Whatever else the Occupy movement has accomplished - and it is a considerable list, given its humble beginnings and non-obvious prospects for influencing society - for me, it has clarified what specifically needs to happen so that the world can be safe for democracy on an ongoing basis. It isn't a laundry list of legislative reforms, as some have offered - although there are certainly merits to many of the suggestions out there. And it isn't some vague, poorly-articulated "change in consciousness" that would magically alter the situation without concrete work being done.
No - the change that clearly needs to happen is very specific, relatively uncomplicated in its basic concept, powerful in its potential, and yet no less a challenge to achieve. Quite simply, we have to introduce a fourth branch of government into local, state, national, and global affairs consisting of the body of The People in any given jurisdiction: The General Assembly, not as the aspirational hyperbole of a protest movement, but as the de jure fact of the body politic assembled as a coequal branch with (and check on) the power of elected legislatures, executive authorities, and the judiciary. It is no longer sufficient for The People to check in on elected authority once every few years - lobbyists are in their offices day-in and day-out, and the only way to counter that is for The People to wield constant, official authority in the political chain of command.
Now, I seem to be the only person advocating this - a fact I find unfathomable and slightly discouraging - but I will continue to expound on the idea regardless, because it's not really optional if we actually intend to deal with the problems we face. Such unbound passion is unleashed on quixotic fantasies of egalitarian revolution and minute political trivia that it seems deranged for an idea this essential to be so rare. The best I can do is keep talking about it, but unless more people pick up the torch, the systemic failures that undermine our society will not be addressed. All the public outrage and voter mobilization in the world will simply yield a few legislative band-aids that lobbyists will work every day and night afterward to tear off.
So to those who delight in talking up "revolution," this is it - this is the "radical" change we need, and it isn't some nebulous fantasy of awakened masses storming the Bastille: Just ordinary people meeting on a frequent basis to play a direct role in the mundane sausage-making that collectively makes up the body of governance. I'm sorry if the thought isn't as melodramatic or entertaining as Victor Hugo literature, but it's the way forward - so those who are passionate about asserting change from below must decide whether this is all a self-indulgent game to them, or if they actually want a better future for their people.
And to the more practical among us who have put a lot of thought into coming up with slates of legislative proposals for reforming the system, I put it to you just as starkly: Your reforms will not pass the system as it is currently configured. They cannot. But they would pass a system where General Assemblies are a fourth branch of government, and where The People not only exercise some level of direct legislative leadership, but are in a position to closely oversee elected bodies and hold them accountable for their priorities.
How exactly this should happen, what the specific organizational structure of such an institution should be, what rules it should adopt, etc. is such a vast and fertile spectrum of possibilities that I'm not going to spend a lot of effort on it here - and I certainly hope no one cites that openness as evidence against the idea. Quite the contrary, it should be seen as a feature, not a bug - there are so many diverse ways this can be approached that we should see the challenge as an exciting new horizon, not some discrediting ambiguity. If enough people in enough diverse places make the attempt together, surely some will hit on winning approaches.
In this discussion, I'm mainly concerned with potential processes for getting from here to there - e.g., how we engage with the existing system to transform it into the one we seek - but if you want a deeper exploration, I wrote an earlier piece that might be helpful: OWS Next Step: Change City Charters, Become Official Institutions. Now, I should make it clear that I think this idea transcends the Occupy movement - it should be attractive to everyone who wants a more accountable, fairer, and more open government. The movement may have inspired the idea, but it needs no one's permission to be attempted.
I. Historical Context
Odd as it may seem, the Roman Republic was - at least structurally - more democratic than the United States has ever been. The ruling body of Rome was not, as commonly portrayed, the Senate, but a system of Assemblies involving either specific classes or the general populace. Even the military had some level of internal democracy in the form of the Assembly of the Centuries wherein war, peace, and other martial matters could be voted upon. The Tribal Assembly, meanwhile, was the Roman General Assembly where the people wielded direct authority.
But the Republic didn't start out on a democratic footing - quite the contrary. It basically began on the same terms as the United States - wealthy, land-owning aristocrats making decisions amongst themselves on behalf of the state with essentially zero input from their social inferiors. For the average person, the overthrow of the monarchy could not have been especially meaningful, as - unlike in the US - it was never predicated on any kind of advanced revolutionary philosophy against which the social milieu could be judged. It was simply noblemen acting out of self-interest against a ruler they no longer supported.
