Beyond Structures to Democracy as Culture

Democracy in Women’s Groups in Québec :

Beyond Structures to Democracy as Culture

Jennifer Beeman1

Nancy GubermanJocelyne LamoureuxDanielle Fournier

Lise Gervais

This article seeks to elucidate a paradox revealed by our

research on democratic practices in women’s groups in Québec. In

focus groups held with grassroots members, board members and workers

in a wide variety of women’s groups, the discourse on the role and

conception of the democratic structures and the role of the members

(or lack thereof) in those structures is quite damning. This

discussion in all of the FG revealed that, grassroots members appear

far-removed from democratic decision-making structures. Furthermore,

these structures, most notably the board of directors and the annual

members’ meeting, appear to have little meaning for the members. The

paradox arises from what these same actresses say that democracy

means in their group. Their answers are often very eloquent and

moving and attest to a high value placed on democracy in the culture

of their groups. Democracy is much more than a question of the

structures that support democratic participation, but how are we to

understand and conceptualize theoretically what constitutes

democratic practices in grassroots organizations if the structures

themselves have so little meaning? Furthermore, in addressing this

paradox, are there lessons to be learned for democratic societies

1 It is difficult to express the extent to which the analysis presented hereis the result of the collective work and contributions of all five authors.We are a feminist research collective that worked together for over eight years and each member had a profound impact on every phase of the work we undertook.

Democracy in Women’ Groups in Québec

more generally, and for understanding our political structures and

the importance of democratic practices in ways that extend far

beyond those structures?

The struggle by different social movements in the 1960s against

the alienation and bureaucratization of daily life revitalized

interest in the direct participation of citizens in decision making

processes. It was in this context that women’s’ groups and other

types of community groups emerged in Quebec. Many of the

organizations experimented with a variety of forms of participatory

democratic structures wherein the members of the groups and the

workers collectives participated on an equal level in all

deliberations and group decisions.2 Since these beginnings, women’s

groups have continued to call into question the traditional concepts

of representative democracy. Their reflections and the elaboration

of new practices came to spark the development among certain

feminists of a notion of democracy as a process of discussion,

negotiation and deliberation through which decisions are made that

are acceptable to the largest number of members (Collin). Within

this perspective, a vote is a necessary mechanism, but an

insufficient one as democracy is considered as an inclusive activity

demanding the participation of each at the decision making level

(Mansbridge). Indeed, feminist theory is rich in analyses of

collectivist organizations compared with bureaucratic ones

(Ferguson, 1984; Riger, 1984; Rothschild-Whitt, 1979a, 1979b) or

hierarchical as opposed to participatory structures (Acker, 1995,2 It should be understood that in Québec, the growth of women’s movement organizations occurred concurrently and in association with the developmentof the community movement. The members of the community movement (le movement communautaire) organized to develop community-controlled services in reaction to the Québec government’s unresponsiveness “to the interests, demands, needs and rights of marginalized populations” (Masson, 1999/2000, p. 52). This movement is characterized by the twin demands of community-controlled services that function democratically and the recognition of thelegitimacy of these actors in the organization of welfare services (Farveau, 1989, Bélanger and Lévesque, 1992; Masson, 1999/2000).

Beeman and colleagues 2


Iannello, 1992; Pennell, 1989). In Québec, much empirical and

theoretical attention has been given to the question of the power of

workers in women’s groups compared to the power exercised by the

members of those groups (Couillard, Lamoureux, Beeman and

colleagues).

Québec theorist Jacques Godbout adds an important element to

this discussion with his distinction between participation and

democracy. We must always bear in mind that (is his the best quote?

– maybe it’s the translation but it doesn’t make real sense in

English)“participation is no longer a concept automatically aligned

with democracy; it has been an autonomous idea, something which

takes on a valorization of self-mobilization, sometimes leaving

aside notions of democratic institutions (Godbout). (check the

structure of next sentence)Democracy is by its nature an unstable

relationship, but reducing democracy to simple participation turns

the relationship between the workers and participants into a stable

one more easily controlled by workers. Each of these approaches

that looks at issues of structures, practices that promotes

democratic participation, the role and power of workers versus

members, and questions of participation and empowerment all examine

one different aspects of democracy in social movement organizations.

Democracy involves all of those elements and still more.

