I've had a bit of a radical thought; Is it possible to vote in direct democracy?

Obviously, with only a few weeks to go until the UK general election, there's no time to start a campaign, but there's always next time, or for local council elections, or abroad. But, could it, in theory, be possible to have an independant stand for election who gauruntees to put every single one of thier votes in parliment, up for refferendum by thier constituants? Constituants would also be able to propose suggestions and collectivly work on creating bills for parliment.

Now, I've taken into account the problems with such an idea and I'm going to try go through them:

1) They'd never get elected! This is a fair point to make. The mainstream media would be 100% against any candidate who cannot be controled to bow to the will of corporate intrests. Expect smear campaigns gallore if the candidate ever gained any popularity. However, there is much to do with public opinion tha tcannot be controled by the media. Also, the particular credentials, or personality of the candidate is irrelivant, so long as it's able to be proved that they are not able to tamper with the votes of contituants on individual issues. Full transparancy may well counter any accuasation the media may make.

2) There's far too much information in a bill, or act of parliment for every member of the community to be able to read and understand its implications so that they can make an informed choice. Again, fair point to make. I cant see even 5% of the constituants reading and understanding the whole of a single act or bill of parliment, let alone every one of the things. In every community though, there are always going to be a few who do though and they are often very willing to offer thier opinions on the bills and acts and thier reasons for it. Some of these people will be loonies of course, but it'd be up to the community to deciede who's interpretations to trust. Eventually it'd all work itself out I'm sure.

3) Wont it all just be stormed by entryist tactics by our "enemies" (I'm not reffering to Trotskyists really, but any party that would command its members to vote a certain way). Yes, that would certainly happen. I can easily imagine the local Tory/Labour/BNP/etc party sitting around a table listening from an expert, why they should vote in a certain way and then having whips within branches to make sure they did. Do I see that as a problem though? No. I dont see that kind of party politics any different than a bunch of anarchists meeting up and discussing thier tactics for the next few weeks, except we dont have whips. If anything, it'd probaly result in an explosion of new small "parties" gathering together to discuss how they should vote and getting people who were apolitical before, suddenly taking an intrest and having an equal part of control over how thier MP votes.

4) Corruption. (Will do more on this in a bit)

There's a few more things but I just realised that I've got to get to work. Would certainly like to hear peoples' opinions.

You're right about the they would never get elected, most of all because average joe fears to have to decide, he fears to take decisions, thats probably why people vote and ignore the results of their own actions. There's another bit failing in there, when you say :

'Constituants would also be able to propose suggestions and collectivly work on creating bills for parliment.'

Constituants would never work together, they are too busy bickering and measuring up their di** to see who has got the biggest one. (excuse the rather blunt example.)

Even if this happened it wouldn't be direct democracy

Even anarchists can get corrupted by power. After all, power tends to corrupt.

You reminded of the quote by Bakunin, "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself."

you might find this article of interest

Power doesn't corrupt - capitalists or dictators aren't evil because they have power, they do evil things because it's in the interests of the class they represent.

This is more my feeling on this issue. I think it would actually be interesting if anarchists or syndicalists RAN in an election for the sake of exposing the process, but voting for "direct democracy" in this way does not allow working class people to develop their own leadership, learn how to take on the bosses and the agents of the system, it doesn't teach them how to run society in their own interests.

I disagree. Power is very corruptive. That's why all communist experiments have ended in failure so far, because pover is very, very corruptive. If a socislist society is ever to be successful, the leaders (if there are any) must be aware that power is corruptive, and step done as soon as the revolution is successful, or the state is abolished. If not, we'll get another Soviet Union.

It is not so much the fact that power is corruptive rather that of the examples of corruptive leaders it is usually the case that these leaders are in conflict with the interests of the working class when they are in a powerful position, these examples show a lack of power emanating from working class councils, soviets etc. This isn't corruptive as such, however it does show us the pitfalls of centralised political authority and the inability of such structures to destroy class antagonisms.

Argument, your argument against communism and "power" is a wee bit simplistic.

