A Call for a Democratic Workplace!

Analysis reveals that much of our citizenship and political learning occurs informally (and is absorbed passively). The workplace represents a key site for this process of 'acculturation' into the current, hegemonic power structure of society. In addition to providing the means for attaining our most basic needs, work is also necessary for social fulfillment and for leading a balanced, productive life. The very act of producing something is a very human activity that can have a profound impact our worldview. Unfortunately, most of us work in settings that are not democratically organized – in places where decisions are not made collectively and where people are not allowed to developed their full potential as human beings, let alone allowed to get fair compensation for their efforts based on equal profit-sharing. Moreover, all of this happens within an economy that is not designed to meet human needs but create human wants. In our societies, there is a hegemony of the elite and a tyranny of manufactured good that act as carrot and stick! Because of all this, it is quite likely that most of us automatically assume that the model of the workplace represents the best way to organize a nation's politics, with a CEO (the President or Prime Minister) at the head of Nation, Inc., the Board of Directors (the cabinet) setting national policy, and the hive of mignons who form the bureaucratic corps and execute policy initiatives flowing from the top and address the needs of those at the bottom of the hierarchy. Because of the way most workplaces are currently organized, it is possible that we've become so accustomed to being actively 'managed' that we readily and willingly transfer and relinquish our political decision-making powers to others.

The reconstruction of politics on the model of corporate efficiency began in the second and third decades of the twentieth century with the development of Fordism and deepening of Taylorist principles of scientific management in the United States (which eventually spread worldwide). Thereafter, the American obsession with scientific management and efficiency reached into every aspect of our lives, including the way local political institutions were organized. It was hoped that a new generation of professional managers would replace political appointees throughout the administrative structure, making government more scientific and efficient. New professional schools were established to teach students how to apply the principles of scientific management to governance, with the aim of replacing the art of politics with the science of administration. Hundreds of cities created planning commissions and agencies to more efficiently coordinate commercial and residential development and operate municipal utilities and services. Many cities replaced mayors with city planners and commissioners – generally architects, engineers, and other specialists. In addition to providing services to the growing postwar population in an efficient and timely manner, the scientific management of government set up a system of checks and balances, making government less prone to patronage and corruption. However, this came at a very high price. Putting all their faith and trust in technology and favouring the rule of science, the new managerial cadres of technocrats held a deep distrust in human abilities along with a disdain for popular democracy. Since then, many optimistic individuals outside of the inner circle of technocrats have hoped that increased technology would eventually lead to greater democracy. However, with each passing decade, these hopes have been dashed as our current economy has become ever more hinged upon the undemocratic control of technology. Indeed, all over the world, technology is controlled undemocratically by people who scorn, fear or simply want to use their fellow human beings and deny them from attaining their full potential as free human beings. How can a system that meets human needs develop from such a situation?

Just as the deepening ecological crisis has led some citizens to question their blind trust in science and technology, the multiple crises of liberal democracy have equally necessitated a fundamental questioning of how we do politics. In an era of massive corruption and insider dealings, spending cuts and massive layoffs, abuse of public resources and corporate irresponsibility, some have begun to raise serious objections to the managerial, hierarchical corporate culture that has dominated our lives and maintained control over the vital economic decision-making processes that affect all of our lives. Today, people have begun to realize that things do not necessarily have to be organized in this way – that there are creative, innovative alternatives! What is required is a new vision and impetus to implement them. The only way this can materialize is through active struggle.

An Outline of the Current Crisis in Democracy

Western democracy currently finds itself in a serious and deepening crisis. Widespread election scandals, corrupt regimes, increasing levels of political apathy, and voter absenteeism are the surface indicators of this crisis. More and more people around the world are now calling on governments to create systems and institutions that are more inclusive, accountable, transparent, and responsive to citizens’ needs. They are asking for more active involvement and participation on behalf of a democratized civil society making decisions that shape the destinies of their own communities. Despite increasing concerns about the effectiveness of liberal democracy and for all the talk about increased participation in the political process, it is generally accepted that liberal democracy is the only way to do politics and that capitalism (and the market) is the only way to organize the economy.

Many critics of liberal democracy assume rather naïvely that increased participation in local politics will automatically create a more equitable social system by allowing the possibility to place limits on capital without questioning the fundamental logic of capitalism and the hegemony of the market. They tell us to go out and vote and get involved in our communities. However, this does not represent a viable, long-term solution to the crisis we're now facing. In fact, it is the compulsion of the market (and endless drive for profit) that undermines the functioning of democratic institutions in the first place! One exception to the general absence of an alternative to capitalism within the steady current of alternatives to liberal democracy is the concept of participatory economics (parecon), which requires continuous learning for successful deliberation, dialogue, and decision-making. Parecon is also an alternative way to organize the economy that profoundly differs from both corporate capitalism and the now defunct form of centrally-controlled state capitalism popular during the Cold War era. In upcoming posts, we'll probe this alternative (as well as others) in greater depth. But first, we need to understand the roots of the crisis of democracy.

Erich Fromm argued that in order to resist authoritarianism and the problems that plague it, liberal democracy needs to be transformed from a passive ‘spectator democracy’ into an active ‘participatory democracy’ in which the well-being of the community becomes each citizen’s private concern. For this to happen, all people must actively participate in their political as well as their economic functions as citizens and companies and enterprises must become more than just economic units – they must become social institutions embedded in communities where each citizen becomes active and interested in his or her society. Obviously, active citizenship cannot emerge automatically. It has to be learned. In our case, with our ailing democratic frameworks, there is a lot to re-learn as well as a great deal to unlearn. The first step is to question our automatic responses and also engage in some serious self-reflection to discover the sources of the habitual, unquestioned ideas about the political system that exists within each of us.

