[pp.int.general] Pirate Party UK Critism

[Eric Priezkalns]

I am troubled that this topic seems to be, for some people, the issue  
that defines PPUK.  I would rather have moved on by now, but given  
PPUK's management has become a topic for debate here, I suppose one of  
the party's officers is beholden to respond, or else we will tacitly  
encourage the false impressions that the party's management is somehow  
secretive or opaque.  So please allow me to respond as one of the  
party's (outgoing) officers.

One of the major criticisms of the party was that membership is paid  
for.  I believe that paid membership is the only realistic and  
practical approach to raising sufficient funds in order to campaign in  
British elections.  In the upcoming general election, it would cost  
over US$500,000 simply to field a candidate in every seat.  If we do  
not field a candidate, nobody who lives in that constituency will have  
the option to vote for the PPUK.  I doubt we will get anywhere near  
the target amount, but if we do not field candidates then it will be  
hard to maintain the support of voters, or even members, who cannot  
vote for our party.

Fielding a candidate is the absolute minimum of what a party needs to  
do.  Whilst the internet brings down the costs of campaigning, it does  
not enable campaigning to reach out to all voters, and I believe the  
correct strategy is to use the political activity to reach out to  
moderate voters who may not consider themselves pirates and would not  
find out about our policies and candidates via the internet.  Reaching  
out entails more mainstream campaigning methods, which will increase  
costs further.  As a final point about the cost of running a party,  
even a small party like the UK's Green Party spends in the region of US 
$150,000 per year simply on administration.  I doubt any supporters of  
the Green Party consider them to be corrupt because they spend money  
on ensuring the party is professionally run and complies with all of  
its legal obligations.

In the UK, unlike some other countries, there is no state aid for  
political parties, or even state funding for the kinds of youth  
associations that may be linked to political parties in other  
countries.  The cost of offering a new democratic choice to British  
voters will hence all have to come from the money given to us by  
supporters.

Combine these facts, I believe demonstrates how vital fund raising  
will be to the prospect of offering British voters a democratic choice  
to vote Pirate.  Our challenge is not as bad as the fund-raising  
mountain that needs to be scaled by our comrades in the US, but it is  
greater than that faced by other countries.  The only way to promote  
change through democracy is to accept the reality of fundraising and  
be effective in how we go about it.

Based on money collected so far, over 80% of the party's funds has  
come from membership fees.  In other words, less than 20% has come  
from voluntary donations.  It is likely that, if there was no  
membership fee, then more money would have come from donations but I  
believe it is highly unlikely that we would have raised as much.  Our  
membership fees are in line with other British political parties.

There are some people who feel strongly about the party's fundraising,  
and have been vocal about it.  Bitplane, the person who blogged about  
why he will not be joining PPUK, is one of them, and frequently  
commented on our public forums about his unhappiness.  For example, in  
one of his forum posts, he described the party's management, which  
includes me, as "money grabbing whores".  If we do not respond to what  
he says, it is not because we do not listen.  It is because it is far  
from obvious that the voices of disapproval are the ones we should be  
listening to.  There are others with the contrary opinion, but may not  
be so vocal about it.  Take this email I received from a supporter:


"Love the idea of your party and would like to give some money... I am  
on incapacity benefit but would love to sent a tenner to promote  
freedom... best of luck with your party this country needs to get back  
to basic freedoms..."

Who is to say that Bitplane, vocal and passionate and with time to  
write blogs and forum posts deserves to be listened to more than the  
gentleman who sent me that email?  Or that Bitplane is more  
representative than a supporter who never writes me an email, never  
writes a blog, and never posts to the forum?  Bitplane and the person  
who sent me that email both talked about and care deeply about  
freedom, but we know that what can seem like freedom to one person is  
tyranny to another.  We should be able to comprehend that a George W.  
Bush or Robespierre may be entirely sincere and very passionate about  
what they call 'freedom', even though we can disagree with their views  
on what freedom is.  I am not of the opinion that a public forum on  
the party's website automatically equates to more freedom, and I also  
think that quite a trivial debate has been escalated out of all  
proportion to its real significance.  But we know that the internet  
sometimes lead to a lot of sound and fury around trivial matters, at  
the expense of topics which are far more important.  That is why  
copyright infringement is simplistically reduced to the metaphor of  
'stealing', whilst news outlets in the developed world are  
depressingly devoid of debate about how patents for medicines equate  
to a huge cost in human lives.