Classical theorists on democracy wrote of the transformation of

individuals through their participation in democratic decision-

making. In contemporary theory on social movements and democracy,

Alain Touraine takes his analysis of the transformations the

individual experiences through participation in democratic social

movements much farther than has previously been done, in particular

in his writings on the actor or subject. Writing on the relation of

the subject and his or her relation to a social movement, he writes

that “the subject” is will, resistance and struggle, and not the



immediate experience of oneself. Furthermore, no social movement is

possible outside of the will for liberation of the subject. The idea

of a subject is most present when a collective action that seeks to

construct a social, political and moral space has emerged and

creates a space that produces individual and collective experience

(Touraine, 1997: 135-136). Our analysis of the meaning of

democratic structures and the meaning of democracy in women’s groups

(not clear) itself for the participants and board members of those

groups sits at the intersection of theory on democratic structures

and Touraine’s theory on the subject and social movements. In this

article we will try to flesh out the nuances, contradictions as well

as the richness of the different meanings of democracy for the

members of these women’s groups.

Method and Data

- Our collective undertook a first study on the organizational

culture of women’s groups in Québec, which revealed the small role

that the user-members appeared to have in the decision-making

process or in the running of the groups, while the central place and

the power of the workers group was quite easy to see (Beeman and

colleagues, 2003). In order for us to deepen our understanding of

this phenomenon, we decided to develop a second study looking more

specifically at issues of democracy, participation and power within

women’s groups.3

3 The network of women’s groups in Québec is complex, extensive and highly formalized. There are currently almost 100 women’s centres, over 90 shelters for women victims of conjugal violence or in difficulty, 15 employability groups for women as well as advocacy groups for women and employment issues (not counting unions), over 20 sexual assault centres, a variety of health groups, cultural groups, groups for single mothers and lesbians. In addition, each of these sectors of groups generally has its own federation which provides services and information to its members and may negotiate with the government for base funding for its groups. There are also a number of federations and resources groups that are



To achieve our goals, we used several qualitative methods of

data collection. The first consisted of a series of focus groups

held in four different regions in Québec, each series made up of one

focus group composed exclusively of workers from a purposive sample

of women’s groups in the region, one composed exclusively of board

members of the same groups and one with exclusively grassroots

members who were not involved in the decision-making structures of

the group (excluding the annual members’ meeting) and again, from

those same women’s groups. Thus we held 11 focus groups in all.4

Twenty-three groups were represented in the focus groups. They

included six women’s centres, four shelters for women victims of

conjugal violence, three centres for victims of sexual assault, four

literacy groups that work from a feminist perspective, a group for

young mothers as well as a number of employment collectives (a

garment collective, a graphic design collective, a domestic help

collective).5 This large corpus of data was organized on NUD-IST and

analyzed according to our conceptual framework, with different

researchers analyzing different themes with continual feedback from

the others through team meetings.

intersectorial, in addition to the largest and broadest feminist association, the Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ). Furthermore, the women’s movement, working in coalition with other community groups and the major unions have won major gains for women, including a provincial-wide 7$/day daycare system, a new parental leave insurance program that offers income replacement for up to 55 weeks at a rate of up to 75% of gross income and that also covers independent workers, and a proactive pay equitylaw that applies to both the public and private sectors.

4 In one region, the focus groups for the board members and the grassroots members had to be merged, as two groups had no participants to represent them, making a focus group difficult. The participants from the other groups were merged with the board members, and in the transcriptions we were able to distinguish between board members and grassroots members.5 The entire research project including all interviews and focus groups werecarried out in French. All quotes have been translated from the French by the authors.



Following the focus groups, the next step was to choose

several women’s groups, purported to have exemplary democratic

practices, for a period of participant observation and interviews

with key actresses to observe firsthand the concrete practices of

democracy and how they were put into practice from day to day. Six

groups were chosen for this phase: a women’s centre whose members

are overwhelmingly welfare recipients, an advocacy group for women

working in traditionally male trades, a youth group with feminist

practices, the women’s committee of an advocacy group for people

with mental health problems, a women’s centre with a diverse

membership and a collective of domestic help workers. This article

is based on the analysis of the discourse of the different

categories of actors in the focus groups, although at the end we

will raise some questions based on our observations. We will

consider democracy from the dual angles of the discourse of the

actresses on the structure and formal decision-making forums as well

as their understanding and definition of democracy in women’s groups

more generally. Democracy cannot be reduced to structures alone,

but they play an important role in the decision making process and

must be examined in order to understand the role they play.