Ima agree with Argument, here. Power that is concentrated into the hands of a few will nearly always corrupt - if not, then those who hold power will become out of touch with the interests of those who they represent. And if socialism is the democratic control of society and economy, then why have a representative when it should be the workers themselves that hold power? Democracy isn't about electing a minority that does what it pleases, it should be about everyone who can make decisions doing just that - making the decisions. Everyone must be part of the decision and law-making processes or there is no democracy.

I think it would be good if I gave a definition of what I mean with "power". I do not mean the "power" to chose for oneself, or the "power" over ones labor. With power, I mean power over other people, the power to control, to force people to do things against their will. This sort of power is usually centralized and taken by politicians and bureaucrats. Dictators and oligarchies have a lot of power. I believe that each person should have "power" over his life, but not over other people's life. I should not get to make decisions for you, you should not get to make decisions for me, Lenin should not coerce me into following his bidding, or any other leader.

When a person has achieved a great deal of power, he tends to like it. He sees that people follow him, do his bidding, listen to him, perhaps they even worship him. Cults and politics are similar in this way. This power is corruptive. Finding a successful political leader that is not corrupted by power is hard. Lenin was. Stalin was. Mao was. Hitler was. George Bush (both) was. Bill Clinton was. Göran Persson was. It is clear, that power is very corruptive. Have you seen the movie Die Welle, or The Wave? That shows clearly how power can be, and usually is, corruptive. Animal Farm is another great example how power tends to corrupt. It's true, power tends to corrupt.

Indeed. Even then, direct democracy should not be binding, or else it might turn into the tyranny of the majority. Direct democracy is quite good, yet if a majority wants me dead, and they vote for it, should I have to listen? Nay, I say. Each individual should be sovereign. People should cooperate, but only if that is their wish. True democracy is wonderful, yet it should not be absolute. Greece (while being a flawed democracy) voted that Socrates was to be killed because of his blasphemy. In an anarchist society, democracy must not be binding.

Let me quote "An Anarchist FAQ": "So, yes, anarchists do support individual freedom to resist even democratically made decisions simply because democracy has to be based on individual liberty. Without the right of dissent, democracy becomes a joke and little more than a numerical justification for tyranny."

People would be conditioned - like they're conditioned under capitalism to be competitive - under socialism and even before the revolution to co-operate, to make good decisions, etc. The full power of the people under socialism would be limited by a constitution or something similar, as I feel capital punishment to be barbaric. This all gets drilled into peoples' heads when the time comes that the state ceases to exist.

Of course worker's power should never be concentrated in a few hands - but not because those hands will be automatically corrupted, it's simply because it would be the absolutely least effective way for a majority class, workers, to organize collectively. Not to mention that the more all of our creative and mental powers can be utilized, the more likely we will be to get the best and most diverse choice for how to solve our collective problems.

Great point. And even if this minority had the best of intentions, how could they even know what the needs of so many people are.

Agreed with argument here. Look at what happened in Russia after the revolution? Look at kronstadt, suppressed and crushed by the red army. The cheka went around arresting anarchists, and others who thought they would have true freedom. Not to mention what Trotsky did to the Ukrainian anarchists, even though they helped the red army fight the white army during the civil war.

Well, the thing is that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, even Bush and Clinton did not rule their respective nations with absolute power (yes, I'm even defending Bush and Clinton to some degree.) They may have been the figureheads of their respective governments, but governments do not consist of one person. To claim that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc were corrupted by power and thus ruled their countries with iron fists is a laughably simplistic argument that doesn't take into account the historical context they were in, at the very least. I'd expect that kind of stuff from Glenn Beck, not revolutionary leftists.

I agree that they did not rule alone, but there certainly were without power. Let's say that Mao, for example, wasn't corrupted by power. Perhaps he was powerless, just an old man being the front of the party, of the state? Nevertheless, those with the power were certainly corrupted. Those in the "Inner Party". Power is centralized into the hands of a few instead of abolished or decentralized into the hands of the many. The individual doesn't get to rule himself, the people are forced to follow the rule of the elite.

If a Socialist society is to come about it has to come about without leaders.
Leaders need followers and followers by definition don't know where they're going, what you get with leaders is the blind leading the blinkered, the berserk leading the bewildered. It's irresponsible to give over your social responsibility to someone else to exercise for you.