Many of the people who have joined PPUK have chosen not to be active  
on the forums.  I do not find that surprising.  Empirical observation  
tells us that even when people have equal access and equal competence  
to use the internet, their motivations and behaviours differ.  Some  
will spend a lot of time sharing and stating their views.  Others will  
never do so.  As an example, I have a friend who recently joined the  
party.  Because I know him well, I know he will never read the forums  
and will never comment on them.  He cares deeply in his own way, but  
he is not the kind of person who ever wants to be public about his  
views.  That is his choice and I respect him for that.  He is not a  
secretive person; it is just that he is a private and modest man who  
does not like to preach to others.  By giving money and becoming a  
member, he has made a kind of expression of support.  My own crude  
analysis of how many posts are made by each of the party's members  
leads me to believe my friend is far from alone, and that there are  
many other quiet supporters who will never post to the party's forum.   
If we want to get his opinion, we will need to email him and engage  
him with a specific activity he might respond to, like a vote on party  
policy.  That does not make him better or worse than an individual  
like Bitplane, but it does exemplify the question of who a political  
party should listen to and how they listen.  I am not of the opinion  
that a democratic party should listen to the people based on who  
shouts loudest, but it is not clear how proponents of an open forum  
would mitigate the risk that the loudest will exert a disproportionate  
influence, even though they may have no real commitment to the party  
and its goals.

In some of the debate around this topic, there is an underlying but  
rarely examined assumption.  This is that the party should listen by  
engaging and supporting the kinds of discussion that mostly occur on  
the internet.  That has a certain appeal to it.  But I think it lacks  
balance.  We all know that the voices that tend to get heard on the  
internet are different to the voices that are heard when large groups  
discuss and reach decisions in other ways.  We all know that more  
extreme voices will get attention and be listened to on the internet,  
simply because they are extreme.  In contrast, more mainstream  
opinions get less attention, simply because they are less  
sensational.  The most vocal person during PPUK's short history, as  
measured by the number of forum posts, was found to be using  
sockpuppets.  Irrespective of the distorting impact of sockpuppetry, I  
think we can all agree that someone prepared to undermine freedom of  
speech by abusing it is not going to be representative of the views of  
most pirate supporters.  Which brings us to a real and serious  
practical question of how best to listen to our supporters, because we  
will not be effective in listening if we allow some voices to be  
drowned out by others.

With PPUK, the management team has tried to listen not just to the  
loudest voices on the internet, but also to the people who support the  
cause but are quiet.  It makes our work much harder, but I think it is  
the right approach.  The justification is straightforward.  We are a  
political party, and success is ultimately measured in terms of  
attracting votes, not internet traffic.  The votes of a quiet person  
count just as much as the votes of somebody who is outspoken.  Whilst  
the internet forum provides one kind of voice, the party's management  
team do not want to encourage the perception that the forum is the  
best or only way to engage with the party.  Some individuals have  
misinterpreted this as a predilection to control freakery by  
individuals such as myself.  They could not be farther away from the  
truth.  On a personal level, some of the insulting language directed  
at individuals like myself has been tedious and unpleasant to say the  
least, but I guess that is another burden that we have to bear.  The  
disagreement is not about whether to listen or not to listen, in the  
simplistic way that some have suggested.  Throughout history, even the  
worst tyrants have proclaimed themselves to represent 'the people', so  
I have little respect for the trivial assertion that providing a  
public forum on the party's website is the best or only way to listen  
to 'the people' and not doing so means we are not listening to 'the  
people'.  The very idea of a political party that equally listens and  
represents all people is an oxymoron.  Political parties represent the  
collective opinions of a subset of the population, not of all.  To  
represent all opinions would mean trying to write a manifesto that  
finds common ground with the RIAA and Rupert Murdoch and anybody and  
everybody else who we obviously disagree with on a fundamental level.   
They are people after all, and should be no more excluded from the  
collective views of 'the people' than we should exclude someone based  
on their gender or race.  So there is more to effective listening than  
having a public internet forum which can be used by anyone, and the  
decisions of a political party are not made by 'the people' in  
abstract, but by a specific group according to the rules agreed by the  
group.  There are rules on how people join that specific group, and  
there are rules on how the group behaves and interacts.  Whilst I am  
emotionally sympathetic to the ideas that underpin anarchism, I do not  
believe that anarchies can deliver freedom in practice.  Like most  
people, I believe maximizing freedom is a question of balance, and  
recognize that different people disagree on what is the right  
balance.  So whilst I hear the voices that say that an open internet  
forum on the party's website is the best way to provide people with  
the freedom to engage with and influence the party's decisions, I  
disagree with them and have been part of the team building the  
framework and processes that will provide for a more sophisticated and  
robust mode of interaction than an open forum.  However, this takes  
longer than implementing a web forum, and ours is a new party, so I  
believe some individuals have misinterpreted the current lack of these  
decision-making processes as an indication that decisions are made  
from the top-down.  I believe we will ultimately be judged by what we  
deliver, which will be far more substantial than a web forum.

