by Martha Fyllou
Observing that, on a national state level, parliamentary democracy as a means of representation is malfunctioning and consistently failing to meet the conditions of a functional democratic setting, citizens’ assemblies are gaining new momentum especially in the Balkans and in Northwestern Europe.
This may be because they attempt to fill long-standing gaps in public discourse, within which the voices of groups in positions of resistance or vulnerability—due to dominant politics—are ignored or excluded altogether.
Alternative spaces for dialogue and action
Through these assemblies, a series of alternative discussions can take place, or simply an exchange of perspectives regarding how justice might be implemented, how a more sustainable economic and social situation might be achieved, what counter-measures could be taken to resist unjust developments, how solidarity between citizens and communities can be fostered, and how further calls to action can be organized to exert pressure on governments.
A key tool in any case is the dissemination, documentation, and sharing of issues and potential developments related to matters of housing, law, (national-global-individual or mass) crimes, the public sphere, economic inequality, and many other areas that impact society and perpetuate narratives, positions, and phenomena.
Through social media, these assemblies are now announced as public calls, and their outcomes are shared with all those who follow the related communities, allowing influence on events and the distribution of responsibilities or information among participants.
This very reality—sometimes resembling a digital transformed to physical Pnyx democratic assembly (the place where the Athenians used to gather to discuss political issues and make decisions on the future of their town) and other times a tangible deliberation—produces political outcomes and has brought countries facing common problems into a shared logic, drawing them closer together forming an unconventional parliament.
Surpassing geographical boundaries, citizens organize through assemblies to identify legal obstacles or fragments, to find solutions, to coordinate protests simultaneously in cities across Europe or even globally, with the diaspora playing a significant role in this.
Given that the European Union with its Court of Justice on one side, and global superpowers along with the International Criminal Court on the other, face criticism for the insufficient enforcement of democracy—particularly legality—and for their ineffectiveness regarding lack of law enforcement issues such as in the genocide in Gaza, extreme inequalities, corruption, criminal negligence (eg. in Sudan civil war case), incitement (on wars at Congo), and exploitation of third countries, civil society can thus shape its own wave of resistance.
One such endeavor could be intercommunal and transnational collaborations between organizations, which are already being practiced to some extent, along with organized collective responses and mechanisms for monitoring, recording, and investigating incidents related to the application of the constitution (e.g., what is deemed unconstitutional) or the practical implementation of democracy.
These mechanisms could be based in each country, operating under cross-border cooperation and managed autonomously by communities and citizen groups affected by these issues, enabling them to respond with less bureaucracy and more directness.
They could consist of community members and others who are trained with tools or relevant skills, working in partnership with citizens who have personal interest and lived experiences—those who know “from the ground up” what each decision and circumstance entails—and act as alternative advocates by and for the people.
Toward autonomous democratic mechanisms
In this context, transnational assemblies can serve as mediators who decide on and deliberate pending issues and possible responses from the citizen side—through groups and their representatives or individually—and then assign these matters to the respective autonomous community mechanisms. These, in turn, will advocate for changes and practices through dialogue and mutual oversight with European or international institutional bodies capable of applying them legally and institutionally or acting on their own initiative.
Official and scheduled related assemblies, held monthly in a different country each time, could gather institutional and non-institutional (i.e., community-based) actors from all relevant fields (education, citizen protection, economics, labor, etc.). These participants—similar to what currently occurs more sporadically in occupied spaces, universities, or unions—would present their demands, inform others about shared interests and value-based principles, report on developments and the state of affairs in other countries, evaluate outcomes, suggest next actions, and allow citizens to know directly where to turn to—without it being impersonal or exclusively institutional.
Of course, nothing can be implemented perfectly and without dysfunction, and the same applies here. However, this still constitutes an alternative to the complete lack of institutional accountability and ensures that the state is not the sole entity responsible for carrying out democratic procedures and decisions that affect various—though often similarly situated—social groups.
Assemblies that include student associations, labor unions, citizen and community networks for interventions and action, educational and artistic collectives, groups of independently organized citizens, movements, activists, and politically active individuals often lead to protests and marches that reach parliament. These can influence political decisions indirectly or draw the attention of European and global arenas to the issues raised—whether these concern systematic human rights violations or other timely matters addressed collectively on an international level.
This type of assembly is thus able not only to serve the defense of justice and democracy but also, in collaboration with transnational assemblies, to disseminate citizens’ demands—fulfilling a new kind of institutional function. Without waiting for technocratic state mechanisms to intervene belatedly and only partially, they can deliberate, question, and transcend the boundaries of a nation when that very nation fails to fully recognize them. They can coordinate and decide on actions and resistance against irrational laws (like bans on gatherings and other rights) and -why not- demand a new political running?
To move toward a more just and inclusive democratic condition, participation in discussions is not enough, decision-making needs to come from the affected people whose representation can become more visible and their involvement more accessible—via collective organizing, actively in the processes of shaping policy, and the creation of strong networks and coalitions dedicated to defense and accountability.
The ultimate goal could be the complete detachment and independence of the assemblies and their decisions from institutional validation, as well as their recognition as autonomous executive mechanisms for delivering and restoring social justice and reshaping democracy in general.
Martha Fyllou is a Communication & Media graduate (BA) with experience in research, writing and content editing on academic and professional levels. Currently pursuing an MA in Digital Humanities, with a focus on digital discourse, social inequalities, class dynamics, cultural reproduction, and the impact of (cyber)networks across urban, rural, and online spaces. Martha is also interested in intergenerational struggles, racial realities, and tech-neoliberal transformations.