Decidim association is adhering to the manifesto in support of Palestine

Context

On February 13th, 2024, after a request by a Decidim member, the Coordination committee decided to open a space in Metadecidim, in order to allow Decidim members to submit proposals for consideration at our Coordination Committee meetings. 

The idea was that Decidim members could propose agenda items, such as the celebration of a Decidim Day, the creation of a new Thematic Committee, a request for the Association to adhere to a statement or make a public stand, or other issues related to the governance of the project.

Then, a debate was posted to propose the adhesion of the Association to a manifesto called "Technopolitics and Genocide: Solidarity with Palestine". This debate can be found on this link:
https://meta.decidim.org/assemblies/technopolitical-committee/f/1164/debates/251 

This debate aimed to present two proposals to the Decidim community and to the Coordination committee: 

“ 1. Official endorsement and announcement: We plan to officially join the statement "Technopolitics and Genocide. Declaration of Solidarity with Palestine" through a dedicated webpage.

2. Network participation: We aim to engage with a network that includes entities closely aligned with Decidim, such as Algorights, Ars Games, Digital Fems, or Platoniq Foundation. Our collective efforts will focus on denouncing major tech companies and Israel's image laundering campaigns.” 

During its ordinary meeting on February 20th, the present members of the Coordination committee debated the adhesion of the Association to the Manifesto. In general, the members agreed with its intention, but some concerns were raised about the form and wording of the manifesto, and there was agreement that, as a committee, we may not have written it in this way. The minutes of this meeting can be found here : https://meta.decidim.org/assemblies/coordination-committee/f/1037/meetings/1911 

With these doubts about the wording of the statement, and a wish to collectively deliberate and decide, the Coordination committee decided to open a consultation among the members on the potential adhesion of the Decidim association to the manifesto. While the poll was open, the debate went on in the comments. 

The Coordination committee met two other times, the 26th and 29th of February, in extraordinary meetings, to discuss the results of the poll, the evolution of the debate and the implication of both. 

Debate on Metadecidim

At first, the comments on the debate showed a very strong support for this request, which was part of the Committee's decision to launch a consultation among the members of the Association. 

However, on same day the voting was open, dissent started to appear in the debate, noticing different points, such as: 

• The content and wording of the manifesto, and the damage they could do to the community and the reputation of the project, in particular in Germany and Austria. 

• The fact that this kind of adhesion doesn't enter in the scope of the Association.

Alternative ideas were proposed in this conversation, such as: 

• Writing a new manifesto by the Decidim Association;

• Providing a Decidim platform to Palestinian organizations already mobilized in solidarity with victims of the war and organizations working to strengthen human rights and democracy;

• Signing the manifesto as individuals belonging to the Decidim project;

• Signing the manifesto as “the Metadecidim community”.

It has come to our attention that some supporters of the manifesto and people contrary to the adhesion have been reluctant to take part in the debate, for fear of expressing themselves on the subject, of the tone they might use, or of the consequences this might have. We renew our commitment to making the Decidim community a place where opposing views can be expressed with respect and empathy, and we'd like to thank all the members who had the courage to speak out their minds in this way on such a sensitive subject, whatever their opinion, always within the rules of respect that are key to the deliberative health of the community.

Results of the votation

On the 21th, we opened the votation, with the following voting rules:

• Only members of the Decidim Association had the right to vote.

• The proposal would be approved with a majority of votes in favor.

• Voting closed Friday 23rd February at 20:00h CET.

The question was “Do you support the Decidim Association's adherence to the "Technopolitics and Genocide: Solidarity with Palestine" manifesto?”. 

The poll was closed on the Friday 23rd, with the following results: 

• Against: 2 (8,7% of the total votes)

• In favor: 21 (91,3% of the total votes)

Total votes: 23

Participation: 50% of the census

These results were recorded by the committee at our extraordinary meeting held on February 26th, and made public the day after in a commentary on the debate. The minutes of this meeting can be found on the meeting page on Metadecidim. 

Then, a meeting was organized on Wednesday 28th with a minority arguing against the adhesion to the manifesto, to give them a safe and face-to-face space to express their doubts and preoccupations. This is in line with  the norms of the association, since article 37.7 of the statutes states that every member of the association has the right “To request and to obtain explanations about the administration and management of the Coordination Committee or the offices of the Association.”

Agreements

With the help of the comments on the debate, the results of the voting process, and the rich dialogue between the supporters and dissenters of the adhesion, the Committee organized a final  extraordinary meeting celebrated on February 29th (minutes available on this link). There, the Coordination committee agreed on the following:

1. The Decidim association is adhering to the manifesto, to honor the results of the voting process.

2. We will clarify the main questions raised by the deliberation process.

This decision was taken after lengthy debate, with an internal vote that produced the following results:

• 6 committee members in favor

• 1 committee member against

The two other committee members weren’t present during the vote, but were asked to vote asynchronously and decided to abstain. 

Indeed, the results of the votation and the majority shown in the debate’s comments showed a general support of the community members for the manifesto, and the fact that the association should adhere to it. However, the committee recognises that this debate and the deliberative process that followed highlighted some shortcomings. 

