This post only expresses the opinion of the author
In a recent post we made public a document written by DiD about how we feel about DiEM25’s position on the Italian Constitutional referendum. The text is signed DiD because it was approved in a meeting and then submitted to an approval vote by all active members. However, it was also agreed that this text should be sent to all DSC’s and to the CC but we have not done that. Why? Well, we are learning.
Talking about this topic with other DiD members it has become apparent that not everyone felt part of the process. Obviously there are two sides of the issue. The first one is if DiD has managed to communicate in a sufficiently effective way with its members the action that has been started and the procedure to approve or reject such an action. The second is personal commitment.
Irrespective of how much information someone receives, if there is no motivation for action, no action will follow the invitation to take part. However, a decision cannot be considered legitimate unless ALL stake holders have had a real chance of being part of the process. I.e. the key to a healthy democratic process is information. Only a well informed individual can decide when and how his or her input is required from her or his part. The democratic subject is a well informed individual.
Although there were implicit procedures in the way the the text on the Italian issue was drafted, edited and approved, we consider that being our first action it requires to go through the right channel. This channel, however, did not exist before, so we had to create it, we had to make a decision on how we make decisions. What sequence of procedures legitimates a DiD action? DiD, for the time being, has no representatives or elected roles and has no intention of having them. DiD has to make decisions, DiD has to elaborate documents, approve documents. When can those decision and documents be signed by DiD? In particular, we have concentrated ourselves on the writing and approval of texts.
The following steps have been agreed upon to start this process:
1) proposal for a topic of a text in meeting – voted upon
2) working on the proposal – dynamic document for a set time (announced by e-mail how long the document is open for work)
3) text posted in voting channel and voting, with exact deadline will be announced by e-mail
4) voting options should include an option “further discussion is needed”
5) decisions should also be announced by e-mail
As you see, it is not rocket science, but it is our decision, to it is worth gold.
Now, this mechanisms is not final, and the text above is just a draft (1), which everyone in DiD has been invited by mail to work upon (2). Once the writing up period is concluded everyone in DiD will be invited by e-mail to vote on the text (3) before a given deadline, one of the voting options will be “further discussion is needed” (4) and the result of the vote will be communicated by mail to all DiD members (5).
We have not addressed the majority issue. Do we need consensus? Do we need a half plus 1 majority? How do we interpret in democratic terms the numerical result of the vote?
Using this procedure, this provisional voting mechanisms, we have put the original text on DiEM25’s position on the Italian referendum back on the drawing board. One thing is for sure, we are making democratic progress.
Salud, Paz y Democracia.