Democratic Structures in Women’s Groups

Drawing on Collin, we initially defined democracy as the

simple fact of playing a significant role in the places that count.

To play a significant role, one must have the power of speaking and

being heard, have the capacity to influence, and to participate in

the deliberations, in the decisions, and in the actions which follow

(Mansbridge). As to the spaces that count, they correspond to the

sites of power and the exercise of authority where deliberation and

decision making take place. Then, drawing on Touraine, we became



interested in the spaces that allowed for the emergence of the women

as subjects. In terms of sites of power, women's groups, since they

fall under the laws which govern not-for-profit organizations, are

required to hold an annual general assembly of the members to elect

a board of directors. Thus we needed to ask who the actresses are

that count in these places, and who end up, as a result, being the

major players within the organization? How do they see these spaces

and what is their relationship to them?



The General Assembly

Despite the loss of power resulting from the last reform to the

law governing non-profit organizations, traditionally the general

assembly (l’assemblée générale or annual meeting of the members? –

not sure what English term is) of a community group is the ultimate

forum wherein all the members are united, and the site where

fundamental decisions are taken that effect the basic orientation of

the group. Historically, and particularly in the Quebec of the

1970s, general assemblies in the community movement provided a site

of popular education and a place for important decision making, for

example in groups organized by and for welfare recipients, tenants’

rights organizations, food banks, and collectively-run, non profit

daycares. However, during the focus groups we held, the women we

talked to described their general assemblies in very different terms

from these early models.

Almost half of the organizations we studied do not have members

other than the women seated on the board of directors. In these

groups, notably in the employability groups and women’s shelters,

the actual users of these groups did not become members, even when

their need for services was well behind them. Thus they could not

play a role in determining the orientations in the group’s political

actions to address the underlying conditions creating the women’s

problems. As we witnessed in our last project, the general assembly

is made up primarily of the board of directors, with sometimes but

not always the workers and a few “friends”, normally representatives

of others community groups. (next sentence not clear) For the other

groups where the participants are all members, the general assembly

is seen primarily as a reason to get everyone together, even if the

rate of attendance varies greatly ( between 15% and 70% of the

members) just as does the overarching concept under which such



occasions take place. Thus, the importance of the general assembly

in terms of a site of power for the members varies greatly from one

group to another. We now present a typology of the various

perceptions the different groups have of the general assembly.

“We don’t look forward to this as much as the we do the Christmas Party” – The

General Assembly as a chore

According to the women we interviewed, the general assembly is

rarely a site for the exercise of democracy or a place where members

put their power into action.. This meeting is called mainly to

fulfill the requirements of the law and serves essentially to

officially accept the annual report and financial statement, to

second the decisions already made by the board, and to elect new

members to the board. In a few groups, there is a discussion of the

projects for the year ahead, and the members may be consulted as to

their preferences on certain questions. As well, the general

assembly appears to be a forum for consultation, a place to exchange

information and general awareness, but it is rarely a site of

deliberation or decision making.

What we do is a sort of annual report of our activities, which is just telling whathas happened, then there are the decisions, but we don’t have a lot of those(participant – in keeping with the presentation of the FG I would change theworrd participant for grassroot member everywhere))

It is a report, as they tell it, but there aren’t any decisions to make (participante).

There are no decisions to make – it is just to list all of the activities that tookplace and to announce the forthcoming budget figures, as well as what iscoming up this year, but there are no decisions taken other than to change thegeneral rules (participant).



In theory, it is the general assembly that is most important, but in fact, I thinkthat the people with power are the salaried workers, and after them, themembers of the collective6 (participant).

In fact, the predominant attitude towards the general assembly, as

much for the participants as for the staff, is that it is a heavy

load to bear. It is something that just has to be gotten through.

It is hard for the women when we mention the general assembly and people say:“Oh no, not another general assembly!” (grassroot member)

It is true that it is difficult. The financial report is difficult. So we tell them; “if youwant to get to to the fun, to move on to the next activity [the party], then can wejust be serious for one moment (board member)

This is one of the main reasons that many groups have gone to some

lengths to make the general assembly accessible and attractive to

the members. As one board member put it: “everyone thinks of the general

assembly as a party […] people are coming just to have fun.” It was the members of

the board of directors who pointed this problem out in particular,

probably because they have (not sure about the verb tenses – I think

it sounds vbetter in the present but leave the decision to you…) the

responsibility of organizing these events. In order to lighten up

as much as possible the general assemblies, people turned to a

variety of strategies: games or group activities were organized

(sketches, quizzes) in order to make the content of the agenda more

accessible. The agenda is reduced to the strict minimum, organizers

offer transport and daycare, and in the end, try to make the whole

event fun. Thus, the general assembly becomes in the end a site of

sociability that could also allow for some exchange of information

and ideas.6 In a certain number of groups, the collective refers to a body of elected members as well as all the permanent workers which oversee the management of the group and exercises the legal duties of the board of directors.



