<div>Hi All</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here below and attached are the minutes from the first CRD (Campaign for Real Democracy) meeting on June 8th. The next CRD meeting will take place at the round table next to the Guernica tapestry, in the Whitechapel Gallery, Aldgate East tube, on the eve of Thurs July 23rd, 6.30pm - 8.30pm. As space is limited in the nature of the beast gallery pls confirm to <a href="mailto:crdlondon@gmail.com">crdlondon@gmail.com</a> if you plan to attend. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Please also feel free to forward this info and invite to others interested in local and wider community democracy. If you would like to subscribe to the CRD mailing and discussion list, email list admin at <a href="mailto:james@dogmanet.org">james@dogmanet.org</a> or <a href="mailto:crdlondon@gmail.com">crdlondon@gmail.com</a> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here's a suggested agenda for this, following the 8th. Please comment. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>(1) can we follow up 8.6 and agree to the creation of a formal "localists' union" and confirm in preliminary form some of the basic formalities and key demands (eg a people's building and new political structures in every neighbourhood, + other reforms tbc..?) this will need to consist of ? union could be based on the simple idea of "a network of individuals and groups united in their struggle for a greater neighbourhood sovereignty and a genuinely democratic society". If so, can we also discuss and perhaps agree on first steps, what people are up for, action points to make formal union a reality? </div>
<div>(2) to continue the process of identifying one or more London based (and any other) local democracy projects we can get ourselves behind, and ways to help spread the word about / share skills / map what's already going on </div>
<div>(3) to consider format, and ways to mobilise and support August 15th democracy picnic on Parliament Hill, Hampstead Heath</div>
<div>(4) as it's an art gallery, and space is being filmed on the theme of "the nature of the beast" could we also do a simple, participatory art project for the 1st half hour? What about the idea of people putting down in a few words what they think to be the key obstacles to real democracy - this could be anything from attitudes and values (eg "greed") to structures (eg "centralisation") and anything else imbetween. We could write them all on small bits of paper, each a brick in the "wall" we need to take down if we are to tame the beast? So we could dedicated 6.30pm - 7pm for this bit and then run the rest of the meeting til gallery kicks out at 8.30pm, and then adjourn if necessary to a suitable nearby establishment.. how does that sound? </div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Minutes from initial CRD Meeting, 8th June, RFH</strong> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Present: 10. From Climate Camp, Haringey Solidarity/The Peoples' Palace, Prisoners Support Network (LAI/PPMI), LVT Tax Network (CEJ, LLC), Government of Dead, People in Common/Project 2012/Southgate Community, Community Sector Coalition / National Coalition for Independent Action, London Civic Forum, Barnet local campaiging, various independent/non-aligned</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Apols: various </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Meeting started by facilitator J as a general discussion around the basic assumptions/ideas that</div>
<div> </div>
<div>(1) localism is required for more/real democracy and</div>
<div>(2) 'representative democracy' isn't real democracy </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Points/questions/ assertions that then arose included.. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>A brief discussion initially got underway on subject of what do we mean by 'local'? And what to call the ideas we are struggling for. This was returned to later (see below)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>M: morally, ecologically, politically and even economically, the idea of "real democracy" in the context of small, human scale collectivities - ie local, but also in other communities such as schools, workplaces, prisons etc - is the way to go. what we call this is less important than the need to keep coming back to this, the broad principle we have come together to support? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>R: what about funding / finance?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>J: DIY should take precedence over money issues. The real value is found in what we do, in action and thoughts that relate to our interdependence </div>
<div> </div>
<div>MSN: it's about person value rather than money value, and people doing what they actually want to do </div>
<div> </div>
<div>M: perhaps we are talking a redefinition of the idea of 'work, to include no just the things that one is paid to do, but more widely what ones is called to do, in one's heart. Dole money presently used could be transferred towards this end so that communities could offer people the opportunity to do what they'd like, for a few hours a week, and so make the area more distinctive. Communities coud compete with one another to offer the opportunity to people to carry out their skill. In this context, one shared vision might be of each neighbourhood having not just a parliament or governmental function (with budgets to spend, democratically), but also a "job centre function" whereby people get to collaborate with the local area around the kinds of things they'd like to do, aswell as what needs doing. Likewise banking function to lend to green businesses. (Of course, some believe in living without money, and althoug that point was not raised at the meeting that democratic option could be open to communities too). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>J: we are encouraging communities to take control. Not telling them how to live, but to trust in consensus decision-making and go from there. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>MS: consensus decision making doesn't produce fascism :-) But also, not sure about the concept of "Local Sovereignty" - suggest we keep what we call it open because of historical reference points that might make it problematic.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Discussion then focused on the Local Sovereignty concept: some like MS felt sovereignty has too many ties eg to kings, executions, state power and all that. T made the point that language is very important, especialy when we're trying to bring in something new. Parliament is the barrier, whereas in 1649 it was the progressove force. Likes the idea of Governing Assemblies for local democratic councils, rather than Parliament which has bourgeousie implications. Presumably T is ok with use of "Local Sovereignty"? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>N: problem is elected people who forget about us once they're voted in. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>S: Local Sov as a concept might be hard for people to understand. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>MSN: slight problem with "local", do we include people who work there, aswell as those who live? We need to involve everyone. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Suggestion is that local democratic decision making should include those that have a stake in the area, including traders and visitors aswell as residents akthough relative powers could be differerent. Further discussion about merits or otherwise of use of words "local" and "community" followed. Some like J felt "community democracy" might be better than "local" as it is wider and not limited to "localism" others like M that it was important to make the link to a geographical area in the name but agreed Real Democracy RD should be about more than just localism.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>M: Whatever it is called the matter will probably be decided by the press if we are successful. They or our enemies will probably name u, probably in a disparaging way and that's the name we'll have to live with. While in agreement that discourse around concepts is useful, two practical things we need to get to grips are:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>(1) Philosophical: how to bring about a collective, philosophical change (so that people see community as their liberation, ie actually believe "another world is possible" and that the path to it is through the development of RD with their neighbours etc.) and</div>
<div>(2) Structural: what structural changes will be necessary.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>R: Philosophically, it's about trust, everything will flow from that</div>
<div>[incidentally, there are some insights about trust, albeit partially in context of elected politicians, in article today <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6549524.ece">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6549524.ece</a> M]</div>
<div>R: structurally, giving away what you do as work, is that structural? eg in the form of income tax. What about special privileges; eg mortgage holders who benefit individually from gains in land value.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>MS: agree it's about trust. Tempted to say it's about possibility and space for trust to develop. Anything that questions and offers a space is good. Culture of silence around these issues, need reflection and action. Structurally, in terms of what is vital and tangible there is one way of describing it via the trio of state, market & civil realms. Saul Alinsky makes the point that these three actors cannot assume a degree of equality, or partnership, without equal resources. Perhaps the civil realm in this context is equivalent to Ts idea of 'governing assemblies'. We need some kind of structure or else wverthing falls apart. The market is very strong, and well supported. The government / state is also very strong. Civil realm needs structures [to give it strength too? M]</div>
<div> </div>
<div>N: need to end consumerism, and consumer competive attitude if we are to bring on real democracy. Mentioned the RSA where everything is/was once evenly priced / regulated</div>
<div> </div>
<div>MSN government terminologies are worth watching; they are now talking about "citizen" a lot</div>
<div> </div>
<div>S: maybe there will be a crash, and this work is necessary so we will know whato to do. The state / local council should just be preserving and protecting, and we drive the rest</div>
<div> </div>
<div>MSN: planning procedures in Barnet are terrible, bureacratic etc</div>
<div> </div>
<div>J: suggests we move discussion on to subject of, in context of CRD, how are we going to do it..? Talks about Ward's Corner in Seven Sisters Haringey. Goes on to say that these kind of campaigns are going on up and down the country. Maybe we can find a number of these and offer a tool kit a( re DIY democracy / consensus decision making) aswell as to provide an outlet for people who care in a general way about democracy. Also, could be a way to widen people's sights so they can see a bigger prize, in terms of community sovereignty. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JN: concerns about sending in 'ringers' / telling people how to do their campaign. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>M: it's more about helping then to do what they're already doing more effectively, by adding numbers to their group. but also, as J says, to maybe expand their horizon in terms of radicalism. Personally think this is a great idea, but also keen to promote the concept of a Localists Union as the best starting point for an effective CRD. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>S: Localists Union idea appeals, also the concepts together add up to a potentially useful skill-share</div>
<div> </div>
<div>M: also there is idea of a Right to the City conference in the Winter - need to link with Teresa Hoskyns (TH) and others about this at London Social Forum (LSF) </div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Action Points </strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Everyone: locating suitable local groups to support generally and contact re next meeting. Spread the word about next meeting generally. Consider what if any core demands might helpfully unite localists, eg (1) a building in every neighbour hood to be handed over to the people? (2) land to be ringfenced for new intentional communities to start up (like kibbutz?) (3) others suggested later in email conversation </div>
<div> </div>
<div>M: to come up with next meeting (see note at top of email), also a separate planning meeting for picnic and make contact with TH at LSF</div>
<div> </div>
<div>J wrote a draft statement a few days after meeting, which came out as follows: </div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Draft Statement about Real Democracy</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Real democracy means, at the minimum, completely open community based decision making run broadly on consensus principles having the final say on everything that happens in that community</div>
<div> </div>
<div>a few notes</div>
<div> </div>
<div>what is a community - communities define themsleves and can be virtual</div>
<div>as well as real, people can be part of many communities but it is up to</div>
<div>communities themsleves how they define membership and what rights</div>
<div>different kinds of members might have (e.g. only residents have a right</div>
<div>to block proposals). However, The CRD will focus on helping small</div>
<div>geographical based communities where there are disputes between members</div>
<div>of the community and current governing institutions to define</div>
<div>themselves, increase participation / legitimacy use that to resist</div>
<div>unwelcome activity and take postive actions for the benefit of the</div>
<div>communities. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>