However, for whatever reason, the Roman state had been put on a democratizing trajectory by the establishment of Republic, and a series of often violent inter-class controversies over the first few centuries of its history led to increasingly progressive reforms. High offices were no longer exclusive to the Patrician class; Plebeians gained full rights and autonomous governance; various land reforms were attempted, although the land-owning Patricians had a nasty habit of murdering their chief proponents; and so on.
Granted, even at the height of its democratic progress, Rome was never free by modern standards - women had no standing, and even men still needed some level of economic means to participate even in Plebeian affairs, so basically you had to be at least middle-class for any kind of access unless you were part of an influential social organization. But within those caveats, it was radically democratic compared to the structure of the United States today: A modestly solvent (but by no means rich) American has nowhere near the political power of a comparable Roman of the Republic, although we can say Americans have far more options and liberties.
In my view, then, it's a misunderstanding of historical context when people compare America's current situation to the Late Republic or Late Empire - that is not at all the analogy I see to where we are today. To my mind, we are entering a period far more comparable to the Conflict of the Orders in the Early to Middle Republic, when Plebeians first began to acquire political equality with Patricians through a series of struggles often attended by setbacks. In fact, the more I think about it, the closer the analogy seems to fit - the most eloquent and heroic leaders of the Plebeians of this time were often subject to assassination. If we include the 1930s through to the present time as a single era, it makes a lot of sense to see American politics in this context - Reaganism, Buscism, and the current wingnut depravity are simply The Empire Striking Back, and not nearly as effectually as is sometimes claimed.
Then, as now, reforms were usually preceded by extreme abuse and wantonness on the part of the ruling class while society in general suffered. Then, as now, the answers were/are to empower the Assemblies of the People. If we are serious about progress and create this institution for the first time in America, I don't think we're anywhere near the zenith of our history - I think it would just be the beginning. If a society with such overweening fascist impulses as Rome could remain a relatively democratic, relatively equal republic for going on four centuries before finally succumbing to dictatorship, what the hell are we doing acting as if that's too tall an order? We Americans, who inherit such a rich heritage of liberal philosophy and democratic governance? This is not even close to testing our limits, IMHO.
II. De Facto Authority
First, be clear about how political power begins - it begins as something held in fact, but not officially recognized: De facto authority, not de jure authority. In the murky depths of time, the lines of rulers sprang merely from the fact that one of their ancestors was stronger than their contemporaries, a better hunter, or just a more ruthless bastard - in other words, their power was a fact long before it was an institution. In the Greek city-states and Rome thereafter, democratic reforms and revolutions were merely the recognition of power that had already come to flourish among The People, not a gift given to them by their status quo rulers. Similarly, the Declaration of Independence created nothing that was not already there - it simply asserted a state of freedom that was well-established, and that the British monarchy was only lately trying to thwart.
So, the path to a direct democracy Fourth Branch of government must begin by creating the de facto authority behind it - only then would it later be recognized in law. We have to be realistic about the fact that laws do not create power, they merely acknowledge it or else render themselves irrelevant. What this means in practice is that General Assemblies must become routine features of local politics, and must be truly General - functions that attract a large and diverse enough segment of the population to wield inherent legitimacy that elected leaders would be foolish to ignore.
The output of these Assemblies should not be couched as suggestions, requests, or proposals, but as proclamations of authority with the force of The People behind them - however technically unfair or inaccurate the pretense is. After all, the Founders of the American Republic hardly had a majority of colonials on their side - the Declaration of Independence was, at best, supported by a third of the population, with another third indifferent and the remainder actively opposed. But with the assumption of authority, backed up with enough substance to make it credible, those who do not originally participate will choose to do so in order to take their share of the power thus asserted.
The Tory colonials did not fight a guerrilla war with the new Republic to return it to the British crown when it was clear the Revolution had succeeded - they just applied their conservative values to the new venue. And the same will be true of people who revile the very idea of a General Assembly: Once these institutions wield de facto authority, even their enemies would start showing up and demanding their share. That might suck for everyone else, but it's the unavoidable price of democracy - you have to let people in who don't even support the underlying concept of a democratic state. Fortunately, what they deprive everyone else of in terms of intelligent debate, their participation makes up for in lending the institution general acceptance.
This is one of those oddities of politics, and a remarkably potent source of hope to would-be liberators everywhere - the fact that you can bootstrap yourself a free republic out of a self-fulfilling prophecy of civic authority. Say "We demand freedom," and the rulers of society can just keep saying "No," and the very structure of the demand implicitly reinforces their right to deny it. Say "We will get freedom," and rulers can wield tradition, history, inertia, and fear of radical change against you, because you purport to acquire what is currently controlled by others. But say "We Are Free," and there is nothing rulers can say or do about it - the very act of saying it is its own proof, and leads to self-reinforcing actions that progressively undermine the power of unaccountable elites. So get people together in significant numbers and pass resolutions not saying "this is what we want," "this is what we hope for," or "this is what we demand," but "This is what we have chosen."
