How Might We Upgrade DOS (the Democratic Operating System)?

It's time to acknowledge that traditional majoritarian systems are absurd and create absurd results. If we're going to have a system of voting, "cellular democracy" recommends itself.

At Underthrow, our resistance to democratic governance won't sit well with some readers. I acknowledge better voting forms exist, such as ranked-choice voting and the Janacek Method. These changes could improve matters at the margins. But I worry they don't go far enough to decentralize authority.

Still, one form of democracy is worth considering. 

The late political economist Fred Folvary suggests "cellular democracy," a radical alternative to imposed mass majoritarian rule. It begins and ends as a form of voluntary, small-group voting, making the smallest jurisdiction the most basic unit of governance.

Think about the human body, which is composed of small cells. The body politic would similarly be divided into neighborhood 'cells.' The cell’s population should be small enough for the participants to know all the candidates and meet personally to discuss the issues. Voters in each cell would elect a neighborhood council. (Consider similarities to Thomas Jefferson's Ward Republic concept. Foldvary suggests 1000. Maybe it should be Dunbar's Number, which is 150. Whatever it is, the smallest unit should optimized for governance at each level.)

Then, a group of councils would elect representatives to the next level, or broader council. In turn, the second-level council elects the third-level council, and so on—up to the highest superordinate body. That body could then elect an executive, but perhaps only for cases requiring swift, unitary decisions. 

Cellular democracy could replace the imposed mass democracy of the form we're used to seeing. Because voting for superordinate representatives happens entirely through subordinate bodies, the subordinate bodies have the ultimate right of exit. They can withdraw from any superordinate council at any time. Cellular democracy could be a major improvement in representative forms, especially as it applies to A) getting money out of politics and B) keeping most decisions proximate.

As with many other proposals you'll find in this publication, it also requires another change: a right of exit. That means replacing imposed democracy with voluntary democracy and coercion with cooperation. But how? 

Most of the power would be local.

The most localized cells might be organizations made up entirely of agreements, that is, of contracts. Imagine something like homeowners' associations (HOAs), except the homeowner's associations would send delegates to represent it in a council at the next level. This form of democracy would completely invert the current imposed power structure, as superordinate organs would always feel the threat of defection or be undermined by subordinate cells. That's why the terms 'subordinate' and 'superordinate' refer only to the structure of stacking councils within some geography. They do not refer to the relationships of power between levels. The only powers likely granted to the highest levels would be those appropriate to that level.

That’s subsidiarity by default. 

Some will view cellular democracy as something closer to Murray Bookchin's communalism. Bookchin's form seeks to jettison concentrations of capital or production and trade that the primary civic unit views as working at odds with environmental stewardship or egalitarian sharing. (Paging the always thoughtful

Jeff Emmett

) Others will see cellular democracy as a way to keep power away from central authorities and keep distant interlopers from meddling in decidedly local matters. Thus, more- and less-market-oriented arrangements are possible, depending on the self-organizing, cellular-democratic stacks.

Because such a system is simple to implement, it might become a transitional form, as Bookchin’s communalism has become for the Kurds under the leadership of Abdullah Öcalan. But it instantiates many paths, at least one that could rein in the excesses of traditional majoritarian elections—i.e., centralization’s spectacle.

Whether via cellular democracy or another robust decentralized system, the idea is to get tighter feedback loops. With tighter feedback loops, people can far more readily adapt and evolve to local conditions, and still collaborate at scale when absolutely necessary. Such accountability means less force and more integrity—less himsa and more satya. In this way, the institutions demand more disciplined spheres of practice from all stakeholders instead of creating incentives to outsource one’s virtue. The rules and practices start to align. Profound transformation takes hold as people are rewarded for practicing the Six Spheres while contributing to shared abundance.

In this way, the system disciplines us, and we discipline the system.

The consequence is an upgraded society that unfolds stronger and wiser from the ashes of the old republic. Local authority ensures diverse islands of consensus and freedom of movement among those islands, commensurate with one’s values. Strong incentives to settle disputes between local jurisdictions ensure a more durable peace than any imposed under the watchful eye of Sauron.