Comments on: Democracy, Part 1: Elements

By: Michael Sappir

Michael Sappir — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:51:53 +0000

The bulletin boards get increasingly regulated, but mainly on two counts:
1. Clarity (at some point in SJ’s third or fourth year, a regulation was created saying all notices should be printed, not hand-written – and the office computer was available for anyone who needed to print something)
2. Order – as the bulletin boards multiplied and specialized, generally each serving a specific type of announcement, it became more or less officially regulated that certain types of announcements go on certain boards, and also, to an extent, that certain types of announcements were not appropriate (but in most cases such were left hanging until space became scarce, and there was still at least one unregulated board when I left the school.)
So they generally still remain democratic, I would say.

As for the “crier”, there was absolutely no structure around this during my time at SJ (nor is there, to my knowledge, since). In my last year there, when I was Chair of School Meeting, I used to – on my own initiative – run around before meetings and poke my head into each room and say “School Meeting is starting”. As for the announcements slot in School Meeting, it is simply a point on the agenda where anybody present may announce anything whatsoever, and others are allowed to ask questions (but not reply, because the point is to make announcements, not start discussions. Of course, you can always frame a reply as a question, and many do this.) The Meeting progresses to the next point when nobody has any more announcements to make, but not a minute sooner.

Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out.

It looks like it will take me another few days to get blogging again, including my comments on your proposal, but hopefully I will get there soon.

By: yoramgat

yoramgat — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:42:45 +0000

Word of mouth is an intimate communication method. A bulletin board, if completely unregulated (anyone can put notices at will), is not intimate but is a democratic communication channel. The use of a crier and official announcement slots are, however, broadcast channels that give whoever controls them significant political power. Who decides what the crier says? Who decides what announcements are made? 100 people is probably a group larger than can sustain an equalitarian all-to-all communication format (except in unusual circumstances, where the stakes are high and an expensive support structure is in place). The reason is that it is practically cognitively impossible to become truly familiar with the opinions of 100 people on all the matters that need addressing in a society. By the way, if you are not aware of it, you may be interested in this classic tract: THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS. I am waiting with interest for your comments about my proposal for democratic media.

By: Michael Sappir

Michael Sappir — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:41:48 +0000

Ah, but this is the key – democratic schools are intimate democracies. Sudbury schools typically have 150 students at most (most have much less than that), a number which incidentally keeps showing up in sociological studies as a “magic number” of people which is the maximum that can work together with the benefits of intimacy. (I would cite a source, but unfortunately my copy of Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, where this matter is discussed at length, has disappeared.) As such, communication in most Sudbury schools is based on very simple, small-scale media:
-Word of mouth
-Vocal announcements (including walking around the school and repeating the announcement like a town crier, when meetings start etc.; and an “announcements” time-slot in each school meeting, for example)
-Bulletin boards where notices are put up, usually divided by topic/type of notice (Sudbury Jerusalem had one such board in its first year, and last time I was there there were about 5 of them… They multiply as the school grows.)
This basically works just fine when you have less than 100 students. I haven’t personally visited Sudbury schools with more than that, but apparently it works with 130 or 150 just as well.

Your proposal is intriguing, but I do see a few potential problems with it. I will write a detailed reply some time in the coming weeks, either as a reply to your post or as a post here on sappir.net. I wish I could do so now but there are other things that require my attention.

By: yoramgat

yoramgat — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:52:14 +0000

[M]y focus [is] on democratic schools, where mass media is a non-issue, for obvious reasons.

"Mass" starts at surprisingly small scales. I argue in the that within any non-intimate group - more than a few dozen people - the model of all-to-all communication is not feasible making the question of control of communication channels non-trivial. How do you think communication should take place in a democratic school?

[D]o you propose rather that the mass media become a state monopoly as a matter of principle, becoming, in its entirety, a part of the democratic bureaucracy?

Entrusting a professional organization with such a powerful political tool is risky as well. My proposal is here: Implementation of democratic mass media.

By: Michael Sappir

Michael Sappir — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:56:46 +0000

In reply to Michael Sappir.

Point well taken.

As for mass media, that’s an interesting point, and a matter I have not given much thought to (this probably has something to do with my focus on democratic schools, where mass media is a non-issue, for obvious reasons.)

But aren’t regulations enacted on mass media by the government a form of democratic control? Or do you propose rather that the mass media become a state monopoly as a matter of principle, becoming, in its entirety, a part of the democratic bureaucracy?

By: yoramgat

yoramgat — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:46:32 +0000

In reply to Michael Sappir.

Certainly, describing a democracy as a system in which political power is distributed equally would be a very concise way of saying exactly what has to be said, no more and no less, but it is a definition that requires further extrapolation to make sense.

Carrying out exactly this extrapolation is a fruitful way to explore what a democratic system would look like. For example, it appears to me that if we accept that democracy is the equality of political power, then we must see some characteristics of the Western political system (U.S., Western Europe, Israel, Australia, India, etc.) as inherently incompatible with democracy.

One major source of political power is control of mass media. In all Western systems mass media is controlled by a very small group of unrepresentative people. Control of mass media gives those people extremely disproportionate influence over the public agenda – who can be elected and what public policy is being considered.

Democratic control over mass media is a prerequisite for a democratic system of government. Thus, capitalist control of mass media – which is a phenomenon common to all Western countries – is undemocratic.

By: Michael Sappir

Michael Sappir — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:04:19 +0000

In reply to yoramgat.

Hi Yoram,
Thank you for your reply and the link to your post. I had not encountered that definition before but it seems very apt.

At any rate, what I meant was mainly that democracy is no mandate for whoever happens to be in the majority to blatantly ignore the interests of the minority. Clearly, this part of the definition becomes meaningless in many situations, but for a clear description of democracy it seems to me a useful element. Certainly, describing a democracy as a system in which political power is distributed equally would be a very concise way of saying exactly what has to be said, no more and no less, but it is a definition that requires further extrapolation to make sense. I opted, perhaps out of ignorance, to use a definition that describes in a more immediate manner what actually goes on in a democracy. This sort of definition seemed appropriate to my purpose.

Nonetheless, I believe I will refer to your definition as well in future posts, and I thank you for introducing me to it.

By: yoramgat

yoramgat — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:56:58 +0000

Hi Michael,

I, like you, am a(n Israeli) blogger interested in democracy – its theory and practice.

I think that the answer to your question,

What is democracy?

is rather straightforward. The issue tends to be confused by interested parties who are unhappy with the straightforward answer, and thus use meaningless platitudes such as the one you quoted from the dictionary (“government by the people”).

Your Rousseau-like offer of “[t]he majority rules, but only under the condition that it cares for everyone’s interests, not only its own” sounds nice, but is not helpful. It presents a condition that is at best completely subjective and in reality nonsensical in many situations. People’s interests are often in conflict – there is no rule which would “care” for everyone’s interests. At the same time, many political actors claim to be promoting everyone’s interests (and sometimes truly believe themselves to be doing so) and yet others see them as being self-serving.

The simple definition of democracy – the one that reflects most people’s intuitive understanding of the term – is that it is a system of government in which political power is distributed equally. Everything else should and can be derived from that.

Please see more on this matter on my blog, and particularly at this post: Non-intimate democracy.

Best,
Yoram Gat

By: Democracy, Part 2: Structure « Michael Sappir

Democracy, Part 2: Structure « Michael Sappir — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:30:24 +0000

[…] constant vigil in defense both of its structures and of its spirit (the concepts discussed in Part 1 of this series), but procedures allow the democratic community to agree on a certain course of action without the […]