The women feel very at ease […] They know that they will be amongst themselvesso they don’t feel scared coming.”(board member)

These quotes illustrate that, for many groups, it is not the

decisions that are taken during the general assembly that are so

important, rather it is the coming together in a festive atmosphere.

However, even if the general assemblies are not used to take major

decisions, there are nevertheless essential sites for the

presentation of the financial reports, as well as highlighting the

efforts of the workers through the Annual Report.

“The women do not know how to express their criticisms”: The General Assembly

as the cult of the initiated.

During our group interviews, some women stated that the general

assembly did not attract all of the members, not only due to the

types of activities that were presented, but also because some women

find the formal atmosphere of the decisional structures and formal

decision-making meetings to be mystifying”. They do not feel at

ease as a result.

Maybe the participants say “I have no business being here.” Maybe that is whythere is not much participation. Maybe they think “it is the general assembly –what am I doing here?” It can become too big and become mystified(participant).

One worker adds that, for someone to be ready to engage in a

participative assembly, one has also to be in command of the facts

and of the whole picture.

It is hard to make decisions at the general assembly [without information], toknow what difference it will make to decide one way or the other (worker).



These statements raise serious questions around the ways in which

information circulates, the ties between the board of directors and

the members, and of the real accessibility of the general assembly.

“We go there to make our requests” : the General Assembly as a place where

participants give their opinion and get an accounting.

In some groups, the general assembly is a place where women

feel that they can have a certain influence through their proposals

or questions.

Participation is pretty good at the general assembly. The women know that it’simportant and they come and make their demands (revendications). (…) themajority of women know that it’s there that they can make their requests. (…) Tobe sure, it’s heavy going, but they know it’s important (worker).

However, none of the women interviewed described a type of

deliberative general assembly requiring advance preparation of

members to allow them to debate questions important to the group. In

fact, the only people who seem to prepare for the general assembly

are workers and board members.

The two months beforehand, we get out our Rules and Statutes, and we refer alot to those documents to prepare the convocation. Then we prepare to speak atthe general assembly. We have to explain how to vote, we have to explain why,and who has power here, and that it’s the women like you, it’s the members ofthe board of administration (board member).

Thus, for most of the groups studied, general assemblies resemble

spaces that count little in the decisional process. No fundamental

debates were described. Nor do the participants describe general

assemblies for which workers prepare the participants to better

understand the official elements that must be gotten through or the

concrete impact of those elements. We now turn to the question of



how the board of directors is perceived by the differnt groups of

women interviewed.

The board of directors

Traditionally, the board of directors of a community group is a

structure of representative democracy where the elected members,

issued from the membership, make decisions that are careful of

common interests. Decisions should reflect the opinion of members

and be in line with the orientation and mission of the organization

as decided by members at the general assembly.

The board of directors as a decisional body and guardian of the

group’s orientation

In our group interviews, the only people with the clearest view

on the role of the board of directors were the board members

themselves. Several participants (board ,members?) did mention the

board as a genuine decision making body.

We really decide about everything in the collective (the board of a sexual assaultcentre). When I say everything, it’s deciding the orientation, the money, thephilosophical orientation, the services to offer, the budget (board member).

We have made decisions that the workers sometimes didn’t like. But that’s rare(board member).

Among the board members interviewed, only one clearly established

the link between the power of the board of directors and its

responsibility regarding decisions made by the general assembly.

I think that the board of directors is there to make decisions, to verify that theyrespect the decision made at the center and at the general assembly. (…) a kindof rear guard (board member).



This vision of the board of directors as a site where decisions are

made was also mentioned in an interview with one worker, the only

one to raise this issue in both individual and group interviews with

workers..

Right now, the members of the board of directors are very active in theirdecision-making, they are the ones with the tools, they take part in study days wehold on specific issues… They are really our employers, it is to them that we haveto report. Their decisions are always taken into consideration. And at anymoment, they can question us, ask for information on what to do… ask theworkers, anybody… it makes them feel that they really have taken their place andthat they sit on the board not just as participants, but as decision-makers(worker).

