Direct Democracy in Libya - How did it work?

[Fodla32 3,692]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2ZeIsvVQLg

[Fodla32 3,692]

One thought that has occured to me, at various times, is that the only countries where real progress towards Direct Democracy is, was, happening, are in countries that the West brands as "dictatorships." Im thinking of the Libyan Jamahiriya, or Cuba, or even Venezuela (the West does it's best to brand Chavez a dictator - even though he is elected with a large majority.)

 

Does Direct Democracy have some need of a kind of father figure outside the system, to guarantee the system? Someone like Fidel Castro or Colonel Gaddafi? I don't know the answer to that question. Let's hope we can build Direct Democracy in Ireland without needing such a father figure. Time will tell.

 

But, regardless of what we do in Ireland, should we look down on a system like the Jamahiriya, or the Cuban system of Direct Democracy? Should we not welcome and support such systems. Who knows what feats they might achieve in the future. If left alone, and safe from imperialist attack, they might grow out of their need for a father figure.

 

Could we not look at the attack on the Jamahiriya as an attack on the development and progress of Direct Democracy? By the corrupt and morally bankrupt system of representation? As Aristotle said over 2,500 years ago, representation is always de facto oligarchy. That being the case, was the attack on the Jamahiriya not directly an attack on democracy itself by oligarchy?

[Fodla32 3,692]

People sometimes give Switzerland as a model of Direct Democracy, where there is no "dictatorship" guaranteeing the system. But, really, Switzerland is the one country, out of all we have mentioned, that really does have a dictatorship, i.e. the Dictatorship of Capital. In effect, in Switzerland, a representational system ensures the macro rule of an oligarchy, while Direct Democracy is then applied at the micro level, i.e. for local issues, and some particular issues that don't contradict the privilege and power of private property.

 

All the same, we shouldn't dismiss even this system of Direct Democracy, as it gives, at least some level of democracy at the micro level, and trains peoples minds towards taking political responsibility.

[Lugh Ildánach 2,352]

I can see your point about the need of a father figure, but I don't think we should tolerate or appease any such notions any more than we should tolerate any other undemocratic concepts that disguise themselves as a human need.

 

Having a father figure to guarantee the system is undemocratic. It may well help facilitate a higher level of democracy at a local level. It could perhaps be framed as a necessary stepping stone from the paternalist representational system or a breathing space for local democracy to flourish into greater national democratic cohesion, but unless there is a dynamic and institutions that enable the system to to move beyond any such father figure stage, then I think it would have been foolish to idly hope that Libyans spontaneously overcome this essentially undemocratic feature. Libya had a father figure for 40 years, and I suspect that had the Libyan people moved beyond this stage, that their resistance to the NATO invasion and occupation would have been stronger (although it is perhaps too early to judge that resistance at this stage).

 

Ultimately to base a revolution around one man is to undermine democracy (and indeed the sustainability of the revolution) and does little in itself to encourage people to take responsibility for their lives. The cult of the personality is a dangerous thing and should be avoided at all costs.

 

Marcos in Chiapas was aware of this element too, hence the anonymity of the mask. But of course the liberal and conservative media could not grasp this concept and essentially iconised the man wearing the mask.

[Fodla32 3,692]

I'm not saying its a desirable element, just pointing out the fact that Direct Democracy seems to exist precisely in those states that the West brands "dictatorships." I think we should give our support to any attempt at Direct Democracy, even if it is less than ideal.

[Fodla32 3,692]

I'm not really sure that the mask saves Marcos from taking on an authoritarian role. In some ways it amplifies it, since anything he says takes on the gravity of "the voice of the people." Nothing he says can be dismissed as his personal opinion. For him to say he has no personal face - as Subcomandante Marcos - or no personal voice, is to take on a role that is, in some respects, far more authoritarian than anything Gaddafi did, since Gaddafi always presented himself as one individual - as an exception, in the role of father figure. The danger with Marcos is that he isn't the exception, or an exception at all - he is everyone, therefore there is no possibility outside of him.

