and thus argued for a third-way socialism that was neither Stalinism (that is vanguard democracy) nor social democracy (that is representative democracy) (Renton 2004: 7, 19). Yugoslavian thinkers such as Mihailo Marković and Rudi Supek argued for shop-floor democracy that is not simply a function of central planning but that decides ‘all questions of production and distribution’ (Femia 1993: 31). Despite these attempts, direct democracy was not a focus for many twentieth-century Marxists as it throws up serious challenges to top-down central planning and the paramount role of the Party; the more direct participation on the shop floor and the less predictable economic planning from above. Nevertheless, this scholarship challenges the idea that communism is inherently anti-democratic and demonstrates that there was also a deep appreciation for radical forms of democracy within the Marxist tradition. Also in the second half of the twentieth century a thriving scholarship emerged from Marxist historians and philosophers such as Christopher Hill, Hobsbawm, Edward Thompson, C.L.R. James, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno and Jean-Paul Sartre, all of whom pioneered humanist, open Marxism(s) that recognised the importance of spiritual and cultural values. Along these lines, Marxists critiqued ‘liberal democracy’ for turning people into isolated beings alienated from their social nature (Femia 1993: 20) and argued for the participation of ordinary people (Barber 1984; Bobbio 1976). Other Marxists such as Louis Althusser (1970 and 1972), Ralph Miliband ([1969] 2009) and Nicos Poulantzas (1973) explored questions of the state and its relation to the economy.
In the latter part of the twentieth century, a new generation of Marxists emerged that looked to the world-system and periphery for their inspiration. For example, Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) offers a critique of the Soviet Union when he argues that capitalism operates on a world scale with the politically and economically powerful core profoundly shaping the prospects of the politically and economically weak periphery. In his analysis, cold-war rivalry is no longer understood as a battle between capitalism and an alternative, but rather as Soviet modernisation within the logic of capitalist accumulation. Samir Amin ([1985] 1990) shares Wallerstein’s broad perspective, but has also counterpoised the strategy of delinking as an alternative to building socialism in one country in the context of anti-systemic struggles within the global periphery. Amin argues that countries in the periphery must delink from the capitalist system to a degree, in order to achieve development in their national interests. Inspired by 1968 (Wallerstein) and Bandung Third World revolutionary nationalism (Amin), both conclude that, in the light of Soviet authoritarianism, a socialist alternative has to be profoundly democratic.
There has also been scholarship, explicitly on the global South, looking at the way in which Marxism has influenced movements and parties (see Glaser’s and Saul’s chapters this volume; Ismael and ‘at El-Sa’id 1990; Mortimer 1974). Much of this scholarship shows the authoritarian practices of movements in the global South, but also highlights the importance of developing democratic alternatives. For example, Cathy Schneider’s (1995) investigation into the Communist Party of Chile’s attempt to organise shantytowns in Chile’s sprawling townships is an eloquent statement of popular mobilisation from below. There have also been important contributions looking at African socialism and Afro-Marxism that explore the various attempts in post-colonial Africa to chart out socialist paths in varying conditions (Arrighi and Saul 1973; Cabral 1973 and 1979; Fanon 1962; Saul 1990; see also Glaser this volume) as well as important contributions to Marxist theory on the global South from the dependency school that argued that underdevelopment emerged as a result of global capitalism (Baran 1957; Frank 1967). Many of these scholars were taking on issues of extending democracy beyond the political sphere and beyond the Party by recognising power relations in society.
This more recent scholarship helps us re-imagine the importance of direct democracy in transformative politics as we move beyond the twentieth century’s bifurcated understanding of vanguard versus representative democracy.
Beyond Bifurcation: Direct Democracy In The Twenty-First Century
For twenty-first-century movements such as the World Social Forum, Occupy Movement, Brazilian participatory budgeting and Kerala’s democratic decentralisation, direct democracy is a vital part of constituting visions and practices. Movements around the world increasingly demonstrate their distrust of political and economic leaders as the institutions of representative democracy, and vanguard party politics is losing legitimacy, with headline stories splashed across the world of the 1 per cent’s (as opposed to the 99 per cent) complicity in the corruption of political processes. These movements demonstrate that ordinary people are tired of paying the price of an under-regulated global economy that provides enormous benefits to the 1 per cent, while the 99 per cent live increasingly precarious lives. Movements are increasingly calling on government to be accountable and responsive to people, rather than to corporations. In this context we have seen an explosion of movements across the globe which, while they vary significantly, share in their belief that ‘another world is possible’ through the active participation of ordinary people.
What is meant by direct democracy? Direct democracy (often referred to as participatory or radical democracy) is where ordinary citizens are directly involved in the activities of political (and economic) governance. Unlike representative democracy where elected officials act on behalf of citizens, or vanguard democracy where the party acts on behalf of the people, people participate directly in deliberation and decision making in direct democracy. It is about popular empowerment of ordinary citizens to make decisions and carry through with implementation. Key for direct democracy is the actual participation of ordinary citizens (in other words, direct democracy requires participatory practices). Obviously, participation is crucial for this type of democracy. But what is participation? For some it simply means showing up to a meeting where citizens are informed about decisions made. For others it means consulting ordinary people about plans, although the power to make decisions lies with the leaders or officials. Neither of these forms are real participation. Meaningful participation requires that ordinary people engage in deliberation, make decisions and very importantly, have the power to ensure the implementation of the decisions (Pateman [1970] 1999). It is government by the people. For direct democracy to have meaning, then, ordinary people must directly participate in and control decision-making processes in the political, economic and social domains and have the power to ensure implementation, which requires access to resources and information. Open and transparent processes are a necessary condition for effective participation. There are examples of weak versions of direct democracy where citizens simply vote yes/ no on various initiatives and referendums. There are also strong versions in which citizens directly make decisions about local governance and the distribution of resources.
One of the legacies of the liberal tradition’s
