R E - R E A D E R - Biro Beograd

create rules to govern their own affairs. Electronic democracy theorists
have either focused on the individual and the state, disregarding the collaborative
nature of public life, or they remain wedded to outdated and
unrealistic conceptions of deliberation. This article makes two central
claims. First, technology will enable more effective forms of collective action.
This is particularly so of the emerging tools for “collective visualization”
which will profoundly reshape the ability of people to make decisions,
own and dispose of assets, organize, protest, deliberate, dissent and
resolve disputes together. From this argument derives a second, normative
claim. We should explore ways to structure the law to defer political and
legal decision–making downward to decentralized group–based decision–
making. This argument about groups expands upon previous theories of
law that recognize a center of power independent of central government:
namely, the corporation. If we take seriously the potential impact of technology
on collective action, we ought to think about what it means to give
groups body as well as soul — to “incorporate” them.”
It appears that original term of democracy made it’s way to 21st century as
an distorted (liberal) idea of permanent tolerance, and this “artificial consensus”
needs to be re-examined. There is the thesis of “agonistic pluralism”
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agonistic_pluralism] by Chantal
Mouffe, freely interpreted as the possible model of democracy as a society
of permanent confrontation rather then the restrained and “time bomb”
society of permanent tolerance (the latter is the model especially well developed
within European official cultural policies). That hypothesis is in
practice also preconditioned by the same two social platforms we mentioned
before – social protocols embedded and constant and uninterrupted
communication.
[decision making]
How is the decision-making process organized?
It’s easy. First there is the initiative from a certain member. Then it gets the
network support. Or not.
What are the practices of openness, transparency, sharing in your
organization? Are these important?
The practices mentioned are the core elements of our organization.
Anarchists would say “if voting and elections could change anything, it
would be illegal” :-) But, we do vote on some issues using mailing lists and
in the meetings… In the organization as diverse as this one, it is not possible
(I would say even not desirable) to reach consensus on a particular
topic. Often there is an idea or activity and certain group forms around
it, acting more or less independently. The essential communication and
organization tool of our group is mailing list. We did various experiments
with having completely open discussion and announcement lists, having
“invitation only” organization list, sub-lists for specific projects/tasks, and
60