There must be 50 ways: Participating in democracy #36: Offer nonviolent resistance to injustice

When brave African American families in places with segregated schools brought their little children to the closest public school they risked consequences ranging from physical threat to arrest. NAACP lawyers fought for their rights over several decades, family-to-family, district-to-district. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v Board of Education in 1954 that segregated schools were illegal. 

When African American schoolchildren demonstrated for equal rights in Birmingham and they were arrested in the 1963 Children's Crusade their nonviolent resistance was crucial in convincing Congress and the President to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

When African Americans went to courthouses in counties where they were frequently prevented from voting and they continued to do so even if they were arrested or physically harassed, they were key in causing the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 

Clearly, nonviolent resistance to injustice is a way to participate in democracy, that is, employing the "outside game" to drive the inside game.

There must be 50 ways: Participating in democracy #35: Consensus organizing

Many forms of community organizing are paths to participating in democracy; consensus organizing is arguably the most democratic of such forms.

Consensus organizing is, at its best, a deep dive into the essentials of a community, and an elicitive method of honing goals based on identifiable interests expressed by a community (Ohmer & DeMasi, 2009). The consensus organizer helps introduce methods to the community that can reduce polarization, and increase inclusivity, bringing in marginalized groups and seeking evermore equity. Consensus organizing is not mere notification of programs and benefits available to the community, but rather a process of developing prioritized goals that a community decides on together.

Consensus organizing is not an adversarial model of community organizing but rather one that stresses both bonding--that is, enhancing relationships within the community--and bridging--developing relationships between the community and external entities so that all can benefit.

For instance, if a consensus organizer sees an out-group within the community, the organizer seeks ways to bring that out-group into strong community kinship with all others. If, for example, a group home for adults with cognitive development challenges is generally shunned by community members who are uncomfortable around certain people with disabilities, the consensus organizer will work with all parties to create connections that take the folks in as full members of the community--as people who can help and who need help, as people who care and people who need care. Bonding takes effort but is rewarding for everyone. 

Bridging is another way to develop new relationships that can benefit a community. Perhaps a corporation wishes to purchase a warehouse and remodel it into a mini-mall, but many community members do not trust that corporation. A good consensus organizer can develop a process that brings the parties together in dialog to determine with great transparency and strong guarantees that the interests of the community are met well. This may result in a decision by the community to oppose the project, modify it, or accept it. It may result in more community unity in any case, and it may end up being a significant win for both the external party and the community--indeed, it may bring that external party into the community, bridging leading to bonding. 

Consensus organizing tends to result in the parties reducing animosity, grudges, and lingering hostility, and also tends to enhance the value and well-being of the community and community members. It can result in a stronger electorate and more committed citizenry.

Resources

Ohmer, Mary L. & DeMasi, Karen (2009). Consensus organizing: A community development workbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

There must be 50 ways: Participating in democracy #34: Learn decision-making methods in our democracy

At every level of participating in democracy there are ways that groups decide, including, but not limited to: 

·       Majority-rule votes

·       Consensus

·       Advisory votes

As a species constantly attempting to learn better ways to decide based on either mistakes that seem correctable by better forms of decision-making (or an anti-democratic wish to selfishly manipulate the current decision-making method), we are endlessly experimenting with permutations of these basic forms. 

For instance, Stanford researcher Jaqueline Harding explains one variant, "Transitive proxy voting (or ‘liquid democracy’) is a novel form of collective decision making. It is often framed as an attractive hybrid of direct and representative democracy, purporting to balance pragmatic factors with the ability to represent a population" (p. 69).

Or, in the case of consensus decision-making, which some bodies mandate, there are myriad forms of modified consensus, sometimes shading into a variant of majority rule that calls for a super-majority requirement to pass certain measures.

Advisory voting feeds into any form of decision-making in that it informs the actual decision-makers. Some organizations rarely use opinions coming from their advisory councils, while others virtually always follow the advice passed on to them. If, for instance, an advisory council undertakes a serious investigation into a problem before the actual deciders, and if that advisory council is composed of trusted experts who commit to a rigorous process featuring wise assessments and due diligence, the actual deciders (possibly a Board of Directors of a highly influential think tank, or possibly even elected officials themselves) may almost never do much additional information-gathering before taking the course of action recommended by the advisory council.

In some cases the rules are so arcane they need a special official to rule on obscure scenarios (e.g., the US Senate Parliamentarian, who decides if all elements in a Reconciliation bill can be allowed to proceed).

For the ultimate (arguably) in democratic decision-making, a serious consensus process is the deliberative most thorough and accounts for all parties. The disadvantages of such a process is that it may be used to delay urgent business or it may be used reflexively when a more command-and-control executive decision would be far more efficient for more minor matters. 

Learning the process of consensus decision-making facilitation is a combination of following tested methods, e.g., Larry Dressler's (2006) brief explainer, and gaining the experiential expertise necessary to practice it well. 

References

Dressler, Larry (2006). Consensus through conversation: How to achieve high-commitment decisions. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Harding, J. (2022). Proxy selection in transitive proxy voting. Social Choice & Welfare, 58(1), 69–99. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1007/s00355-021-01345-8

There must be 50 ways: Participating in democracy #33: Be a journalist

"Democracy dies in darkness" is the motto of the Washington Post, which has transmogrified from a brave calling to uphold the vaunted American free press to a mockery of itself under the ownership of multi-billionaire Jeff Bezos. Indeed, as Post columnist for many years Dana Milbank referred to it in an interview on Al Franken's podcast, "as the paper disintegrates around me." 

