Podemos: an unusual process

Deliberation in Podemos[1] is public and open, it allows for varying degrees of involvement, within it are participating people from social movements and its structure is designed not only for militants but rather for popular participation.

By Olga Rodríguez for Zona Crítica

Podemos [we can] uses the first person plural, not the third person.  It’s not “they can”, it’s “we can” and this promotes good will for including as many people as possible, counting on the contribution of many citizens.

In the formation of the People’s Assembly that took place last weekend in Vistalegre you could see many faces, inside and outside.  There were activists from social movements, people from 15M, employed and unemployed people, young people, old people and children.  Some came already convinced that this formation is the essential tool to transform the country.  Others remained to be convinced and others were curious.

I took part as a journalist in order to observe the atmosphere, the debates, the challenges and the discussions over the course of two days.  There was tension in some points on and off the stage.  Of course.  There is a lot at stake.

The Euro MP, Teresa Rodriguez, expressed it like this in an informal conversation with the Press.  “If there are tensions it’s because the weight of responsibility that we have is enormous.  If there were no debate it would be a dead initiative.”

“This is a school of democracy with a critical pedagogy,” said politics teacher, Ariel Jerez, from the group of Pablo Iglesias, in the hallway.

There were speeches that were not applauded by some, there was whistling when the speakers went over their allotted time even if just by a few seconds, there was a lot of applause and the famous request for silence by Pablo Iglesias.  Seventy two hours after the end of the Assembly I highlight a few characteristics:

1. Neither the Assembly nor the entire process that Podemos has gone through in these months to define their ethical, political and organisational lines are limited to the most active.  In other words, the structure of the formation was not only done only for the militants but also for popular participation.  It is open and within it fit different levels of participation.  Thousands of people took part in the assembly in Vistalegre, but tens of thousands more were following it live through streaming, more than 38,000 voted in the resolutions, and many participated by sending questions and reflections via internet.

All of this breaks the logic of politics that we’ve seen until now.  More than 150,000 people have registered to vote for Podemos’s proposals throughout the week.

2. It is a process that is being developed with an open door.  People can know in detail what every group is proposing and they have listened live to the discussion of the different proposals, with moments of tension and others of criticism.  Let’s admit it: in front of the hermeticism and closing of ranks usual in the two-party system, this is new.  These are not discussions that come to light without the protagonists wanting it.  It is the will of a formation that wants to drive a collective debate.

3. The process counts on a lot of people coming from social movements.  One of the most interesting moments of the assembly was the presentation of the five most voted-for resolutions.  The promoters of those resolutions went up to the stage and so we could hear teachers, economists, lawyers, doctors and experts who defended the need for good quality public healthcare and education, the right to housing, urgent anti-corruption measures and a restructuring of debt.

Those speaking included, among others, the economist Bibiana Medialdea, doctors Monica Garcia and Juan Antonio Palacios, specialist in psychiatry, public health and preventative medicine, as well as members of PAH [the movement of those affected by house evictions] Irene Montero, Carlos Huerga and the lawyer Rafa Mayoral.

4. Regarding the tension: there are differences between the different proposals.  Pablo Iglesias used a sporting analogy to say that when you think you won’t win a basketball you can “call for a time out,” but when you can win, “you can’t make a mistake, not even miss a three-pointer.”

He said it in clear reference to the proposal “with more we can”, driven by Pablo Echenique and supported by the MEPs, Teresa Rodriguez and Lola Sanchez, among others.  The proposal is that 20% of the positions on the Citizen Council will be drawn at random, that the Citizens Assembly is elected every two years and that instead of a General Secretary, there will be a spokesperson function of three people.

On the other hand, Iglesias and his team supported a General Secretary, a Citizens Assembly elected every three years and consider that choosing people at random makes efficiency difficult.  Critics say that democracy is lost and the reply underlines the importance of the timescales: there are only months before the municipal and regional elections and one year for the general election.  What they agree on is that there is an emergency economic and political situation, with the elections around the corner, and adversaries with the advantage, thisrequires a direction with emergency dynamics that guarantee triumphs.

The group that supports the initiative “with more we can” called for “consensus” whereas Pablo Iglesias opened the assembly with the phrase, “the heavens are not taken by consensus, they are taken by assault” and underlined that if his proposal doesn’t win he will stand aside.  He doesn’t want to have to lead or deal with organisational models that he doesn’t share.

In the breaks, in the hallways, coffee in hand, some people argued that in order to overcome internal hegemony they should use different methods than the dialect of confrontation that is applied outside.  This has continued to be talked about afterwards in social networks.

Except for one exception, the discussions are being tackled with great political responsibility.  It is noticeable the concern there is in certain outside sectors interested in maintaining the status quo and that these days they have searched without success for ways to discredit what is an unusual political process that is attracting a lot of people.

On the 26^th of October the voting for the proposals of Podemos finishes, on the 27^th we will know the results and in November the candidates will be elected.  They will then be able to tackle the most urgent things: the battle against those responsible for this political and financial con, the struggle to recover those spaces taken from the people.  There’s a lot at stake.

The heavens are occupied and controlled by investment funds, by financial tax-havens, by the corrupt, by those who save the banks while turfing people out on to the street.  Freedoms and Rights don’t arrive by themselves, they are fought for.  And as history shows, they aren’t gifts from heaven: they must be taken.