Post by s e pearson on Sept 8, 2011 4:37:03 GMT -5
I’ve thrown this essay together in something of a rush because I believe it needs to be being considered at this crucial moment. A more developed version of this document will hopefully appear somewhere soon (It need not be authored by me by the way).
So great, the British Radical Right has accepted that the traditional conventional political party strategy doesn’t work and that we need something new.
So here is a concrete proposal, the DRM 11 tactical model. Designed to be fully compatible with “democratic”, "traditional", "classical", “rational” or “anarcho” nationalist ideologies, DRM 11 is optimised to be effective in the current political terrain or in any conceivable future one..
DRM 11 (or DReaM 11) stands for Democratic Revolutionary Method 2011, 2011 is added to allow it to be differentiated from revised versions which succeed it later.
Design Overview
The Mechanism is designed in response to an analysis of the weaknesses of Establishment power. Primarily and specifically two weaknesses.
The lack of democratic legitimacy of the elite.
The relative weakness of the Establishment at a local grassroots level.
The Mechanism is designed to be compatible with all ideologies, which is too say that it is equally valid for any dissident group whether they be of the traditional left or right. This allows it to maximise the potential users of the system and facilitate cooperation between all radical groups.
Operating Principle
The Mechanism is designed to subvert state power and create parallel or rival democratic systems at a hyper local level. It does not deliver any pre-determined political outcomes other than that.
Once the Mechanism has been successfully deployed it creates an environment in which radicalism can compete with mainstream orthodoxy. Moreover because it brings about localised democracies it promotes the politicisation of populations where it has been successfully deployed.
The Mechanism
The Mechanism is simple. Win a council ward and convert it to a direct democracy by issuing a charter or constitution which gives the electorate direct control over the council vote belonging to the ward. For example the electorate could vote to decide whether their councillor votes for or against a rise in Council Tax.
The specific mechanism used to implement the direct democracy can be varied in the light of experience. For example the elected “representative” could be allowed to exercise their judgement in how they cast the ward’s vote unless a petition of more than X (say 5% of the electorate) is presented in which case the representative is converted to a delegate and votes as demanded. If rival petitions are generated the decision can be by simple majority. This system allows the electorate to ignore minor issues by leaving the representative to decide.
Most likely “voting caucuses” would quickly emerge in a democratised environment. Interested citizens would rapidly identify like minded individuals and such “networks” would be able to generate petitions very easily. Electronic communication would make gathering petitions no more complex than a stroll around the neighbourhood.
Note there is nothing to stop a “representative” raising their own petitions which means that they can be active in the process.
Delivery
The Mechanism can only work if its operator wins the election.
It is anticipated that successful implementation of the Mechanism will breed confidence in it and generate considerable interest. It could potentially then be adopted by all sorts of radical groups thanks to its political neutrality, leading to an explosive chain reaction. This chain reaction, if successfully initiated, has the potential to destroy the centralised state with a matter of years. Without the apparatus of the state the Establishment would be have lost the weapon they rely on to impose their agenda. Moreover if it were destroyed there would be no prospect of the establishment launching a counter revolution. The nation would have been secured; permanently.
If the Mechanism had initiated such a chain reaction adoption of the Mechanism by electoral candidates would be a considerable advantage to them in its own right. However initial successes are only likely to be achieved if backed by aggressive conventional campaigning i.e extensive canvassing and “knocking up” on election day.
It is strongly advised that potential operators of the Mechanism prepare the ground for its deployment by establishing networks and identifying a support base within their local communities prior to any election.
Due to the undemocratic nature of the current system the Mechanism can also be implemented by stealth. There is nothing to stop someone who didn’t mention it during the election simply unilaterally imposing it after they have won. Existing councillors could implement it right now
Progression
Control of one ward allows for democratisation; however control of a majority of wards by Mechanism operators would effectively create a direct democracy with the power of a local council.
At that point it is entirely possible for a democratised Council to claim a superior democratic mandate to Parliament and challenge its power. For example if cannabis is legalised by a direct democracy council then it can be claimed that its decision overrides that of the less democratic central government. This would bring the Council into conflict with the centralised state and bring the basis of state power, violence offered by its representatives, into sharp focus.
The Mechanism works with any elected office including that of MP. It is entirely conceivable that whole constituencies could be democratised and theoretically possible the entire state could be through a parliamentary majority. Although since the Mechanism makes a centralised state irrelevant presumably the only action of a democratised parliament would be to vote the state out of existence.
Communities politicised by the DRM 11 technique might well decide to go beyond it at some point. Abandoning the infiltrated and converted “representative democratic” system in favour of a system which is scratch designed to deliver democracy. Or indeed any other arrangements they like the idea of.
