FAQAnar:A.2.11 - Pourquoi la plupart des anarchistes soutiennent-ils la démocratie directe ?
| L'avancement de cette traduction est de 25%. |
Catégorie:En traduction Catégorie:Que représente l'Anarchisme?
Pour la plupart des anarchistes, la démocratie directe, par le biais du vote des décisions politiques au sein d'associations libres, est la contrepartie du libre-accord (ou autogestion). La raison en est que « beaucoup de formes de domination peuvent exister de manière "libre", non-coercitive ou contractuelle [...] et c'est être naïf [...] que penser la simple opposition au contrôle politique mènera par lui-même à la fin de l'oppression. »[1] Par conséquent les relations que nous créons au sein d'une organisation sont aussi importantes pour déterminer sa nature libertaire que sa nature volontaire (voir la section A.2.14 pour plus de précisions).
Il est évident que les individus doivent travailler ensemble afin de une vie humaine entière. Ainsi, « quand un individu doit se joindre à d'autres », il [ou elle] a trois options : « il [ou elle] doit se soumettre à la volonté d'autrui (devenir esclave) ou soumettre les autres à sa volonté (être l'autorité) ou vivre avec autrui dans un accord fraternel portant sur le bien commun de tous (être associé(e)s). Personne ne peut échapper à cette nécessité. »[2]
Bien évidemment, les anarchistes choisissent la dernière option, l'association, comme seul moyen qu'ont les individus pour travailler ensemble comme des êtres humains libres et égaux, en respectant l'unicité et la liberté de chacun. Il n'y a qu'à travers la démocratie directe que les individus peuvent s'exprimer, exercer leur pensée critique et l'auto-gouvernement, et ainsi développer pleinement leur aptitudes intellectuelles, éthiques et sociales. Pour cela, il vaut parfois mieux faire partie d'une minorité que d'être soumis continument à la volonté d'un chef. Quelle est-donc la théorie derrière la démocratie directe anarchiste ?
Comme le notait [[Bertrand Russell], les anarchistes « ne veulent pas abolir les gouvernements dans leur sens d'appareils de décisions collectives : ce qu'ils veulent abolir c'est le système grâce auquel une décision est imposée à ceux qui s'y opposent.»[3] Les anarchistes voient l'autogestion comme le moyen d'atteindre cela. Une fois qu'un individu a rejoint une communauté ou un lieu de travail, il ou elle devient un(e) "citoyen(ne)" (par sa volonté d'un monde meilleur) de cette association. Celle-ci est organisée autour d'assemblées composées de tous/tes les membres ou, dans le cas de grands lieux de travail ou de grandes villes, de sous-groupes fonctionnels, comme des bureaux spécifiques ou des comités de quartiers. Dans ces assemblées, de concert avec les autres citoyen(ne)s, les teneurs des obligations politiques de chaque citoyen(ne) sont définies. Dans cette association, les gens doivent porter des jugements critiques et faire des choix, c'est-à -dire de gérer leur propre activité. Plutôt que de promettre d'obéir (comme dans les organisations hiérarchiques, comme l'État ou les entreprises capitalistes), les individus participent en prenant leurs propres décisions collectives, leurs propres engagements auprès de leurs camarades. Cela signifie que l'obligation politique n'a pas pour but de placer l'entité au-dessus du groupe ou de la société, comme l'État ou l'entreprise capitaliste, mais de différencier un(e) citoyen(ne) des autres citoyen(ne)s membres.
Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political "authority", but as this "authority" is based on horizontal relationships between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical ("rational" or "natural," see section B.1 - "Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?" - for more on this). Thus Proudhon:
"In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. - No more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws." [The General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 245-6]
Such a system does not mean, of course, that everyone participates in every decision needed, no matter how trivial. While any decision can be put to the assembly (if the assembly so decides, perhaps prompted by some of its members), in practice certain activities (and so purely functional decisions) will be handled by the association's elected administration. This is because, to quote a Spanish anarchist activist, "a collectivity as such cannot write a letter or add up a list of figures or do hundreds of chores which only an individual can perform." Thus the need "to organise the administration." Supposing an association is "organised without any directive council or any hierarchical offices" which "meets in general assembly once a week or more often, when it settles all matters needful for its progress" it still "nominates a commission with strictly administrative functions." However, the assembly "prescribes a definite line of conduct for this commission or gives it an imperative mandate" and so "would be perfectly anarchist." As it "follows that delegating these tasks to qualified individuals, who are instructed in advance how to proceed, . . . does not mean an abdication of that collectivity's own liberty." [Jose Llunas Pujols, quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 187] This, it should be noted, follows Proudhon's ideas that within the workers' associations "all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to the approval of the members." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 222]
Instead of capitalist or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct democracy) would be the guiding principle of the freely joined associations that make up a free society. This would apply to the federations of associations an anarchist society would need to function. "All the commissions or delegations nominated in an anarchist society," correctly argued Jose Llunas Pujols, "must be subject to replacement and recall at any time by the permanent suffrage of the section or sections that elected them." Combined with the "imperative mandate" and "purely administrative functions," this "make[s] it thereby impossible for anyone to arrogate to himself [or herself] a scintilla of authority." [quoted by Max Nettlau, Op. Cit., pp. 188-9] Again, Pujols follows Proudhon who demanded twenty years previously the "implementation of the binding mandate" to ensure the people do not "adjure their sovereignty." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63]
By means of a federalism based on mandates and elections, anarchists ensure that decisions flow from the bottom-up. By making our own decisions, by looking after our joint interests ourselves, we exclude others ruling over us. Self-management, for anarchists, is essential to ensure freedom within the organisations so needed for any decent human existence.
Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are governed by others ("Democratic rule is still rule" [L. Susan Brown, The Politics of Individualism, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct democracy as we have described it is not necessarily tied to the concept of majority rule. If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either consenting or refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to impose obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association. Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means by which liberty can be nurtured ("Individual autonomy limited by the obligation to hold given promises." [Malatesta, quoted by quoted by Max Nettlau, Errico Malatesta: The Biography of an Anarchist]). Needless to say, a minority, if it remains in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of the error of its ways.
And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts, namely that anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband, whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of those subject to their decisions.
Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights. This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions and makes dissent a key factor in decision making. Thus Carole Pateman:
"If the majority have acted in bad faith. . . [then the] minority will have to take political action, including politically disobedient action if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the political association itself. . . Political disobedience is merely one possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing democracy is based . . . The social practice of promising involves the right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent, or where necessary, to disobey." [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 162]
Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links between associations follow the same outlines as for the associations themselves. Instead of individuals joining an association, we have associations joining confederations. The links between associations in the confederation are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as within associations, with the same rights of "voice and exit" for members and the same rights for minorities. In this way society becomes an association of associations, a community of communities, a commune of communes, based upon maximising individual freedom by maximising participation and self-management.
The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 ( What sort of society do anarchists want?) and discussed in greater detail in section I (What would an anarchist society look like?).
This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta speaks for all anarchists when he argued that "anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern human society in general." As can be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority -- the minority can leave the association at any time and so, to use Malatesta's words, do not have to "submit to the decisions of the majority before they have even heard what these might be." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 100 and p. 101] Hence, direct democracy within voluntary association does not create "majority rule" nor assume that the minority must submit to the majority no matter what. In effect, anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it fits Malatesta's argument that:
"Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many . . . But such adaptation on the one hand by one group must be on the other be reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 100]
As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule is not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making tool which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and acted upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the majority. In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the minority. After all, as Malatesta argued:
"one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced that the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice his [or her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should support a policy he [or she] considers wrong." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 132]
Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct democracy has its uses when he noted that "[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less than the whole, the right to use some limited discretion as to the means to be used to accomplish the ends in view." However, only the unanimous decision of a jury (which would "judge the law, and the justice of the law") could determine individual rights as this "tribunal fairly represent[s] the whole people" as "no law can rightfully be enforced by the association in its corporate capacity, against the goods, rights, or person of any individual, except it be such as all members of the association agree that it may enforce" (his support of juries results from Spooner acknowledging that it "would be impossible in practice" for all members of an association to agree) [Trial by Jury, p. 130-1f, p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132]
Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash. In practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most decisions within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities required for fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury system and minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority claims/rights in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can only be created through practical experience by the people directly involved.
Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does not mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For example, many small associations may favour consensus decision making (see the next section on consensus and why most anarchists do not think that it is a viable alternative to direct democracy). However, most anarchists think that direct democracy within free association is the best (and most realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and equality.
- ↑ John P. Clark, Max Stirner's Egoism, p. 93.
- ↑ Errico Malatesta, Sa vie et ses idées, p. 85.
- ↑ [[Bertrand Russell], Roads to Freedom (Les routes de la Liberté), p. 85.