The language in this quotation is telling in the opposition the

worker sets up between participants and decision-makers; that

participants are, by definition, not decision-makers. The members of

the board of directors are perceived as the real actresses in a

place where there are important decisions to be made.

The board of directors as manager

In certain groups, notably in those who do not have participant

members, the board of directors is understandably seen less as a

representative body which reports to a general assembly (or the

participants), but rather as a manager who is occupied with the

proper administration of the organization. This body is obviously a

site that counts, but the women who sit on it are responsible only

to themselves since they do not represent any members. A board

member in one such group described it this way:

If you ask me, the primary role of the board of directors is to assure the good managementof the organization as well as its survival. So it has more of the role of a teacher if you will,or a good parent, in order for things to work, for things to roll smoothly… Once that is inplace, it must also make sure that the internal affairs between the members, the users, the



workers, that everything takes place in a harmonious and satisfactory fashion… (boardmember).

The reference to the board as a teacher or parent, in addition to

its patronizing attitude, reveals a belief in the inequality between

the board members and the other members, service users and workers.

This attitude which was present in a number of the focus groups

often leads to a belief that participants and service users are not

equipped to be board members.

The board of directors as a support system for the team, or as a

site for endorsing the work of the team.

For s, the primary site for decision-making and management is

the work team and, consequently, the role of the board of directors

is to provide them with the necessary back up and support.

[…] there are decisions to be made, but it is mainly to oversee the work team, tothe extent that the workers ask for help or that they allow themselves to beoverseen (board member).

We back the work team a lot in the women’s centre (board member).

Right across the interviews, it came out clearly that some board of

directors serve simply to endorse the analysis and decisions of the

work team rather than as real sites of deliberation.

As a member of the board of directors, we meet once a month for a longevening. I find it just enough time leveling terms of what I can bring to the table,but not enough for making all the decisions. Quite often there has been a lot ofwork put in by the workers and so we look and we analyze and mostly, I wouldsay, well it is rare that we ask many questions. […] I find that the workers do anawful lot and that the board doesn’t really have much to say…I mean justbecause everything has been so well prepared… (board member).



[In the example of a lay-off] we inform the board of directors about the situation,and unless we have made a huge error in our judgment, the board gives it theirOK. They know that it is we who are able to make the decision as it comes up(worker).

The agenda of the meetings is already decided. It is not so much that we take noinitiative, but more that we discuss what has already been brought to the table,that which the workers have prepared in advance (board member).

Clearly setting the agenda and preparing the discussions orients the

decisions to such an extent that board members on these types of

boards feel they have little to add to the deliberations, and their

role isthus one of simply backing-up for the workers.

There are clearly many more sites of democracy in women’s

groups than the formal structures of the general assembly and board

of directors. For example, working committees can be invaluable

places for members to get to know an organization, learn to work

with the other members and workers and find ways to contribute that

can lead to other forms of involvement. However, the general

assembly and the board are the fundamental democratic decision-

making structures in social movement organizations and their value

to grassroots members appears problematic. They seem to be distant

structures where the majority of participants do not see themselves

as ever having a significant role to play. With that troubling

conclusion in mind, we will turn to the question of how these same

women describe democracy itself in women’s groups.



Definitions of democracy

For grassroots participants : having a voice and being listened to

with respect

After these fairly bleak perspectives on the democratic

structures as perceived primarily by participants and board members,

we turn to the definitions these women gave of what for them

constituted democracy in a women’s group. We start with a first

quotation that uses a special metaphor that illustrates many of the

perceptions observed.

It’s an upside down pyramid. It’s the members on top, who decide… who are themotor. So they have to be recognized and heard.

This anti-hierarchical image recalls the classic expression, the

power of the people and makes reference to equality on two levels,

that of access to freedom of expression and that of participation in

the decisional process. We will see in many of the quotations from

the participants, the importance placed on Central to grassroot

participants’ conception of democracy is the possibility of voicing

their ideas, of being heard, of their thoughts being welcomed, and

thus of having an impact or having influence on the group. Among the

grassroots participants, this was the dominant theme repeated in

many different ways. The testimonials of the importance to many of

these women of speakingBeing able to speak before a group for the

first timeas valued contributors to the discussion, without fear of

being mocked, intimidated or reject are very strikingis the essence

of their understanding of democracy.



