Modern democratic movements seek to collectivize political power is decision-making by open assemblies of the many
In the bleak chronology of the third decade of the 21st century, the field of “alternatives” is dominated by the “alt-right”, the “new”, networked and internationalized authoritarian Right. Without having the same surface, the radical democratic “alter-politics” or “otra politica” (other politics), as it was baptized in the footsteps of the Zapatista movement in the 1990s, also survives, and partly spreads and diversifies (Hage 2015, Dixon 2014). The multifaceted dissemination of this emancipatory “other politics” of the new democratic movements has since then accompanied the global strengthening of the neoliberal principle.
A multitude of collective actions across the globe, from Chiapas in Mexico and the Arab Spring to the 2011 “squares” in Spain and Greece, Occupy, the new municipalism in Spain and the new forms of cooperatives, have engaged in particular ways. political intervention “from below”. They break with the centralized and bureaucratic policies that pervade parties and governments. But they are also moving away from the habits of modern activism and competition, which focus on protests and requests to the state or are trapped in their ideological microcosm or project as vanguards, although they can be similarly hierarchical and dogmatic.
The alternative democratic politics of our time promote assembly democracy, pluralism, action beyond dogmas and narrow identities, openness, solidarity, ethics of care, concern for the planet, opposition to hierarchies and dominance in all its axes (class, gender, race, sexuality, etc.), the building of egalitarian relations and institutions here and now, work in everyday life, networking, local roots and self-management combined with global connections and synergies. Here lies the core of their political otherness.
If this distinct logic of democratic action holds a promise not just of a break with destructive neoliberal authoritarianism, but also of a radical renewal of the imaginary of social emancipation, then the struggle for hegemony should gain a primary place in its pursuits and actions. Because overthrowing and building another world presupposes fundamental elements of hegemonic politics in the sense of Antonio Gramsci and Ernesto Laclau. They require the co-articulation of individual struggles and subjects in broad social alliances – a new, expanded collective subject -, which will confront and win the power struggle with the power of the many, the diffusion of new values and ideas, the breath and passions of a new collective identity, the coordinated political organization and the orientation of a common program of change.
In 20th-century theory and practice, hegemonic strategy typically involved vertical, hierarchical relationships whereby one actor, such as Gramsci’s ‘Hegemon-party’, directed other social groups. Therefore, the major question for an anti-hegemonic politics that embraces horizontal action and co-determination lies in how to make leadership truly collective, equally distributed and crowd-determined (Dixon 2014, Della Porta & Rucht 2015). Here we trace critical innovations of recent manifestations of democratic mobilisation, such as the ‘squares’ of 2011 and the Spanish and Italian ‘new municipalism’ from 2015 onwards, which reconfigured counter-hegemonic strategy and leadership in the direction of democratic ‘other politics’ of the era us.
The fundamental organizational scheme by which modern democratic movements seek to collectivize political power is decision-making by open assemblies of the many. The salient function of the “form of assembly” is highlighted by, among others, the democratic uprisings of 2011, from the Arab Spring to the Spanish and Greek squares and Occupy. Their pioneering institutions consisted of egalitarian, consensual deliberative practices that took place in central squares, were open to the world, and embraced diversity and pluralism (Thorburn 2017, Lorey 2014, Graeber 2014).
To transform leadership from a matter of individuals and elites to a shared activity, the 2011 assemblies established specific norms and roles that promoted collective decision-making and sought to limit power asymmetries. Thus they carefully coordinated the discussions. They limited the speaking time and drew lots for the speakers. They recognized only individual participation in the processes of political consultation, in order to avoid control by groups, collectives and parties. They facilitated the transformation of preferences in order to achieve convergences. They respected differences and minority opinions. This internal democracy was nourished by a political ethos that fostered openness, consensus, respect for the other’s position, and symmetrical communication.