Given the population of many cities - tens or hundreds of thousands, or even millions - this would probably have to begin beneath even the municipal level, neighborhood-by-neighborhood or even block-by-block. But no matter how small the scale, every decision should be made with the same gravity, solemnity, and commitment as if voting on matters that affect the whole world - because, in truth, they do. "The General Assembly of the 400 Block of the City of __ of the State of ___ of the United States of America hereby proclaims that..." and so on. Given enough substance and participation, people get used to that kind of pretense, and start believing it - they start respecting it, and showing it deference. And that means elected leaders would find it increasingly expedient to do so themselves. Eventually, matters resolved by the General Assembly take on the effective force of government even before the rest of the government overtly acknowledges it as such, and at some point it will be in a position to finally enshrine its implicit prerogatives into explicit law.
III. De Jure Authority
i. Local
To achieve de jure authority, a critical mass of municipal and sub-municipal General Assemblies would have to have achieved de facto authority as outlined above - a condition defined by its proceedings becoming a part of well-recognized, respected community routine that attracts a reasonably representative assortment of the population and whose resolutions are, on balance, neither timid nor ludicrous. They must have demonstrated the ability to independently and effectively implement decisions, to collaborate with elected leaders while holding them accountable, and to continuously engage the community at large rather than devolving into an insular clique of flakes and gadflies.
At that point the Assemblies would already be functioning as a branch of local government, although a lot of effort would still be needed to force the existing authority to codify that fact into law. If there are sub-municipal Assemblies, they must decide amongst themselves how to operate in parallel as a single municipal entity to exercise authority over the entire city, and must also consult with their elected allies to craft amendments to city charters that provide the right structure of checks and balances. If possible, the best way would be through a local plebiscite - that way the Assemblies could craft the language themselves without having to deal with all the loopholes Mayors, City Councils, and various bureaucracies would otherwise try to insert to protect their prerogatives. If there is no current mechanism for local plebiscites, perhaps Step 1 should be to change that and then use the newly enacted process to pass the more radical reorganization.
The same principles would work countywide, although it should be clear that each level of GA would not be a separate institution, just a larger number of the same local institutions voting in parallel. Essentially, every General Assembly would exercise multiple levels of authority - on the lowest level, as the direct democratic authority for its otherwise undivided jurisdiction; above that, it would be one of a number of constituents of a larger GA, although ideally it would all still be 1-person-1-vote over the entirety rather than having GAs acting as collective electors; and any number of levels above that would also occur. In other words, once the institution had reached full maturity, the same group of people would discuss and vote on matters ranging from the ultra-local to the global, exercising a proportionally smaller (but nonzero) level of authority each step upward.
This would make things far more interesting than a mere participatory City Council meeting. However small your share of power in the decision, you might have occasion to vote on war and peace, impeachments of high national or international officers, state or federal constitutional amendments, or great international endeavors to address global problems and pursue new frontiers for humankind. And, of course, far more often, the boring stuff that most directly affects our quality of life - road maintenance, street lights, zoning, water quality, etc.
ii. State
Before a state government could be officially democratized, there must be a critical mass of local governments within it that already have functioning General Assemblies at least on the de facto level, and have demonstrated in practice their ability to operate in parallel on statewide issues. States where ballot initiatives are already a regular process with an easy-to-meet threshold would be the easiest to approach, and the second most advantageous would be ones that appear ready to enact an initiative process. Those less amenable to plebiscites would be harder to convince, and those whose constitutions disallow it - and whose sociopolitical cultures would be hostile to it - would be the toughest nuts to crack.
In a state like California, where there is not only a ballot initiative process in effect, but one that can be used to change the State constitution, the climate is very amenable once sufficient growth has occurred locally. The usual suspects in the "authoritarian" column would likely be the last to convert, but even their grotesquely corrupt and fascistic governments couldn't stand in the way for very long if de facto authority is achieved. So, on the state level there are a number of pathways from de facto authority to constitutional recognition, depending on prevailing conditions and laws:
1. Plebiscite instituting State GA.
2. Convincing elected legislature to institute State GA.
3. Plebiscite changing State constitution to allow State GA --> Plebiscite instituting State GA.
4. Plebiscite changing State constitution to allow State GA --> Convincing elected legislature to institute State GA.
5. Convince elected legislature to enact statewide plebiscite process --> Use process to institute State GA.
6. Pursue court cases seeking to establish precedents that increasingly compel recognition of State GA, or at least smooth the road ahead of it.