[Lugh Ildánach 2,352]

I'm not saying its a desirable element, just pointing out the fact that Direct Democracy seems to exist precisely in those states that the West brands "dictatorships." I think we should give our support to any attempt at Direct Democracy, even if it is less than ideal.

 

Absolutely, I think that the direct democracy element needs to be supported. It is interesting to note how it developed in practice, even if there were undesirable aspects to it, at least it was real democracy, and fully deserving of support.

[Lugh Ildánach 2,352]

I'm not really sure that the mask saves Marcos from taking on an authoritarian role. In some ways it amplifies it, since anything he says takes on the gravity of "the voice of the people." Nothing he says can be dismissed as his personal opinion. For him to say he has no personal face - as Subcomandante Marcos - or no personal voice, is to take on a role that is, in some respects, far more authoritarian than anything Gaddafi did, since Gaddafi always presented himself as one individual - as an exception, in the role of father figure. The danger with Marcos is that he isn't the exception, or an exception at all - he is everyone, therefore there is no possibility outside of him.

 

That's an interesting perspective, although I'm not sure I could agree that Marcos is saying that there is no possibility outside of him. But at the end of the day Marcos and Gaddaffi both fulfilled the roles of a father figure, mask or no mask. The interesting question that you have posed is whether this is necessary, or at least a common feature, in buidling direct democracy. I would suggest that rather than it being inherent in direct democracy, that it is a hang up from the current system, and perhaps one that is required in some circumstances to bring a populace who only know how to act through a leader. But as you say, it is something that we ourselves would strive to avoid.

[Fodla32 3,692]

That's an interesting perspective, although I'm not sure I could agree that Marcos is saying that there is no possibility outside of him. But at the end of the day Marcos and Gaddaffi both fulfilled the roles of a father figure, mask or no mask. The interesting question that you have posed is whether this is necessary, or at least a common feature, in buidling direct democracy. I would suggest that rather than it being inherent in direct democracy, that it is a hang up from the current system, and perhaps one that is required in some circumstances to bring a populace who only know how to act through a leader. But as you say, it is something that we ourselves would strive to avoid.

 

 

I wouldnt say its inherent to Direct Democracy in itself. But, when a system of Direct Democracy is surrounded by hostile oligarchies (usually in the form of representational democracy), then I don't think we should be surprised if some sort of militaristic father figure emerges.

 

But that is one scenario. The more common scenario for Direct Democracy seems to be that it begins to emerge under the guidance of a strongman father figure like Gaddafi or Castro, or even Chavez.

[Guest Connolly]

This book/study here (from page 156) - Political Culture In Libya (2001) - http://books.google....20libya&f=false

 

Gives an insight into university students views and participation in the basic peoples congresses in Libya:

 

- 6% said they attended regularly

- 43% attended from time to time

- 50% never attended

 

Of those university students who participated in political activities in school (including state run political education camps)

 

- 9% attended regularly

- 53% from time to time

- 38% never participate

 

There was also a rural - urban divide in participation with

 

- 6% urban respondents attending, 40% from time to time, 54% never attending

- 10% of rural respondents attending, 61% from time to time and 28% never attending.

 

Women were also less likely to participate.

 

The most interesting thing though in this book is what it describes as the "political eficacy", that is, whether people feel their vote/participation changes anything.

 

- 32% of people believed they could influence a decision in the 'popular congress' (a higher body than the basic congress).

- 66% said they did not influence decisions.

 

In terms of the 'basic peoples congress' - 76% of urban people surveyed said they believed they could not influence decisions at the bpc

 

 

It is clear that, for whatever reason, people had no faith in the 'direct democracy' in Libya. Apart from this book it is near impossible to find details of peoples actual experiences with the political system in Libya.

 

The author concludes:

 

"Indeed, a general disbelief in the effectivness of the mechanisms was evident. Political participation is a minority activity in all societies, but a disbelief in the effectiveness of political participation may indicate deep-seated structural problems."

