Political Crossfire Forums

Pros: sounds nice

Cons: any progress quickly unravels at the first sign of adversity. Assuming progress is made at all.

Power eventually consolidates. Count on it.

In the case of the Arab uprisings...some strong central leadership would have been extremely helpful. Eventually you have to establish a new modus operandi...and if you have to first defeat a bunch of bickering factions it seems likely to stall the whole effort.

Leaderless politics? As in the Democratic Party?

I see two directions for this discussion. One is the idea of leaderless politics as being a groundswell supporting a movement that wasn't ever championed, but still became policy because of its spontaneous popularity. That kind of political initiative exists, and it's born of naturally occurring circumstances that are perceived to be affecting a community in a fundamental way. Many historical turning points could be described in that way, most born of some sort of oppression or negative catalyst.

The other piece I see is discussing the idea that sustainable political movements or organizations can thrive without singular representation, or with agreements between small factions. That is utter nonsense in that it goes against the very fabric of the human community.

The mechanics of human interaction, specifically political interaction, require that someone either is developing within themselves the blueprint for an idea that they will bring others along in understanding, or an idea they want to give to someone else who is good at bringing others along. A leader will develop, for better or worse, because the human community requires it for the development of their ideals.

Aaron's distinction between the two types of decentralized movements is crucial. The majority unfairly depriving a given minority of rights in any respect eventually comes under scrutiny and it's cause can galvanize a specific demographic to rise to the occasion under one banner and/or one spokesperson. Slavery, racism/Jim Crow, woman's suffrage, interracial marriage, gay marriage, anti-war, etc. These are singular issues the can be honed in on given the proper environment for reform exists (ideally some bill of rights, rule of law, representation, etc).

When we start talking about the Arab Spring, Syria, etc we are arguing over the best method/means of representation that allows for those things, those grievances, to have a day in court at all. Here it isn't an issue of centralization being at fault, it's an issue of people and thus power coalescing around groups that don't seek to promote that kind of an environment or where the fragmentation itself, the decentralization makes it too difficult to find a leader strong enough to achieve enough uniformity to create an effective form of governance. In the Middle East this is especially prominent due to arbitrarily drawn borders following WWII and is well represented in places like Syria, Iraq, and also Egypt.

most revolutionary social movements operate using cells

the reason being is compartmentalization prevents any useful intelligence about the effort from being easily discovered

this tactic is also useful in supporting mass popular social movements

Leadership and a clear hierarchy is necessary for things to function with any efficacy. Even with decentralized and democratic communities leadership is still necessary, it is just how that leader is chosen is what differs. A movement withoout leadership is doomed to fail and that was the problem with the occupy movement. No clear objectives, no direction, no leadership.