It is true that there was a forum vote with a majority in favour of  
opening up the party's forums, but it is also true that the results  
are different if you filter out the non-members that voted, and we can  
surmise that a forum vote attracts and engages the people who like to  
use forums, so may not give the most accurate representation of the  
beliefs of all PPUK supporters.  However, people who are heavy users  
of forums and vocal in their opinions may not see things that way.   
They are entitled to their opinion that the PPUK management team has  
made the wrong decision in closing some forums to non-members.   
However, I do not think they are entitled to conclude a party cannot  
be democratic without hosting an open forum on its own website.  But  
if they think the management team is wrong and out of tune with  
supporters, there will be the perfect opportunity to reverse course  
when the management posts are up for election in January 2010.  A more  
reasonable approach would not be to perpetuate the debate via the  
internet, but simply for the prominent individuals who oppose the  
approach taken thus far to stand for election and canvass votes based  
on wanting to open up the forums, changing membership rules and any  
other topics where they have a strong disagreement with the party's  
current management.

With this in mind, let me make an important observation that is  
repeatedly lost in this debate.  When the party formed, I commented  
that most of the party's supporters had got used to talking about the  
'Pirate Party' and being members of the party when there was no party  
and no membership.  There had been a web presence for several years,  
but the levels of debate and discussion were low, because there was no  
actual party and hence no real party political activity.  Now there is  
a party, and the party is its members.  Equating a party with its  
members is not a point of view, but a fact.  This is based on what  
kind of thing a political party is, at least according to the UK's  
laws.  By the same token, people keep talking about the party's  
policies when there are, at this moment in time, no policies.  Even  
the 'policies' as described on the party's home page are not genuine  
policies, but merely a placeholder necessary to start a political  
process.  I say there are no policies because the policies of a  
democratic party are the result of a democratic process.  We are a  
democratic party, but we have not completed any democratic process to  
determine policy.  In fact, there is an absence of a process, and we  
are trying to build the process from the bottom up, not from the top  
down.  That means Bitplane's criticisms of policy, and some of the  
responses to this thread, are premature.  The party has no policy on  
the Obscene Publications Act, nor any other piece of legislation, nor  
censorship in general.  There is only a shorthand to talk about what  
the policies might turn out to be.

I will briefly summarize what the party management and others are  
doing to ensure that policy and other decisions will be made in a  
democratic way that really does listen to supporters:

- Though 'elected' by a pre-formation vote of party supporters, the  
party's senior management team will be subject to a full and proper  
election by a vote of all members to be held in January 2010.  This  
would be an appropriate time for individuals like Bitplane to put  
themselves forward for election if they believe the current management  
team is not listening to the majority of members.
- Less senior management appointments will all be subject to  
ratification by a full member's vote, ensuring that the senior team  
cannot appoint individuals to any position of responsibility without  
the party's support.
- Policy is formulated by working groups comprised of volunteers from  
the membership.  Any party member is eligible to participate in any  
working group.  The working groups have been self-organized by each  
working group's chair.  The chairs are prominent volunteers and none  
of them are part of the current management team.  No decision has been  
made on how to appoint them in future, though I expect we will include  
the policy group chairs in the party election to be held in January  
2010.  The thinking behind allowing the chairs to determine the way  
the working groups did their work was to ensure the management team  
had no back-door mechanism for exerting an influence over policy  
decisions.  Some of the chairs have used forum debate and votes as  
part of the process for formulating policy.  Others place more  
emphasis on getting a small group to work cohesively on collaborative  
authoring.  This has been entirely up to them.  The work of the policy  
working groups is underway but has not been completed.  When the  
working groups complete their first drafts, the policies will be  
reviewed by an appointed individual (ratified by a full vote of party  
members) and his or her review committee, with a view to ensuring the  
research that backs policy is solid and reliable and that the policies  
are well-enough written to be effective for public communication.  The  
review committee will not influence the policies themselves.  Then the  
policies will be presented to the party's membership to vote on and  
either accept or reject.  Until the policies are written, it will be  
impossible to determine how to break down the votes per each section  
of the policy, but the review committee will decide how to manage the  
voting process to ensure there is the right level of granularity in  
the questions put to the membership.  This separates responsibility  
for the manifesto from the party's day-to-day management.
- One prominent volunteer, with no current official position, is  
setting up a 'think tank' which will be independent of the party's  
membership.  He is doing that with the support and blessing of the  
current party management team.  He already has interest from prominent  
individuals who are not pirate party members, but who have relevant  
things to say about issues like copyright or surveillance.  The think  
tank, by being independent, will provide an alternative voice on party  
policy.
- Local parties are encouraged to form and self-regulate, much like  
the working policy groups are self-regulating.  The local parties can  
independently decide how to engage with supporters, whether members or  
non-members.  One of the most outspoken critics of the closure of the  
party's website forums to non-members has become the co-ordinator for  
a local party, and I have personally encouraged him to set up his own  
public web forums if he believes that will help him.  As I explained  
to him, I would be keen to see what kinds of results he gets and  
compare them to different approaches elsewhere, so instead of having a  
theoretical debate we can examine how well different options work in  
real life.  As I explained to him, I can be persuaded to change my  
mind, but I am persuaded by evidence and facts, not rhetoric.
- Though nobody has taken up the offer, the party management has  
repeatedly said it is supportive of public forums so long as they are  
not hosted on the party's official website.  This is just like other  
UK parties, where is now the norm for mainstream parties to informally  
support a small number of independent forums.  This allows for freedom  
of expression whilst simplifying the task of distinguishing public  
debate from the party's official communications.  If I was not busy  
with my current duties, I would have set up such a forum myself.  I  
believe this is a good compromise, though ignored by individuals like  
Bitplane.  My argument with Bitplane is that real supporters are not  
so unsophisticated that they would only visit the party's official  
website to discuss party policy.  I believe the average supporter  
would have no problem with following a link to a forum hosted  
elsewhere.  This has the advantage of avoiding confusion between the  
status of a member and a non-member, and that non-members are hence  
aware they have less influence on party policy than a member has.

