“People’s assemblies are not to be confused with citizens’
assemblies, in which randomly chosen citizens are put through a process of
learning by a wide range of experts leading to an in depth knowledge and
perspective about a specific issue before voting on it.”
So begins XR’s 24 page pamphlet on how to build a People’s
Assembly. XR are not very happy with
capitalism and the more cynical reader might wonder if the coming climate cataclysm
is merely a convenient cloak to mask their deeper aims of dismantling
parliamentary democracy.
To be fair it
remains unclear exactly whether these People’s Assemblies are seen as a
compliment to Parliamentary Democracy or a direct replacement for it. However, one could make an argument that as
an organisation with the stated aim of bringing down Parliamentary Democracy XR
should be a proscribed organisation.
Its statement that…
Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’
Assembly on climate and ecological justice -The third demand of Extinction
Rebellion
…sounds very like XR just doesn’t believe in Parliamentary
Democracy. Then again neither does the government so maybe they're just going with the flow...
Then again a page ago they told us that they wanted things
to be run by Citizen’s Assemblies not People’s Assemblies …but they now appear
to use the phrases interchangeably…?
However, without getting too side-tracked by semantics … let
us look at how this People’s Assembly is supposed to work… Firstly how are these assemblies supposed to
be selected? Well, sortition…
....that is participants
would be selected by lottery. But what
if someone won but didn’t want the job?
Would they be forced to take on the position like with jury service…? We don’t know. Of course there would have to be experts to advise the randomly selected plebs. Sir Humphrey would be pleased.
But would politicians who were selected and therefore didn't have to worry about being re-elected really be that nice...? Maybe XR really believe that sortition will end political
factionalism – a recent article I discovered on the Huffandpuffandpost seemed
to suggest this …
....but just as vested interests can combine to pervert
representative democracy so I’m sure that they’ll one day combine to pervert
sortition?
Doubtless XR don't see it this way and I'm just an old cynic and when we all return to the land it will all be sorted out and we won’t end up with just another Khmer Rouge but...
Asked questions on a recent BBC3 documentary about whether
his organisation is preying on young impressionable people Roger Hallam who would
appear to be one of their leaders claimed that it is a democratic organisation …
not a sortition organisation then? Make up your mind!
The
XR guide squares this circle by explaining that:
“People’s Assemblies are also part of the deep adaptation
that communities will have to go through in order to face together the growing
impact of climate and biodiversity breakdown. As societal structures collapse,
we are going to have to reclaim power for our communities and these forms of
participatory democracy will become essential to the way we organise.”
However, if the assemblies arise organically from their
communities that’s not sortition, is it? Actually its feudalism...?
The process of the assemblies is described in hilarious
detail.
“Effective assemblies achieve radical inclusivity, where the
emphasis on all being heard and valued equally means no voices are dominating
and the collective wisdom of the assembly can be reached.”
“Assemblies are not an arena for intellectual jousting or
point scoring but a place that recognises that no one person or group holds all
the answers and that through the wisdom of the crowds we achieve powerful
intelligence about the core issues being discussed.”
How scientific.
Fortunately there will be “facilitators” to guide the proletariat
through this process.
“It is essential that the facilitators and Assembly team
enable this trust through sticking to the agreed process and ensuring that
everyone follows the facilitators”
The meetings are then to be organised using a series of hand
gestures.
Pointing - When someone in the group wants to say something
they put their finger up and wait for the facilitator to let them have their
turn in speaking. It is vital that people do not talk over anyone else and
waits their turn. If some people put their
finger up to speak and have not yet said anything while others have spoken a
lot, then the facilitator gives that person priority over the ‘stack’ (the queue or order of speakers based on the
order they raised their finger to
speak).
Wavy Hands (I Agree) - If someone says something that you
agree with, it is important to give the ‘wavy hands’ signal of approval.
Speak up - If you can’t hear someone ask them to raise their
voice by raising and lowering your hands, palms open and facing up.
Clarification - If someone says something that is unclear,
people will hold out their hand in a ‘C’ shape as the ‘clarification’ signal.
The Facilitator will then pause the discussion until the Clarification is made.
Direct (or Information) Point - If someone says something,
and another person has directly relevant information to add, that person makes
the ‘direct point’ hand signal and the facilitator will let them provide that
relevant information immediately after the person has finished their point.
Technical point - If someone has information that is
immediately relevant to the well being of the entire group, they make a
‘technical point’ signal by making a ‘T’ shape with their hands.
Round Up - Facilitators need to ensure that no one speaks
for more than 2 minutes. If someone is nearing the 2 minutes the facilitator
makes the ‘Round up’ hand signal by making a circular motion with their
hands. This must be done sensitively but
firmly.
So there you are … everyone will only have 2 minutes to say
what they have to say in – like a game show… There are one or two hand gestures / interventions missing –
for example for dissent.
Can I suggest the closed fist with extended middle finger – If someone thinks someone is very wrong?
In case that’s too simple for you here’s a flow chart…
Looking forward into further detail I find the decision
making assemblies of the future are now to resemble open mic gigs :
“Ideally
ask for a woman to speak first (It has been shown that this will greatly
increase the level of engagement of female participants. The rate of engagement
and uptake for males isn’t affected in the same way), and allow as much dead
air as is necessary for people to build up the courage to come and talk.
Be strict with timing but ensure that people speaking are supported and made completely safe in their sharing. Ideally work with two facilitators so that one facilitator ‘guards’ mic and keeps stack, whilst one sits in front of speaker with timer and gives ‘round up’ hand signal as they approach 2 mins.”
Be strict with timing but ensure that people speaking are supported and made completely safe in their sharing. Ideally work with two facilitators so that one facilitator ‘guards’ mic and keeps stack, whilst one sits in front of speaker with timer and gives ‘round up’ hand signal as they approach 2 mins.”
So are open mic gigs the saviour of the planet and better
than democracy? I think – to steal a
phrase from John Rentoul – I, as an ex-open mic promoter, can categorically
state that this is a question to which the answer is “No”. On the other hand at least it's one more open mic gig in London that's not a bringer...
This manual from which I quote was constructed with the help
of activists from 15M, Stop the G8, the Fearless Cities global municipalism
movement and majority world activists from Ghana and Senegal. Because, of course, basically Extinction
Rebellion is an old fashioned Marxist project and the reason it wants to fall
back on old failed ideas like sortition is because it can’t achieve its aims
via the ballot box. If it has aims. Asked by BBC3 what solutions he has to the
climate change crisis Roger Hallam said “that’s not our job”?
So what is their job?
One suspects old fashioned Communist Revolution...
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
