Compeerism solves—most democratic form of governance

Hannes, Professor of Geography at the University of West Georgia. “Theorizing Capitalism and its Demise.” From Capital to Commons: Exploring the Promise of a World Beyond Capitalism. University of Bristol. Pp 201-204. DB

Imagine we are in the late 22nd-century and a compeerist ‘renaissance’ has come about after a prolonged period of environmental and subsequently social and economic upheaval. Most notable on the political front is that the Westphalian order of nation-states has largely been dismantled, giving rise to the predominance of partner states, each consisting of several tiers of governance with distinct jurisdictions. The highest level of political authority within these partner states has been shaped by commons-oriented societies in an effort to create a macro-level governance unit that can facilitate the expansion and management of the commons, yet with significantly less coercive power than the nation-states of old. The territorial reach of these partner states is also more confined, based primarily on the agreed upon cultural and natural characteristics of the underlying ‘bio-region’ (Alperovitz, 2005). Homing in on just one of these, we can envision, for lack of a better name, the Alpha Bioregion (AB), located in North America and with a population of about 35 million people. The region is governed by a nested system of commons-oriented councils, with the highest tier, the federal partner state, maintaining a binding constitution that evolved as a deliberative process of negotiation and compromise. Guided by principles for effective, collaborative commons governance, the constitution lays out the legal organization of the various lower tiers of decision making, as well as the establishment of a bill of rights. This bill enshrines the entitlement to basic individual liberties from coercive authority; rights to the means required for a thriving existence; a commitment to the commons and its democratic governance; and nonhuman rights focused on the humane and enlightened treatment of animals and ecosystems. True to Thomas Jefferson’s belief that a constitution should be a living document, however, the AB’s constitution is a constant work in progress. The highest tiered, federal partner state is given jurisdiction over a number of key governance areas that are by their nature geographically expansive. This includes the responsibility of maintaining an effective monetary and judicial system; providing critical transregional infrastructure (broadband, rail, roads, seaports) and services (postal, health, higher education, research); and, more broadly, implementing regulations and guidelines pursuant to the bill of rights. The federal partner state is also responsible for managing relations with political units outside the AB, for instance to negotiate transregional agreements in the areas of trade, immigration, the environment, and space exploration. Yet, despite some similarities, the AB’s federal partner state is quite different to the traditional nation-state, as significant power is devolved to lower tiers of governance which range from the six meso-regions directly under the top tier to the thousands of neighbourhood-sized precincts at the lowest level. Each tier is composed of representatives from the tier immediately below it and while each governance level has certain powers that pertain to its specific jurisdiction, significant leeway is given the lower tiers in interpreting and applying any regulations/guidelines coming from further up the nested arrangement. The governance of the commons in such a political regime is inevitably multi-scalar and characterized by negotiation, collaboration, and the skilful navigation of conflicting interests. The central role of the federal partner state here, as per the constitution, is to pursue the expansion and accessibility of the human-made commons while fostering fair, sustainable, and democratic management over the natural ones. Yet, it is further down the nested governance structure that these macro-level aims are ultimately implemented via targeted policies and oversight procedures. Furthermore, the actual, on-the-ground management of the various commons is then primarily performed by an assortment of partner-state entities, cooperatives, and non-profits that tend to be local in relation to the resources and assets they are overseeing. To help envision this decentralized partner state, it must be placed within the broader context of a populace that has become well-informed and has largely embraced commons-centric rationales when engaging in governance issues. Moreover, this governance should be understood as being conducted within a society in which compeerism has become the dominant mode of production. In other words, the benefits of win-win strategies have begun to bear fruit, including basic needs/wants being met, the equalization of opportunities to thrive, minimal wealth gaps and, critically, a significant increase in the amount of free time – all of which we will explore in more detail when we cover the economy. Not least, governance itself has been fundamentally transformed by sophisticated big-data capabilities and advanced AI data crunching, making it much easier to execute valid assessments of problems as well as offer data-driven response options. Still, it would be wrong to conclude that an apolitical technocracy has been established. There will, for example, always be contestation over the stakeholdership, and hence power claims made, over a given commons. Indeed, the question of who gets a seat at the table is always a fraught one. Furthermore, even with excellent, data-based analyses and policy options, difficult decisions still have to be made regarding the underlying values and aesthetics to be pursued, where to set priorities, and what degree of risk is deemed acceptable in any given governance decision. Finally, the collection, processing, and interpretation of data can never be a completely objective process, no matter how smart the AI. In short, politics will remain an integral part of any commons-centred governance regime. Unlike today, however, the organization of political affairs in the AB is very different due to its decentralized, nested character, which gives much more power to the populace in determining their local realities. In this way, there is generally lively participation in the lower tiers of the partner state, where, within the broad guidelines and overarching goals agreed upon at the higher tiers, a number of important issues are adjudicated, largely in line with the agonistic approach to commons-based politics addressed in the last chapter. Important governance topics include, for instance, land use and the rights/responsibilities of land users; achieving resilience, organizing and implementing educational opportunities; and, not least, resolving contentious issues like the regulation of weapons, drugs, advertisement, and car use. Beyond these localized forums that are part of the multi-scaled partner state’s responsibilities, however, commoners are also engaged in numerous economic governance processes involving non-state actors. Cooperatives, open-value-networks, and non-profits have become the norm in the AB’s economy and these too, using advanced network democratization platforms (like Loomio today), pursue and facilitate participation and decision making from within and outside the organization regarding its economic mission and operations. This localized participation then easily feeds into the higher tiers of the partner state, giving rise to a steady stream of qualified ‘commons servants’ from below. At these higher tiers, governing bodies inevitably become more distant from the populace. Nevertheless, representational politics have here been made significantly more democratic by adopting many of the reform recommendations explored in the last chapter. In this way the upper tiers of the partner state government have managed to achieve high degrees of transparency and fair representation, and, with the help of numerous digitally enabled governance tools, constituents are given multiple opportunities to participate in important decision making. It should nonetheless be noted that the ideal of consensus is generally rejected within the deliberative bodies of the AB partner state, as such an aspiration carries with it the sense that there is an absolute right to be attained, a position compeerism generally rejects (Mouffe, 2009). Instead, more attention is paid to the process of politics with an emphasis put on avoiding simple win-lose scenarios, for example by employing ranked voting for various policy options. In this way, by arriving at solutions/decisions that are considered ‘good enough’ by a unanimous majority, there is a greater likelihood of avoiding either stalemate or widespread disgruntlement, both of which are associated with winner-take-all arrangements (Bollier and Helfrich, 2019). It is also recognized that the monumental sum of continuous, micro-level decision making entailed in governance can never be fully democratized without causing paralysis and governance burnout. Therefore, various forms of common criteria are used in which micro-managers within partner state and other democratic organizations are freed to handle mundane, everyday decisions with the understanding that they maintain full accountability in their charge to abide by the democratically established guidelines that apply. Blockchain-based ledgers are again an effective tool here in maintaining full, detailed transparency and hence accountability in any execution of policy. In its entirety, then, the governance arrangement within the AB depicted here is a combination of the nested political jurisdictions theorized by Bookchin and the partner state proposed by P2P scholars. The aim of such an organizational structure is to facilitate an engaged and commons-focused populace to run its own affairs at multiple scales in a way that is radically democratic, fair, and practical. In the end, it is nonetheless just one, rough outline; there are many variations possible. Regardless of the governance regimes adopted, however, they must ultimately be understood as both expressions and enablers of the specific commons-based socio-economy being pursued and executed. We can now delve deeper into the form that one such economy might take.