At the same time, both in the squares and more broadly in collectives and initiatives governed by the spirit of other democratic politics, special practices and institutional mechanisms aim at the continuous control of persons with coordinating or leadership roles and their continuous accountability to the communities, which remain the basic principle of decision-making. Such institutional rules include term limits, lottery and rotation in positions of responsibility, such as coordination or public representation duties in the media, as well as the permanent recall of all those temporarily occupying positions of responsibility (Dhaliwal 2012, Lorey 2014).
With rotation and revocability, leadership is decentralized and shared. “Distributed” or “shared” leadership is a fluid but controlled process by which a multitude of individuals participate in decision-making, the production and transmission of knowledge, and the building of political organizations. A multitude of task forces work together to mobilize, coordinate and encourage collective mobilization. Leadership thus becomes a function performed by the actions of a multitude of individuals and groups interacting systematically (Harris 2003). For the development of “distributed leadership”, persons with an organizational role should constantly involve third parties in collective action, impart organizational and executive skills to them, assign tasks and positions of responsibility to them, so as to train more and more people to be leaders roles. And “the more responsibility is distributed among a wider network of organizers the greater the collective’s capacity for mobilization” (Han 2014: 16).
Third, interacting with street and assembly mobilizations, modern digital media have contributed to the emergence of a “technopolitics” that collectivizes leadership, allowing unorganized individuals and groups to initiate actions, circulate political messages and important information, communicate , consult and coordinate mass initiatives without depending on hierarchical leaderships and traditional media. Digital communication and organization can address some of the practical difficulties of the assembly model, such as the time constraints of persons working or caring for others (Castells 2012, Gerbaudo 2012).
A fourth important intersection in leadership reshaping is the feminist turn, which includes, but goes far beyond, more women assuming leadership roles. As the example of former mayor Ada Colau in Barcelona and the municipal scheme Barcelona en Comu which she leads eloquently shows, feminist leadership prioritizes issues of care and reproduction. It seeks proximity to the world in neighborhoods and a close connection to their everyday reality. It favors self-organization and concrete action over ideology. It seeks the convergence of various struggles (against sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.) around the issues of justice, equality, freedom, human rights and participation in all areas of decision-making (Forti & Russo Spena 2019).
Finally, anti-hierarchical or “horizontal” collective action in our time struggles against power inequalities by insisting on transparency and reflexivity around leadership. Anti-hierarchical “horizontalism” is informed by an acute awareness of the fact that unequal influence is difficult to completely eliminate in communities of action due to the unequal distribution of individual skills, the valuable functions performed by leadership roles (coordination, communication, strategic planning, etc.) o.c.) and the opacity of power relations. “Horizontality” thus becomes a struggle horizon and a normative principle that egalitarian movements constantly strive to enact through perpetual collective reflection and specific political processes that challenge relations of dominance and attempt to minimize the concentration of power within them.
The transformation of hegemony into a common cause of the many is not just a quirk of “another democratic politics”. With the massive expansion of education since the 1970s and with the widespread circulation of information in the new digital media since the 1990s, the very idea of a charismatic leader who “knows” the historical-political condition and guides the uneducated multitude has become silly and ridiculous. Intelligence today is deeply collective and at the level of strategy. And of course, from the point of view of social emancipation, the person-centered leadership must disappear in the course for the equality and freedom of the many.
To the extent that it requires the allocation of roles and responsibilities to persons and groups with distinct skills and responsibilities, continuous accountability, revocability, full transparency, fixed and short terms, rotation, lottery, shared leadership and, above all, primacy of the general assembly are some old and new tools that essentially contribute to the “communication” of the leadership and its foundation in the self-determination of the crowd. Recent historical examples, such as Podemos and the “new municipalism” movements in Spain (2015 onwards), remind us again, however, that the ultimate guarantee of preventing authoritarianism, oligarchy and the autonomy of ruling elites is the living popular will for freedom together.
* Alexandros Kiupkiolis is assistant professor of Political Science, AUTH