This allusion of Milbank's derived from the buck-naked pandering that Bezos made to Trump and to his fellow billionaires with several massive conflict-of-interest gestures, including ordering that a cartoon satirizing the obeisance of billionaires to Trump as soon as Trump won the 2024 election, but also including a massive "donation" Bezos made to Trump's inaugural ceremonies. 

Still, as a product myself of "J-school," I know from direct experience that both undergraduates and graduate students in journalism are taught excellent journalistic ethics and many hold onto those principles throughout their careers. 

Journalists engage in democracy in many ways. 

·       Both editors and reporters engage in gatekeeping, that is, choosing what topics to cover, what experts and laypeople to interview, which data to cite, and other important choices before developing the frame and content, during that development, and at the final stages of completion and release.

·       Journalists who choose to risk their careers, their access, their reputations, and even their family's well-being may decide to investigate people and scenarios that may bear directly on democracy, on politics, and even on history. Investigative journalism is, arguably, the bedrock task of the most robust and rigorous reporters. 

·       Commentaries by journalists on the opinion side of journalism can persuade electorates to vote in certain ways. 

America was founded in no small part on, and because of, the free press. This is unique in the world. Despite all other flaws in our troubled democracy, a free press is not guaranteed constitutionally in any other nation on Earth. Keeping our journalists free is engaging in democracy.

There must be 50 ways: Participating in democracy #32: Be a lawyer

The lawyers who participate in democracy are legion, for better or worse. Historically, lawyers make up more of the membership of Congress--the House and Senate--than any other profession. In the 119th Congress, 179 of the members[1] are lawyers. 

Lawyers also argue many sorts of cases that impact our democracy, from immigration to lawsuits complaining of election fraud and much more. Nonviolent resisters who engage in the outside game when they do their nonviolent resistance usually engage in the inside game of defending themselves in criminal court, normally with a willing lawyer. This is how the Rosa Parks desegregation campaign succeeded, as well as the school desegregation campaign before that. 

Thus, lawyers can work toward changing public policy, corporate policy, or institutional policy either alongside nonviolent resisters who go to trial--and attempt to flip the script in the courtroom by putting the government, the corporations, or the institution on trial--or as litigants in civil cases (lawsuits). 

While many scorn the law as a practice for organizations committing fraud, oppression, or other nefarious activities, it is important to hold up the lawyers dedicated to justice, to democracy, to ending climate chaos caused by fossil fuels, and much more. Lawyers defending democracy are the last ones, quite often, to actually work inside the system when the system is groaning from other lawyers paid to protect authoritarians, cheats, fraudsters, and polluters. This makes the law a crucial element to defending and enhancing democracy.

---

[1] https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/grassroots-action-center/In_The_Weeds/

There must be 50 ways: Participating in democracy #31: Be a poll worker

Becoming a poll worker is a key component in citizen engagement in our democracy. When others question the integrity of our elections, it is poll workers who largely debunk that idea for those who believe what they see. Regular Americans, known to their neighbors, are the on-site workers who maintain that integrity and always have. 

Being a poll worker is a function overseen state-by-state. There are rules for each state and the easiest access to becoming a poll worker in any of the United States is found at the website of the United States Election Assistance Commission, a US federal office and clearinghouse for poll worker information from all states.[1]

They note that:

Most jurisdictions task election workers with setting up and preparing the polling location, welcoming voters, verifying voter registrations, and issuing ballots. Poll workers also help ensure voters understand the voting process by demonstrating how to use voting equipment and explaining voting procedures.

States pay a modest stipend to poll workers, and that varies widely from state-to-state. In general, in polls that include party identification, poll workers enjoy a higher degree of trustworthiness than the elected officials who govern them and whose elections they oversee. In recent years, thanks to the machinations of Donald Trump, Republicans' trust is somewhat eroded, but even Republican citizens overwhelmingly trust poll workers. It is nearly universal in the 50 states that this is one of the few methods of participating in democracy that requires one to be a registered voter.

---

[1] https://www.eac.gov/help-america-vote

There must be 50 ways: Participating in democracy #30: Register voters

Helping others become voters is a serious contribution to democracy. In our online era, for any of the 50 states and any territory of the US, send those folks to vote.gov[1] and they can choose which state's rules and procedures to access. 

Back in the day, in the late 1950s through the mid-to-late 1960s, in some places in the US, for some people, merely registering to vote was dangerous--specifically for Black people in the US South. In the early 1960s, Black sharecroppers in rural Tennessee were frequently evicted en masse from where they had been living and earning a meager living, sometimes for decades, often setting up makeshift tent cities just to survive. Even that was an "improvement" over the previous decade, when registering to vote in that racist area was met at times by death, by lynching (Ballantyne, 2021).

Those who defer to the myth of the US military as guarantor of democracy frequently claim that our right to vote was only gained and protected by the military. When we consider the costly nonviolent struggle to merely register to vote we can see it's far more complex than that. 

Registering to vote and helping others to do so in the age of a few safe online clicks is what we owe the ancestors who fought for this right, including those who literally sacrificed their lives to racist mobs in the US South for merely showing up at the local courthouse intending to register to vote. 

References

Ballantyne, K. (2021). We Might “Overcome Someday”: West Tennessee’s Rural Freedom Movement. Journal of Contemporary History, 56(1), 117–141. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1177/0022009420961449

---

[1] https://vote.gov