Explanation of the final decision

Regarding the different points raised by dissenters, the Coordination committee wanted to provide the following clarifications. 

The statutes of the association

The rights of the members

About the legitimacy of the “Decidim politics” process, and therefore the right to propose that the association joins a manifesto, the article 37.6 recognizes the right of a member of the association “To expose, through the Metadecidim platform, to the General Assembly and the Coordination Committee, anything they consider that contributes to making the life of the Association more complete and to making the achievement of basic social objectives more effective.”

The scope of the association

Regarding the remarks about the fact that signing this manifesto wouldn’t be within the scope of the Decidim Association, the Coordination committee considers that, attending to the article 3 of the Decidim association statutes, it is within the association scope to sign a manifesto, as a form of building "actions, narratives and values" aligned with the goal of "contributing to the democratization of society", and that the adhesion is coherent with the pursuing of the vision of a "radically democratic society" that is "more egalitarian, just, and inclusive". We quote the article in full:

“Association Mission

1. To contribute to the democratization of society by building technology, methodologies, practices, standards, actions, narratives, and values, freely, openly, collaboratively and reflectively.

Vision

2. The members of the Decidim Free Software Association share the vision of a radically democratic society in which every person takes part among equals in common life, a key step towards a more egalitarian, just and inclusive society; ultimately, towards a better society for people.”

Furthermore, this is not the first time a gesture of this kind is undertaken. The Association has already issued statements on politics in countries like France or Chile, regarding the use of violence against social movements or violations of the rights of demonstrators (see this blog article). This was not taken only from a “participatory platform” or a "civic tech" perspective, but from a broader techno-political and socio-political perspective, that should be recognized as such. 

We recognize this specific use case is not explicitly declared within the statutes of the association, but most of its basic elements are, and it would be very difficult to foresee all of the eventualities in the life of our project, while also maintaining space for innovating in the array of possible activities to achieve our mission. The statutes are purposefully wide enough to allow for these types of innovations, discussions and activities. 

However, we strongly believe that the governance of the Decidim Association should move forward democratically, with the participation of all of its members. For this reason, we would like to open a conversation about the internal rules and regulations of our organization, where we have the opportunity to discuss and deliberate on the scope of action and topics that, as an Association, we can undertake.

The attributions of the Coordination committee

About the legitimacy of the Coordination committee to design and monitor this process, as stated by the article 20 of the association statutes, it is within the coordination committee powers  “To summon general assemblies, initiate processes, consultations or other participatory spaces on the Metadecidim platform and to monitor compliance with the agreements adopted there.”

More broadly: 

“ The Coordination Committee is the body that administers and represents the Association, and has the following powers:

[…]

L. To resolve provisionally any case that was not expected in the statutes and be accountable through the Metadecidim platform. 

M. Any other power that is not specifically attributed to any other governing body of the Association or that has been expressly delegated to it.”

The content and wording of the manifesto

The coordination committee acknowledges the fact that several people highlighted the content and the wording of the manifesto, noting some lack of sensibility, sources, and references to other related topics. At several of the meetings aforementioned, a proposed solution to this issue was to write our own manifesto, taking the time and resources to do it with our own words. 

However, it's important to consider that the options open for consultation were whether 'to adhere' or 'not to adhere' to a given manifesto, and thus, launching a new initiative would deviate us from the original request. Moreover, the committee emphasized that the majority expressed in the debate and the poll should be respected. Therefore, it was decided to proceed in accordance with the decisions taken through the established consultation process, and add the support of the association to the manifesto. All that said, as the submission of debates or initiative requests by the association members is within their rights as members, anyone could propose an alternative manifesto that they may deem more appropriate. 

Another argument gathered during the committee meetings concerned the possible negative consequences this adhesion may have for the Decidim association and its community, regarding fundraising opportunities, potential economic impacts on partners, or loss in Decidim use cases. 

On this point, the Committee wants to highlight that the nature of the Decidim project is and has always been political, that both Decidim and the association advocate for an radically open, just and democratic society. As we all know, political stances have consequences that must be accepted. Defining exactly where the political nature of the project begins and ends is an impossible mission, as a regulation will never be able to cover all scenarios. Therefore, we want to emphasize that the definition of which issues are inside or outside the political scope of the project will be something that will be defined by the action of the members and the organs of the association. That is to say, we as members, with the proposals we make or do not make, and with the rules and organs we give ourselves, will define the issues on which we have to position ourselves.

What we learned

• Open political debates in the community generate tension, which, if not managed carefully, can potentially lead to fractures within the community. Therefore, the community needs to make an effort to address dissent constructively, strengthening its cohesion and resilience.

• The lack of regulation on how to decide on political issues, coupled with the urgency of the request, led the committee to devise a decision-making process that, when viewed in hindsight, could have been improved.

Next steps

• A governance process will be set to further define our internal regulation. This will involve making our own governance more actionable so that the Association members know how to organize with the community in future similar cases. 

• Elections will be held to constitute a Democratic Guarantee Committee, mentioned in the association's statutes (article 30) but never implemented for lack of resources and prioritization of other fronts.

• Use this conflict as an observatory on how to better moderate inclusive dialogues in polarizing times.

If you have any question, the comments section is opened, we'll be glad to answer you there.