There have been a number of diaries recently reflecting on the next step for Occupy Wall Street, now that it is evolving beyond claim-staking. For instance, Michael Moore has a Rec Listed diary up - Where Does Occupy Wall Street Go From Here - that focuses on principles and nationwide policies. While I agree that such should be the content of the Occupy message going forward, the next step in terms of action is more prosaic: Develop a robust, practical way of institutionalizing General Assemblies locally in order to give them official political power in city government. This is (a)profoundly difficult (but hardly as difficult as changing the national scene), and (b)explosively catalytic if achieved.
To understand why this is the next step, we must first learn to appreciate just how big America is, just how many people 300+ million is, and just how complex and labyrinthine the politics of a society that large must necessarily be. Now, that isn't to say that most of the labyrinth is within view in our daily lives - quite the contrary. Our politics are simplifying, and wrap a cartoonish membrane over the maze to make us believe that we can achieve change without hard work or subtlety. But the meat and bone of our politics is not in the slogans of politicians seeking election, but in the alternately competing or incestuous relationships between public and corporate bureaucracies. OWS has demonstrated that the only antidote to corruption within and between those institutions is the glare of an orderly General Assembly. The task is clear: These assemblies must be made permanent, made accessible to all, structured to function as such, and be given official authority as a branch of local government.
1. The Task
Make no mistake, this is a tall mountain to climb, regardless of how progressive the local politics are. While I can't speak with certainty about how every local government functions, it's reasonable to say this would be relatively uncharted territory that hadn't seen much activity in 2,500 years. That is how massive the potential of OWS is. The Athenians had a tumultuous and ultimately self-destructive direct democracy because it was absolute - everything was a moment-by-moment popularity contest, and there were no enduring secular institutions to keep things stable.
In the Roman Republic, however - one that remained a more or less free society (by the standards of the age) for close to four centuries - there was an institution of Assemblies whereby the citizens could be called upon to legislate directly. The people explicitly held final say over ratification of new law, execution of capital punishment, treaties and alliances, and war and peace - a level of democracy that would be radical in today's America, but is (I think) precisely what OWS seeks, even if we have not yet come to collectively realize it. But even that is on the distant horizon, because that is federal policy - the task before us is to explicitly democratize our cities and towns, then our states, and only as the ultimate triumphs, our nation and world as a whole. Every step of the way, however, the institutions above will become increasingly accountable to the people by virtue of their increasing local power.
Let us understand that Occupations are already doing this on a small level, only in an instinctive way whose significance we have not yet come to appreciate. It is an impulse that, if brought to bear in full cognizance of what it means, would transform politics nationwide and worldwide. They are each kernels of an institution waiting to be born, if we have the intelligence to see what they promise, the subtlety to know where to begin, and the fortitude to do the work involved.
But obviously an institution of governance would have to be somewhat different than a political protest movement: It must be all-inclusive, permitting even people who oppose the very existence of the institution to have a say in it, and allowing repugnant, incoherent, frivolous, idiotic, and bigoted viewpoints to have equal say with the profound, erudite, incisive, and inspiring. It must have procedures that allow this mixture to occur in an orderly fashion, that are reasonably transparent to ordinary people, and that simultaneously impose responsibilities as they empower. It must be structured as deliberative rather than reactionary, but at the same time must wield - or at least have the potential to ultimately acquire - supreme legislative authority. And it must be conceived to be as un-gameable as possible, to disallow committed fringes from becoming dominant through trickery and tactics. It is a task that will exercise the imaginations of the greatest minds, and a challenge whose time has come.
The task is huge, but I guarantee is far smaller than the ones people are getting ahead of themselves focusing on nationally: The average people of the town or city must be convinced that the current structure of local government is insufficient, and to trust in themselves enough to assume new authority over it. Every new scandal must be offered up as proof, every instance of corruption or abuse, every police brutality incident, every traffic snarl and rotting public school that teaches nothing but crime and alienation must be put on display as evidence that the people must have the power to intervene closely and routinely rather than being limited to elections and referendums every couple of years.
Convene great panels of legal, political, and other relevant experts to construct how this system would work in your city's context of population, state law, and economics. Decide what the relationship between the Assembly and the other institutions of government will be, how they will communicate, and how that relationship will serve to create the best, most accountable, and most balanced form of local government. Hold meetings, festivals, and other events to acquaint the public with the idea and how it might work, how they might participate and contribute, and what it has to offer their quality of life. If the idea can be enacted directly through citywide referendum, do so. If the ballot fails, try try again.
What's more, people who support enacting General Assemblies must be elected to city councils and those who prove adamantly and reliably opposed must be replaced. Those who waffle, hedge, and engage in weathervane politics, however, would prove useful once it became clear that public consensus had solidified behind the idea. Seek their support for construction or assignment of appropriate venues for these functions - ones with close access to elected and judicial authority, providing a sense of geographical legitimacy and respect. Perhaps Assemblies could have peremptory authority to commandeer taxpayer-subsidized sports stadiums for meetings, since the people paid for their construction, but this is only one idea.
If even one city, even one town - no matter how small - can make a go of it, and overtly enshrine direct democracy institutions that today are only implicit, then the seed is planted. While a small town may have town halls where the people air their grievances and public officials listen out of expediency, maybe it's time these meetings have the force of law behind them and officials are compelled to listen when they reach consensus. While it behooves the city council of a big city to listen when the streets are alive with protest, perhaps it is time the relationship were made explicit and cut out the middle man of expediency. This would make politics far more accountable, efficient, and participatory.
2. Challenges
i. Getting there.
