy had crucial repercussions on
the society-Nature relationship and led to the rise of the *ideology of growth
as the dominant social paradigm. Thus, an ‘instrumentalist’ view of Nature
became dominant, in which Nature was seen as an instrument for *economic growth,
within a process of endless concentration of power. If we assume that only a
confederal society could secure an inclusive democracy today, it would be
reasonable to assume further that once the market economy is replaced by a
democratically run confederal economy, the grow-or-die dynamics of the former
will be replaced by the new social dynamic of the latter: a dynamic aiming at
the satisfaction of the community needs and not at growth per se. If the
satisfaction of community needs does not depend, as at present, on the
continuous expansion of production to cover the ‘needs’ which the market
creates, and if the link between economy and society is restored, then there is
no reason why the present instrumentalist view of Nature should continue to
condition human behaviour. Furthermore, democracy in the broader social realm
could also be reasonably expected to be environmentally-friendly. The phasing
out of *patriarchal relations in the household and hierarchical relations in
general should create a new ethos of non-domination which would embrace both
Nature and Society. In other words, the creation of democratic conditions in the
social realm should be a decisive step in the creation of the sufficient
condition for a harmonious nature-society relationship. Finally, the fact that
the basic unit of social, economic and political life in a confederal democracy
would be the community might also be expected to enhance its
environmentally-friendly character. It is reasonable to assume and the evidence
of the remarkable success of local communities in safeguarding their
environments is overwhelming—that when people rely directly on their natural
surroundings for their livelihood, they will develop an intimate knowledge of
those surroundings, which will necessarily affect positively their behaviour
towards them. However, the precondition for local control of the environment to
be successful is that the community depends on its natural surroundings for its
long-term livelihood and that it, therefore, has a direct interest in protecting
it—another reason why an ecological society is impossible without economic
democracy.
A new conception of citizenship
The above conditions for democracy imply a new conception of citizenship:
economic, political, social and cultural. Thus, political citizenship involves
new political structures and the return to the classical conception of politics
(direct democracy). Economic citizenship involves new economic structures of
community ownership and control of economic resources (economic democracy).
Social citizenship involves self-management structures at the workplace,
democracy in the household and new *welfare structures in which all basic needs
(to be democratically determined) are covered by community resources, whether
they are satisfied in the household or at the community level. Finally, cultural
citizenship involves new democratic structures of dissemination and control of
information and culture (mass media, art, etc.), which allow every member of the
community to take part in the process and at the same time develop his/her
intellectual and cultural potential. Although this sense of citizenship implies
a sense of political community, which, defined geographically, is the
fundamental unit of political, economic and social life, still, it is assumed
that this political community interlocks with various other communities
(cultural, professional, ideological, etc.). Therefore, the community and
citizenship arrangements do not rule out cultural differences or other
differences based on gender, age, ethnicity and so on but simply provide the
public space in which such differences can be expressed; furthermore, these
arrangements institutionalise various safety valves that aim to rule out the
marginalisation of such differences by the majority. What, therefore, unites
people in a political community, or a confederation of communities, is not some
set of common values, imposed by a nationalist ideology, a religious dogma, a
mystical belief, or an ‘objective’ interpretation of natural or social
‘evolution’, but the democratic institutions and practices, which have been set
up by citizens themselves. It is obvious that the above new conception of
citizenship has very little in common with the liberal and socialist definitions
of citizenship which are linked to the liberal and socialist conceptions of
*human rights respectively. Thus, for the liberals, the citizen is simply the
individual bearer of certain freedoms and political rights recognised by law
which, supposedly, secure equal distribution of political power. Also, for the
socialists, the citizen is the bearer not only of political rights and freedoms
but, also, of some social and economic rights, whereas for Marxists the
citizenship is realised with the collective ownership of the means of
production. The conception of citizenship adopted here, which could be called a
democratic conception, is based on the above definition of inclusive democracy
and presupposes a ‘participatory’ conception of active citizenship, like the one
implied by the work of Hannah Arendt. In this conception, political activity is
not a means to an end, but an end in itself. It is, therefore, obvious that this
conception of citizenship is qualitatively different from the liberal and
social-democratic conceptions which adopt an ‘instrumentalist’ view of
citizenship, i.e. a view which implies that citizenship entitles citizens with
certain rights which they can exercise as means to the end of individual
welfare.
Applications
A well-developed body of knowledge already exists regarding Inclusive Democracy
and its applications. Crucial matters such as strategy of transition to an
inclusive democracy, the relationship of science and technology to democracy,
the significance of the rise of irrationalism with respect to the democratic
project, the interrelationship between culture, mass media and democracy have
all been explored in D&N , The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy (see
further reading).
Further reading:
Takis Fotopoulos (1997) Towards An Inclusive Democracy: The Crisis of the Growth
Economy and the Need for a New Liberatory Project, (London: Cassell) pp. 401)
[The definitive exposition of Inclusive Democracy]. (Italian and Greek editions
of the book have been published in 1999 and a Spanish edition has been scheduled
for 2000). Democracy & Nature, The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy.
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/10855661.html.
The journal is published by the Taylor & Francis group three times a year. Five
volumes (of three issues each) were published by the end of 1999. [Theoretical
articles and dialogue on inclusive democracy and related topics]
* This text is the entry on Inclusive Democracy that will be published in the
year 2000 in the Encyclopedia of International Political Economy (publishing co.
: Routledge).