Whilst these things are a work-in-progress, Andrew, the party's  
leader, has to field press questions and has to be in the mode of  
being able to talk about policy even though policy has not been  
decided.  Individuals who talk about policy, Andrew included, are  
representing themselves and hopes for the party, not the party's  
official line, as there is no official line.  This subtlety has been  
lost on some.

With respect to homophobia, and the party's lack of tolerance to  
homophobia, I believe Andrew has made the right decision.  Once again,  
the party's membership will have the opportunity to have its  
democratic voice heard if they believe Andrew is wrong, but I expect  
the majority will back him.  Whilst PPUK is fully committed to freedom  
of speech, the party's management team is also committed to a policy  
where the party will not violate current UK law, and I believe this  
policy has very strong support although there have been a few  
outspoken opponents.  The UK law now prohibits homophobic hate speech,  
which is one good reason for PPUK to set clear expectations for  
members.  Further than that, the question of balancing freedoms also  
arises.  A party which appears intolerant of gays, lesbians and bis  
will discourage their support or involvement.  The question of freedom  
of sexual orientation is not central to the party's manifesto, so it  
is not unreasonable to expect members to censor themselves by not  
expressing homophobic views using the party's communication channels,  
even if they hold those views.  By the same token, the PPUK is not an  
appropriate place to discuss holocaust denial, pedophilia, sexual  
violence or any other topic which has no real relevance to the party's  
objectives.  It is consistent to say that PPUK can debate the rights  
and wrongs of censorship of homophobia, and even be in favour of laws  
that forbid such censorship, without allowing itself to be used to  
communicate the homophobic comments themselves.  That is because  
freedom of speech is a totality of rights, not a free for all that  
needs to be implemented at every opportunity.  Expressions of  
homophobia are no more appropriate for PPUK's communication channels  
than debates about which football team is best.  On the other hand,  
the party's policy on membership is straightforward, and allows gays,  
lesbians and bisexuals to join just like any other British voter.   
Permitting language that would discourage them from joining is not  
just a point of principle, but one of practicality too.  We want to  
maximize support for our goals, and we will not do that by allowing  
any individual or group to hijack the party and use it as a platform  
for their homophobic rantings.

On the topic of whether people are 'forced' to join PPUK in order to  
support, let me observe that it is wrong-headed to equate membership  
with support.  All political parties, in all democracies elsewhere,  
rely upon support from both members and non-members.  The management  
team of PPUK understands that perfectly well.  You don't have to join  
a party in order to vote for it, and we are firmly focused on the goal  
of any sensible political party: maximizing votes and support in  
general.  The rules that govern membership forms part of the means to  
the end.  If anything, I would say that idea that having a special  
status for members will somehow exclude participation from other  
supporters is the one which is mistaken.  In different countries and  
different parties, the line between what a member can do, and what a  
non-member can do, is drawn differently, but all parties everywhere  
benefit from the efforts from supporters who are not members, and PPUK  
will be just the same.

