Collective Leadership

We do not believe that elected officials or electoral politics will be the source for the kind of fundamental and transformational change we need. When we set unrealistic expectations from candidates, electeds, or the electoral system, we set ourselves up for disappointment. A few of the problems: 

• Laying claim to victories that movements did the work for

• Electeds become the face of our movements while everyday people engaged in movements become background props

• Reneging on promises or commitments

• Opportunism for donations, access to power, or advancing career

• Succumbing to pressure of opposing forces that move more freely inside electoral world

• Succumbing to conformity of peers who do not hold transformative visions

• Trying to resolve the conflicting needs of movements and of electoral dynamics, or between different movement priorities, as an individual

All of these dynamics work together to actually undermine mass engagement and mass politics. All power, good or bad, is ascribed to elected officials resulting in dehumanizing polarization where electeds are pedestalized and receive extreme loyalty and deference, or are villainized with extreme opposition and disposability. We cannot rely on capitalist, patriarchal, individualist approaches to our social and collective problems.

We need models of collective leadership. Elected officials committed to transformative change do have a critical role to play, but their efforts are strengthened if they are in partnership with movements. There has been increasing reference to ideas of co-governance or participatory democracy in recent times, but it has mostly meant vague references to selectively ‘consult’ with movements and communities. Any serious attempts at co-governance must have concrete structures and processes to increase participation and share decision-making.