Note: DRM 11 is incompatible with a conventional political party.
So great, the British Radical Right has accepted that the traditional conventional political party strategy doesn’t work and that we need something new.
So here is a concrete proposal, the DRM 11 tactical model. Designed to be fully compatible with “democratic”, "traditional", "classical", “rational” or “anarcho” nationalist ideologies, DRM 11 is optimised to be effective in the current political terrain or in any conceivable future one..
DRM 11 (or DReaM 11) stands for Democratic Revolutionary Method 2011, 2011 is added to allow it to be differentiated from revised versions which succeed it later.
Design Overview
The Mechanism is designed in response to an analysis of the weaknesses of Establishment power. Primarily and specifically two weaknesses.
The lack of democratic legitimacy of the elite.
The relative weakness of the Establishment at a local grassroots level.
The Mechanism is designed to be compatible with all ideologies, which is too say that it is equally valid for any dissident group whether they be of the traditional left or right. This allows it to maximise the potential users of the system and facilitate cooperation between all radical groups.
Operating Principle
The Mechanism is designed to subvert state power and create parallel or rival democratic systems at a hyper local level. It does not deliver any pre-determined political outcomes other than that.
Once the Mechanism has been successfully deployed it creates an environment in which radicalism can compete with mainstream orthodoxy. Moreover because it brings about localised democracies it promotes the politicisation of populations where it has been successfully deployed.
The Mechanism
The Mechanism is simple. Win a council ward and convert it to a direct democracy by issuing a charter or constitution which gives the electorate direct control over the council vote belonging to the ward. For example the electorate could vote to decide whether their councillor votes for or against a rise in Council Tax.
The specific mechanism used to implement the direct democracy can be varied in the light of experience. For example the elected “representative” could be allowed to exercise their judgement in how they cast the ward’s vote unless a petition of more than X (say 5% of the electorate) is presented in which case the representative is converted to a delegate and votes as demanded. If rival petitions are generated the decision can be by simple majority. This system allows the electorate to ignore minor issues by leaving the representative to decide.
Most likely “voting caucuses” would quickly emerge in a democratised environment. Interested citizens would rapidly identify like minded individuals and such “networks” would be able to generate petitions very easily. Electronic communication would make gathering petitions no more complex than a stroll around the neighbourhood.
Note there is nothing to stop a “representative” raising their own petitions which means that they can be active in the process.
Delivery
The Mechanism can only work if its operator wins the election.
It is anticipated that successful implementation of the Mechanism will breed confidence in it and generate considerable interest. It could potentially then be adopted by all sorts of radical groups thanks to its political neutrality, leading to an explosive chain reaction. This chain reaction, if successfully initiated, has the potential to destroy the centralised state with a matter of years. Without the apparatus of the state the Establishment would be have lost the weapon they rely on to impose their agenda. Moreover if it were destroyed there would be no prospect of the establishment launching a counter revolution. The nation would have been secured; permanently.
If the Mechanism had initiated such a chain reaction adoption of the Mechanism by electoral candidates would be a considerable advantage to them in its own right. However initial successes are only likely to be achieved if backed by aggressive conventional campaigning i.e extensive canvassing and “knocking up” on election day.
It is strongly advised that potential operators of the Mechanism prepare the ground for its deployment by establishing networks and identifying a support base within their local communities prior to any election.
Due to the undemocratic nature of the current system the Mechanism can also be implemented by stealth. There is nothing to stop someone who didn’t mention it during the election simply unilaterally imposing it after they have won. Existing councillors could implement it right now
Progression
Control of one ward allows for democratisation; however control of a majority of wards by Mechanism operators would effectively create a direct democracy with the power of a local council.
At that point it is entirely possible for a democratised Council to claim a superior democratic mandate to Parliament and challenge its power. For example if cannabis is legalised by a direct democracy council then it can be claimed that its decision overrides that of the less democratic central government. This would bring the Council into conflict with the centralised state and bring the basis of state power, violence offered by its representatives, into sharp focus.
The Mechanism works with any elected office including that of MP. It is entirely conceivable that whole constituencies could be democratised and theoretically possible the entire state could be through a parliamentary majority. Although since the Mechanism makes a centralised state irrelevant presumably the only action of a democratised parliament would be to vote the state out of existence.
Communities politicised by the DRM 11 technique might well decide to go beyond it at some point. Abandoning the infiltrated and converted “representative democratic” system in favour of a system which is scratch designed to deliver democracy. Or indeed any other arrangements they like the idea of.
Note: DRM 11 is incompatible with a conventional political party.