(en) Anarkismo.net: Sweden, Oslo, A Free Federation -- Counterpower's recent transition to federative structure by Adrien A. Wilkins - Motmakt (Counterpower)

The 19th and 20th of October Motmakt (Counterpower) held its fall congress in Oslo. This 
congress was slightly different from previous congresses we have had. For the first time 
representatives from three local chapters were gathered, and the question was how we were 
to coordinate these chapters moving forward. ---- The Second day of the congress 
Counterpower was formally founded as a federation. But what does that mean? Now that we 
are one, its only proper that we explain what we mean by it and why we have chosen this 
way of organizing. With this short article we hope to inspire others who wish to organize 
themselves as democratic as possible. ---- The one and only ---- A Federation is when 
separate units come together to form a new whole. When we talk about nation-states we 
usually mean separate regions coming together to form a state, like the United States.

When we are talking about organizations we often mean separate organizations coming 
together to form one whole.

In Counterpower these units are now Counterpower Oslo, Counterpower Trondheim and our 
freshest chapter; Counterpower Bergen. The whole is now Counterpower the federation.

What makes Counterpower unique in Norway is how far we go to insure that the local 
chapters have as much autonomy as possible. In fact every active member have the same 
amount of influence both when it comes to influencing their local chapter and the 
federation as a whole. We accomplish this by coordinating the local chapters in a 
coordinating council instead of pooling the power in a central board or in work groups.

The coordinating council is comprised of delegates from each local chapter, who bring 
suggestions from the chapters to the council where the motion is discussed and made ready 
for vote. The vote itself is taken at a local level and it?s the vote at this local level 
that determines policy.

The Challenge of different sized chapters

Because we vote directly on the motions, instead of on who gets to decide over our heads, 
we realized that it would be necessary to weigh the local chapters? votes in a way that 
recognizes the different size of the chapters but at the same time denies the biggest 
chapter the opportunity to decide the outcome of our votes through sheer size alone. What 
we landed on was making a system where each local chapters gets a designated amount of 
votes based on size.

Every chapter gets a certain amount of ?federation votes? depending on its size. These 
votes are distributed according to the vote at the local chapter. If for example there are 
sixteen members present at a meeting of a local chapter with four ?federation votes?, and 
twelve of these members vote for a motion and four against, that would mean that the 
chapter sends three votes for and one vote against the motion to the coordinating council.
As much autonomy as possible

Every chapter will manage 80% of its own members monthly payments. The remaining 20% will 
be collected in federation coffers which will finance the yearly congress as well as any 
national campaigns.

But direct democracy is not only about voting. If we want to keep the power with our 
membership then we need ways of preforming tasks without a central board or closed work 
groups. In Counterpower this is done by having several small and comprehensible mandates. 
Like all mandates in Counterpower all mandates must be rotated frequently, so important 
knowledge and experience is spread among as many members as possible. This also minimizes 
the risk of informal hierarchies developing as a result of one person holding a position 
too long. All mandates, including the delegates sent to the coordinating council are 
revocable in every forum of decision-making we have, so if a mandate needs to be replaced 
for any reason we won?t have to wait for the next congress to replace someone.

We are very excited about seeing how our federative structure will work in when theory 
becomes praxis, and have already planned a new congress summer of 2014 to evaluate and if 
necessary change the structure. One does not come far without trial and error, and one 
accomplishes little if one is not prepared to critically examine our system and choices.

Our motivation for doing this springs from our conviction that how we organize today will 
be mirrored in what we accomplish tomorrow. Former, non-prefigurative, movements have 
ended up reproducing the same undemocratic power-relations they were supposed to combat. 
With dire consequences. We must therefore organize ourselves in a way that corresponds 
with our visions of how a future society will be structured: Free, horizontal, and 
direct-democratic!