First and foremost, we must deal with a conundrum: The places where OWS is strongest are those with a lot of people - precisely the environments where getting the general public on board with a drastic change in governance would involve the longest and steepest climb, the greatest political complexities, and the most determined institutional resistance. Getting support in small towns would be comparatively straightforward but also far less motivated, since people in such places usually have closer, more accountable relationships with their local government. Whatever the environment and the specific set of challenges, the only antidote is effort and commitment.
Secondly, elected politicians would be highly skeptical of diluting their own power, and even if they are honest progressives would probably have profound doubts about the practicality and effectiveness of such a drastic change. Overcoming that skepticism is part of what OWS must strive to accomplish by example and by trial-and-error experimentation, as well as the participation of experts (as mentioned above) in creating the legal and procedural structure for the proposed Assembly. They must be convinced that (a)it would be orderly, (b)it would be as much a facilitator of their priorities as a competitor, and (c)it would make their jobs easier rather than more complicated. Those last two need not actually be true, as long as there is some plausible argument to that effect that would convince a politician.
The best way to ensure its advocates aren't undermining it would be to sell it as an addition to the system rather than a "replacement" - this would mitigate opposition among existing institutions, and reassure a public skittish about its own competence that elected leaders and professional bureaucrats would still be involved in their current duties, still be available to offer advice, and still have some authority to check public fickleness and frivolity. The exact balance of power would have to be determined over time as people learned both the limits and possibilities of the Assembly process.
Thirdly, state and local laws are quite diverse across this country, so there is no telling how circuitous a route must be taken for any given local Assembly to become institutionalized. Some cities and states are very democratic, making it possible to enact a local Assembly by referendum, while others amount to little more than third-world oligarchies - and most of the country is somewhere in between. It may be easier, in authoritarian-leaning places, to convince local government to enact a ballot initiative process and then use the process to enact Assemblies than to get a bunch of oligarchs to directly authorize Assemblies. The roads to this objective are various, long, and winding.
Of course, the other side of the coin may actually be helpful: It is at least possible to pass a statewide referendum requiring incorporated municipalities to facilitate General Assemblies - a move far harder to achieve than going city-by-city, but if accomplished would produce dozens to hundreds of Assemblies in one fell swoop. Knowledge of a state's constitution would be needed to say whether and where this could be possible, but I hope the possibility is investigated.
Lastly, on the subject of "getting there," we must contend with the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States is currently dominated by people who are essentially lawless and will use their office to subvert the Constitution on behalf of a conservative political agenda. We have seen their shamelessness repeatedly, as they have put a man of their choosing into the White House against the will of the people, and more recently declared that a corporation is a person just so they could open the floodgates of unlimited funding to Republican political candidates. So it would not be a stretch that they could arbitrarily declare direct democracy Assemblies unconstitutional, and be as ludicrous as needed to justify their decision.
The one and only way to guarantee this does not happen is to have real jurists on the bench, and the only way to do that is to ensure that we have Democratic Presidents and a Senate that will pass their nominees. That means continued and strong participation in the upcoming election and all that follow.
ii. Implementation.
The biggest obstacle to a practical implementation is the fact that big cities have millions of people, so it would make no sense to physically assemble all of the people in a single venue - and even mid-sized cities would fill a professional football stadium if they wanted a single Assembly: A situation where it would be practically impossible to give everyone a chance to speak who wants it. The solution is straightfoward: Assemblies can occur multiply in a single municipality, and should each have a limited number of people to ensure that everyone can speak.
Think of how the government of a gargantuan city like New York is already subdivided: Five boroughs, innumerable local departments and precincts, block associations, building co-ops, etc. An Assembly must be similarly arrayed to function in that environment. How each segment of the Assembly relates to the others, and how their decisions combine would be a matter for the architects of the system to design. In small towns, people could just keep doing the same old town halls, only now they would get to make decisions rather than just rail at elected leaders and hope they do something. Some towns may already operate like this, but it's not the norm.
Then there is the question of how to convene an Assembly and govern its decisions. Should it be a regular meeting, or something called by petition? Both? Should elected leaders have the power to convene an Assembly? How should Assemblies fit into the scheme of checks and balances to ensure both majority rule and minority rights? What should the relationship of an Assembly be to the judiciary? To the executive? To the elected legislature? Should it have the power of subpoena? Of impeachment? Can people be excluded from the Assembly? If so, on what grounds, for how long, and what appeals would be available to them? Should attendance be compulsory? How much notice of an impending Assembly must be given? How much constitutes a quorum? And so on. These too are matters for the architects to determine, and for the benefit of experience to judge and tweak.
If even one initiative in one city is passed, then the ground is laid for future successes. And if even one experience is positive, then other cities would strive to emulate it. This is the positive side of evolution: When a helpful mutation occurs, it propagates by the very virtue of the advantages it provides. We can do this, we should do this, and we must do this.
3. The Prize
I wish to paint a picture for you. Imagine the most glorious moments of the Occupy movement occurring constantly, in a setting where politicians are compelled by law to deal with their resolutions, with police protecting the proceedings as a function of government rather than trying to bust them up, records of its minutes and decisions enshrined as readily-accessible public document, and meetings televised and professionally livestreamed over robust government networks. Imagine powers considered the domain of distant, unknowable leaders - e.g., subpoena, impeachment, and legislation - being within the practical grasp of the average person, but still kept in check by a process of law, their fellow citizens, and elected bodies.
I guarantee if we achieve this on the local level, it will not stop there. It will expand to the state level, the federal level, and ultimately to a democratic body of global humanity. This is where we go from here. The road is long, but glorious - and infinite. Who knows how far democracy can be taken, and how many new possibilities are unleashed with every step forward?