Probably the easiest and most powerful way to "convince" elected leaders of the benefits of enshrining a General Assembly in law would be for GAs to stack local regulatory boards with their people, putting the screws to legislators in the state capital who try to bring home the bacon while standing in the way of progress. The same bargain must be presented to them that the corporate lobbyists have so effectively presented to them in the past - in order to keep their gravy train flowing, they will have to cede some of their power.
iii. Federal
Once a substantial number of states have been democratized and their elected governments brought under General Assembly oversight, it would be a lot easier to pass a federal Constitutional Amendment than under the current system given the role of state legislatures in the process. US Congressmen and Senators would also be susceptible to the same local leverage as state legislators, although they would be more slippery given their access to transnational corporate funding. On balance, the Senate would be far tougher to crack than the House, since so much of its power is disproportionately wielded by low-population states dominated by a handful of politically aggressive industries.
Smaller countries with governments that are already more or less democratic might have an easier time of instituting a national General Assembly. Of course, plenty of other free countries would have a harder time due to the density and opacity of their political cultures. France, for instance, despite its social democracy and highly active protest movements, also has an amazingly Byzantine government-industrial complex that might be even harder to change precisely because it's more progressive and tends to include labor unions and leftists on the inside. Others would have difficulties because their actual cultures, and not just their politics, are subject to extreme forms of corruption that leave communities horribly divided, distrustful, and fatalistic. And, of course, plenty of countries are just now beginning to experiment with the limited republican form of democracy, so de jure General Assemblies would be down the road a ways.
iv. Regional / Ad Hoc
Given the emergent nature of higher-level General Assemblies - i.e., they're comprised of a multitude of local ones working in parallel, like how a supercomputer operates - you could arrange them in completely arbitrary ways to reflect various overlapping geographic, economic, or cultural alignments. E.g., North America, Western Hemisphere, Mediterranean, Pacific islands, the tropics, Arctic nations, exporters of any given commodity, importers of any given commodity, nations most threatened by climate change, Turkic peoples, etc. etc. It would make for some fascinating dynamics, and expose the global economy to democratic involvement. And it would also have relatively little overhead, since all levels of business would be conducted by the same groups of people in the same meetings in which they're deciding local matters.
A hundred nobodies in Nowheresville, Minnesota sitting in a high school gymnasium voting on putting a stop sign at the corner of X and Y; then voting on impeaching a county water commissioner for failing to report gifts from a contractor; then to extend a State Highway into a new branch; then to censure a state Supreme Court Justice for saying something outrageous; then to raise federal taxes on job-exporters; to conclude an agreement with Mexico on something or other; vote on a measure before the league of grain exporting countries; and then to pass more stringent global regulations on oil drilling in international waters. And all of it would have an effect - none of it would be kabuki. One day a week, they get to Sit At The Table and have a voice that cannot be silenced, a vote that cannot be tossed in the garbage, and stand with all the peoples of the world in contemplation and decision.
v. Global
To do this doesn't even require that most people on the planet have access to a free and fair General Assembly: Much like the original municipal case, all it takes is enough people claiming to be asserting their proportion of global authority that the assertion becomes fact and generates its own momentum. There would thus be an incentive for more and more people to offer their votes to the pool, however small a fraction of the total theirs would be. Of course, it would eventually be tainted by authoritarian Potemkin Assemblies whose "votes" are determined in advance by oppressive elites, but in some cases these institutions would be delegitimized by the others and - in a few cases - might actually backfire on the governments perpetrating them by empowering their oppressed citizens to turn the farce into something real.
On the plus side, there isn't much in the way of existing institutional power to obstruct the development of a global democracy - corporations and financial institutions notwithstanding - so de facto and de jure authority would be coincident. Once you have any significant number of the world's people voting on world affairs as a united humanity, you would already have achieved the creation of global democracy - no external recognition would be necessary. National governments would resist, but would ultimately have to recognize it because it's the same people who vote in the General Assemblies that regulate their own decisions, conducting business in the exact same meetings. Once they had recognized GA authority on their own level, they have no choice but to recognize it on every level - the only alternative would be to operate as a besieged colonial government whose only support comes from outside, and that is unsustainable regardless of how ruthless they are.
Democracy On Every Level can happen, and should happen. It's the next step for us as a nation and as a species.