Institutional outline
How decisions would be shared
Local self-government alone cannot answer every question. The proposal distinguishes the rights of individuals from the tasks that communities have to organise together.
- 01
The individual
Rights set a limit on every majority.
A person must be able to disagree with their community and still enjoy its protection. Membership cannot require political agreement.
- 02
The community
Decisions begin where their effects are felt.
Local assemblies could decide how shared spaces and services are run. Participation would need time and practical support, otherwise those already able to attend would dominate.
- 03
The federation
Common tasks need a binding arrangement.
Water supply or public transport rarely stops at a municipal boundary. Delegates would coordinate these tasks under a defined mandate. Communities must be able to challenge how that mandate is used.
- 04
The economy
A workplace affects more than its workforce.
Democratic businesses would retain room to make their own decisions. Agreements with the people who depend on their production would address conflicts over supply and ecological limits. How far that can scale remains unresolved.
A conflict case
What if a community refuses?
Suppose an upstream community uses more water than an agreed limit allows. Its local vote cannot settle the consequences for everyone downstream. A federation would need an enforceable agreement and an independent way to resolve the dispute.
That creates a real tension: an institution strong enough to enforce shared rules may also overreach. The constitutional proposals explore possible limits on that power. They do not resolve the tension by calling it coordination.
Read the constitutional proposals