Please indulge me as I make a final observation.  Some people comment,  
from time to time, that I write lengthy emails and forum posts ;)   
They often, sometimes in a gentle and affectionate way, other times  
with less affection, complain about the length.  I dare say that  
relatively few will have read all the way to this point in this email,  
compared to some of the shorter responses to this thread.  I find this  
amusing because, whilst we recognize that freedom of speech is a  
right, we can fail to observe that not everything can be said with  
just a few words.  We have heard some opinions on this thread about  
why people are cynical about politics.  Let me add a different  
observation about why people are cynical.  They are cynical that  
politicians are people who try to deal with complicated issues by  
issuing trite and simplistic slogans and soundbites, instead of taking  
a balanced view that listens to all sides and weighs all the pros and  
cons before trying to make a good decision that really does consider  
the needs of all the people.  It may sound like harsh criticism, but I  
don't believe open internet debate is a panacea that solves all the  
challenges in having a constructive democratic process that considers  
the wishes of all the people, or even of a restricted group of  
people.  My concern is that could easily be used to give too much  
weight to the people who are least representative, and most extreme.   
Part of the reason for that is that internet forum debate emphasizes  
bite-sized and often trivial statements about complicated topics,  
sometimes with no regard for the facts.  It is that thinking that  
leads me to remain comfortable with my own conscience, and that I and  
the other members of the management team are pursuing the right course  
that will deliver an open and democratic party, even in the face of  
sometimes extraordinary abuse from critics.  In short, the challenge  
of listening to people and running a responsible party cannot be  
reduced to slogans.  We've been doing the hard work to create a  
democratic party.  The irony is that the members of the PPUK will have  
the choice to replace its management team, reverse our decisions and  
decide the party's manifesto not despite, but because of what we have  
been doing to deliver a real and working democratic party.

Eric Priezkalns, PPUK Treasurer



On 2 Oct 2009, at 17:35, Erika Nilsson wrote:

> I have to say I agree with the blogger's general point, although I  
> remember that there were some very reasonable arguments for not  
> making membership in the PPUK free, for example (running a party in  
> the UK costs crazy amounts of money, etc). Supporting the Obscene  
> Publications Act is, imo, as far as you can possibly get from the  
> freedom of speech ethos of the Pirate movement (and the arguments  
> for doing so seem to be generally along the lines of "let's not help  
> load the cannon that's going to be pointed at us" - ie "we're not  
> sure this is what we believe but we don't really dare to say  
> otherwise"). As for keeping policy discussion closed to non-members,  
> I wrote a pretty long comment to the blog post, but in short I would  
> advocate opening up *discussion* to all forum members while closing  
> actual *voting* on policy decisions to paying members.
>
> In contrast to the blogger, I don't hope that someone will form a  
> "PPUK #2" - that would just be counter-productive and harmful to  
> both parties, and to the voters - but I do hope that the PPUK will  
> take these problems seriously, and not just start chanting that "if  
> we open discussion up, our forum will turn into 4chan".
>
> Erika Nilsson
>
>
> 2009/10/2 Chris Lockie <chris at lockie.org>
> I have to say that this statement about 'obscene' publications and  
> images...
>
> "It's not censorship, it's exercising good moral judgement on behalf  
> of the voters"
>
> ...makes me deeply uncomfortable. It's bloody cheeky of any  
> political party to think I'll let them decide on my behalf what's  
> right and what's wrong, what's obscene and what's 'acceptable'. I  
> had no idea the PPUK was in favour of that piece of legislation and  
> I'm unlikely to support them in any election if that stance remains  
> unchanged.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Pirate Party UK Critism
> From: Joonas_Mäkinen <joonasd6 at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, October 02, 2009 3:44 pm
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
> <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
>
> Altough I am not from UK, I do have to point out what the text made  
> me think about you:
>
> He is quite right about freedom of expressing opinions, even if they  
> are homophobic.
>
> "http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=655"
>
> I disagree with this.
>
> To get the trust of people who in turn have lost their trust in the  
> old parties, you need to be more open than them.
>
> 2009/10/2 Kai Mast <kai.mast at freakybytes.org>
> Hey,
>
> I would like the members of the Pirate Party UK to comment on this
> blogpost.
> http://bitplane.net/2009/09/pirate-party-uk-fail/
>
> greetings,
> Kai
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joonas "JoonasD6" Mäkinen
> Varapuheenjohtaja, viceordförande
> Piraattinuoret - Piratungdom
>
> Department of Mathematics and Statistics
> Faculty of Science
> University of Helsinki
>
> gsm +358 40 700 5190
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091003/d3d7204a/attachment-0001.htm>