 

It would seem the system in Libya had many problems. I wonder how this study compares to here and representative democracy.

[Fodla32 3,692]

Thanks for posting that, a chara. The very fact that such a survey was taken in 2001, and people felt perfectly safe to answer it, shows that Gaddafi was not at all the tyrant the West tried to paint him as.

 

Direct Democracy will always face problems in certain cultures. I read another article which said that Libyans resented the pressure to take part when the system was set up in the 1970s. There was simply no tradition of Direct Democracy in Libya. This is in complete contrast to the Zapatistas, who have the great advantage that Direct Democracy is a long standing part of the culture of the peoples of the Chiapas.

 

Perhaps Gaddafi was not all that effective at putting Direct Democracy in place, but, at least he tried. There was, at least, a forum in every town and village where people could officially assemble and speak their mind. Imagine if we were allowed something like that?

 

I would also say that 32% of people believing that they could personally effect decisions taken is really quite high - relatively speaking. What percentage of Irish or British people think they have any influence over official decisions? I doubt if it would be even 3.2%

[Guest Connolly]

Well that 76% of urban people do not believe they can influence decisions at the 'basic peoples congress' is quite bad. The BPC being the most 'direct' and participatory level of the political structure.

 

But this is all quite vague. I didnt read the whole book and some chapters are missing so I really dont know what peoples exact reasons are.

[Lugh Ildánach 2,352]

Its important for exponents of Gaddafi to recognise that Libyan direct democracy was by no means perfect, indeed there is no such thing as perfection. As an experiment it is important to study how it was implemented, the pitfalls and the gains, so that we do not make the same mistakes. Encouraging political participation and confidence in your ability to change things through politics is no easy task, 32% is impressive enough, although it clearly needed to be expanded.

 

The positive thing that I take from that is that remarkable things are possible, and that alternatives to representational politics don't just exist in our heads, that they can function in the real world for decades, as effectively, if not more effectively than capitalism and representational democracy, and indeed only faultering in the face of massive imperialist invasion.

[Fodla32 3,692]

Certainly, like Connolly, I love to be able to find much more detailed analysis of how the system worked in Libya, as we can learn as much from the failures as the successes.

[John 142]

This book/study here (from page 156) - Political Culture In Libya (2001) - http://books.google....20libya&f=false

 

Gives an insight into university students views and participation in the basic peoples congresses in Libya:

 

- 6% said they attended regularly

- 43% attended from time to time

- 50% never attended

 

Of those university students who participated in political activities in school (including state run political education camps)

 

- 9% attended regularly

- 53% from time to time

- 38% never participate

 

There was also a rural - urban divide in participation with

 

- 6% urban respondents attending, 40% from time to time, 54% never attending

- 10% of rural respondents attending, 61% from time to time and 28% never attending.

 

Women were also less likely to participate.

 

The most interesting thing though in this book is what it describes as the "political eficacy", that is, whether people feel their vote/participation changes anything.

 

- 32% of people believed they could influence a decision in the 'popular congress' (a higher body than the basic congress).

- 66% said they did not influence decisions.

 

In terms of the 'basic peoples congress' - 76% of urban people surveyed said they believed they could not influence decisions at the bpc

 

 

It is clear that, for whatever reason, people had no faith in the 'direct democracy' in Libya. Apart from this book it is near impossible to find details of peoples actual experiences with the political system in Libya.

 

The author concludes:

 

"Indeed, a general disbelief in the effectivness of the mechanisms was evident. Political participation is a minority activity in all societies, but a disbelief in the effectiveness of political participation may indicate deep-seated structural problems."

 

It would seem the system in Libya had many problems. I wonder how this study compares to here and representative democracy.

 

That figure of 32% is interesting, I wonder how a poll in western countries would compare? I would say far less than one third of Irish people would say there vote makes a difference, of course we don't even have people's congresses in the first place so most people don't even realize how disenfranchised they are.