The Rallying Cry For a More Democratic Future: 'Votez Nul!'

So what's the best place to start a radical blog on rethinking democracy? If you said, "the fetishized act of voting (or casting a ballot)," then you're absolutely right! Indeed, voting is a central and inalienable part of the preprogrammed set of beliefs that are conjured up by our brains when we hear the word 'democracy'! And, for better or worse, rightly so. But have you ever stopped to think what happened before we got to actually physically casting our vote? Who decided what candidates would appear on the ballot? Our knee-jerk response would be that the democratic process or system came up with the candidates. But do we know enough about this system and the actors and/or agents within that system to allow a bunch of people we hardly know to narrow our choices regarding who should rule our nations and make decisions that affect our lives and livelihoods?

Essentially, when we go to vote, we're given a piece of paper (a ballot) and we're instructed to select one name from each category of a predetermined list of candidates. This is not much different from going to an all-you-can-eat buffet, like many Americans like to do, and filling up our plates with our favorite foods. The problem is, the range of dishes we'll be eating has been decided for us beforehand! We've had absolutely no input in deciding the dishes that will be served up on this particular night for us to choose from. We just hope that whoever made the choices chose right and was able to appeal to a wide enough swath of tastes. On the surface, it appears as though we have lots of choice in a buffet, but in reality, if you think about it, the range of choices has actually been dramatically curtailed. In the case of the buffet, someone with prior training or expertise (invariably someone representing their own interests -- i.e., some 'manager' or 'expert' entrusted with the task) has limited our choices for us a priori. Similarly, in electoral politics, each set of party insiders or delegates, who are 'experts' in interpreting their party's platform, get together and choose a candidate whose name will appear on the ballot. What's offered up to us is no different than the low quality, mass-produced garbage we find at an all-you-can-eat buffet! So what can we do in this situation? Statistics show that a lot of voters have just opted out of the system altogether. However, opting out is tantamount to letting others decide the outcome of an election for you. Unfortunately, in a society where we're trained to defer decisions to 'those who know best,' it seems we are more and more likely to happily abdicate our right to vote. Have you ever considered that 'those who know best' may not actually be the ones who know best at all! They may be the ones who stand to gain the most! If anything, the elections of 2000 and 2004 in the United States clearly testify to this.

Those who can’t be bothered to go out and vote on election day or think their vote won’t make a difference not only miss the point but also miss a prime opportunity to voice their dissatisfaction. In the Western world, we preach and proselytize the gospel of democracy and even try to force it on other countries (whether they like it or not), providing expertise and money to set up a framework for democratic elections. We wage economic and physical wars with countries where democracy is abused to skew the results. Over history, people across the world have died (or put their lives in danger) in order to win the right to vote because they believed in the promises held out by democratic elections. The US was founded upon the ideals of freedom from a colonial oppressor and the ability to exercise one’s democratic right to vote for self-determination of taxes and policies affecting Americans. Sadly, these days, it seems the only thing that stimulates the masses to vote in the US is their favorite dance star or pop idol! And it’s a pattern that has been replicated across the globe. While votes cast for reality-TV show candidates continue to skyrocket, voter turnouts in real elections -- to select those who will determine the policies that truly impact our lives -- have been in dismal decline. The election of Barack Obama last year was an exception to this... A momentary counter-trend brought on by a confluence of factors. In fact, voter turnout for all other levels of government continue their downward spiral.

Apathy and laziness are no excuses for not exercising your democratic right to vote. Whether you find elections ’boring,’ you think none of the candidates represent your views, or you feel that all candidates are basically the same and your vote will not make a difference, there is something you can do to have your dissenting voice heard loud and clear: You can spoil your ballot! The good news is that this is both fun and easy to accomplish! All you have to do draw a large ’X’ on your ballot. That's it. Or, if you’re gifted with the ability to draw (or otherwise artistically-inclined), you can make the returning officer's day with a well crafted cartoon covering the ballot or, for example, try bringing some cutouts and a stick of glue with you into the voting booth and create a beautiful collage on your ballot — the sky is the limit when it comes to creativity, so by all means, be creative! Regardless of whether it’s a municipal, state, or federal level election, if you think your vote won’t matter, it’s up to you to be innovative and exercise your democratic right to vote while voicing your disenchantment with the candidates or the entire system! An innovative and creative campaign called "Votez Nul!" to spread the word about this option has recently been hatched in Europe and not a moment too soon.

Such acts of defiance have to be backed up by active attempts to get governments to recognize the spoiled ballot or null vote for what it is. In many countries, a spoiled ballot or null vote is counted as a ‘no vote.’ However, a ‘no-vote’ is not the same as a null vote. A no-vote is simply a vote that isn’t counted. It doesn’t express political intent or carry any weight. Technically, a null vote is not a 'protest vote' either. A 'protest vote' is a vote in favor of a minority or fringe candidate or opposing party that is unlikely to win the election intended to send a message to the majority or incumbent parties. Okay, now we know what a null vote ISN’T; so then what exactly is a null vote? Quite simply, a null vote is a spoiled ballot and it expresses dissatisfaction with the system as a whole in the absence of fair, accountable representation. We should always remember that defacing a ballot indicates dissent while not showing up to vote indicates apathy. This is why the "Votez Nul!" campaign is so important. Show your support by checking out "Votez Nul!" and when the next election rolls around, get your creative juices flowing and create a masterpiece.

Go to: http://voteznul.blogspot.com/ to hook up with others who are advocating for the null vote. You can also follow information and updates (in French) about the exciting campaign in Europe... And don't forget to spread the word to friends and family about the truly democratic alternative to express your dissatisfaction that is available to every single voter!