Stateless Democracy

meaningful to the Kurdish project, especially in regards to
how they conceive of representation and sovereignty.
Hardt and Negri aimed to work out the conceptual basis
for a new project of democracy; for them, democracy has
remained an incomplete project throughout the modern
era. They try to revitalize its liberating content as constituted
in the idea of popular sovereignty, which may be defined
as a power that belongs to the people with no power above
it. 6 For our purposes, their most relevant ideas concern the
debates on the subversive characters of democracy and of
representation.
The subversive character of democracy is related to the
fact democracy has been an incomplete project. Hardt
and Negri argue that it was only through social struggle
that democracy started to include the excluded, such as
women, those without property, and non-white people. In
a similar fashion, democracy came to be discussed within
the domain of the economy, which in liberal theory is not
governed by democracy, but markets. This extension of
democracy can be referred to as the “subversive character
of democracy”: it infiltrates all facets of society.
The second is related to (political) representation, or the
separation of sovereign power from society that is embedded
in the concept of representation: “When power is
transferred to a group of rulers, then we all no longer rule,
we are separated from power and government.” 7 Since the
eighteenth century, this conception of representation has
come to monopolize the field of political thought to such an
extent that any contemporary project of democracy must
begin with a critique of the existing forms of representation.
To this end, Hardt and Negri, following sociologist
and political economist Max Weber, discuss the different
6 The word “sovereignty” is derived from
the Latin supremitas or suprema potestas,
meaning “supreme power.”
7 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude:
War and Democracy in the Age of
Empire (New York: Penguin Press, 2004),
p. 244.
forms of representation that have appeared throughout
history. 8 Referring to the socialist political representation,
based mostly on the experience of the 1871 Paris
Commune, Hardt and Negri state it failed in a manner
similar to the liberal and constitutional model. Thus,
they set about a search for new forms of representation
that limit the separation between the representative and
the represented, and in so doing, simultaneously create
alternatives for the state based on the separation of sovereign
power from society. In this sense, they claim that
the multitude as the “revolutionary subject” of the period
and its political project (commonwealth) can present new
contingencies for inventing “different forms of representation
or new forms of democracy that go beyond representation.”
9 Constitutive of this new concept of democracy,
the multitude is conceptually distinguished from other
notions, such as “the people,” “the masses,” and “the
working class,” and can never be reduced to a unity or a
single identity. Rather, “in conceptual terms, the multitude
replaces the contradictory couple identity-difference with
the complementary couple commonality-singularity” 10
and it is “the adequate subject which can construct a
new community.” 11
8 Hardt and Negri distinguish three forms
of representation: appropriated, free,
and instructed representation. Appropriated
representation has the weakest link
and the strongest separation between
representatives and represented. The
representatives are not selected, appointed,
or controlled but interpret the
will and interest of the represented. In
free representation, the represented have
a connection with the representatives,
but their control is limited, for example,
by means of temporal election. The third
form, instructed representation, is one in
which the representatives are bound to
the instructions of the represented.
9 Hardt and Negri, Multitude, p. 255.
10 Ibid., p. 218. By singularity, Hardt and
Negri mean “a social subject whose difference
cannot be reduced to sameness, a
difference that remains different” and, for
them, “the multitude is composed of a set
of singularities.” In Ibid., p. 99.
11 Çiğdem Çıdam, “Antonio Negri’s Radical
Critique of Contemporary Capitalism:
Invoking Love, Revolutionizing Politics and
Theorizing Democracy,” paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of Political Science
Association in Washington DC, 1–4 September
2010.
164–165