First, democracy for me, it’s being capable of expressing myself to say what Iwant to say, and being listened to. (…) And that no one feels judged.

It’s respect… and never judging someone. Freedom of expression. And notnecessarily accepting the opinions of others, but listening to it and not sayingthat the other opinion, because it’s not ours, isn’t good. You know really, that’sfreedom.

It’s really being on an equal footing, that’s something that’s important. Nomatter who you are. Or what you do. Or how old you are. Or your level ofinvolvement. Everyone is on the same footing.

However speaking in front of others is not something all women are

comfortable with. Embarrassment, fear, self-denigration, lack of

confidence are all present for these women. In one of the focus

groups, a discussion developed on the conditions of equality and

respect necessary for members to be able to participate in a

discussion. “Whether you’re on welfare, a worker, black, white, they will always respect

you, and you will always have your opinion and you can always say your opinion.”

Already, we can see a certain contradiction with the previous

section on the perceptions of the democratic structures and the

strongly-held feeling the women have of equality, of, when they are

in the group, being respected and on an equal footing with others.

But this rarely translates to equal footing in the decision making

process or in official structures.

(not sure this paragraph is necessary and breaks the flow of

the definition of democracy)It is clearly a challenge for these

women to affirm opinions that differ from those of the workers or

other authority figures in the group. In one discussion, a

participant described the qualities that the next coordinator of the

group should have following a difficult experience with the previous

coordinator. It was particularly important that the new one be very

open to dialogue and discussion and not judgmental towards the

participants. “The coordinator should be a kind of mother, or better a sister”.



Images of sororal relations come up repeatedly, although in this

case, the speaker backtracks realizing that family relations were

not the best example for establishing modes of discussion in a

women’s group. In fact, it is often difficult, given the importance

of the climate of respect and trust, to separate political decisions

and friendship, democracy and sorority.

Certain participants did identified the importance of

influencing decisions as a central component of democracy, although

they were in the minority.

The feeling of the ability to influence and to change things. I think that’s,democracy. (…) It means nothing if you just express what you think and areheard, if that changes nothing in the end. We have not gotten any farther.

(Not sure of the link between previous quote and this idea On

rereading I see it better)) The decisions to be made are of all

orders : the choice of activities, workshop themes, menus and

content of special events, questions of management. As one

participant said, “as infinitely small as the decision may be, it’s

still up to us to decide.” Echoing a previous quotation, one

participant went farther saying that it means going from a user of

services to a decision-maker.

One last but fundamental aspect raised by some participants in

the focus groups when questioned on their conceptions of democracy

is that democratic practices in women’s groups are necessarily

defined in relationship to a notion of belonging, of a common cause

and a collective path, to act collectively and take concrete actions

based on a shared political goal.

Democracy, it’s giving yourself tools with the goal that people can take actions,and concrete actions, that they know why they are doing them. (…) the morepeople we are, the better it is for things to work differently (…) in other words, it’sa question of collectiveness, of solidarity (participant).



The eloquence of some of the participants’ discourse on democracy is

in sharp contrast to their views on the structures. The last

quotation that echoes Touraine’s definition of democracy and the

importance of spaces that allow for the emergence of people as

subjects through the struggles of collective action, reveals the

richness of participants’ perception of how they experience

democracy through the activities of the group, on a day-to-day

basis.

Board members at work in decision-making forums

As with the group of participants, the board members who

participated in the focus groups shared the same democratic notions

when it came to the right to speak, expressing opinions, taking into

consideration other opinions, and taking a collective decision hand-

in-hand with a proposed concrete action. Instead of the upside-down

pyramid, another spatial metaphor was used:

For me, democracy is horizontal… It is the people: we are all on an equalfooting. That is what we try to accomplish. And that is why I say that it is hard tohang on to democracy, because we are all bound to rise or fall.

This quotation illustrates the profoundly indeterminate nature of

democracy as well as referring to the importance of equality and a

sense of collective identity, there is a people, an identifiable

“we” at the base of everything. Thus decision-making emerges as an

importance element for these members, including the choice of

representatives through elections.

We elect the people we want, then, once they are in place, we show ourconfidence in them. Then, if that confidence seems misplaced, well the next timearound, we elect someone else (board member).



Generally, the women described their participation at this levelon

the board as a particular form of engagement that required special

skills, as we shall see below. This raises again the question of who

possesses such skills and thus the potential exclusion of certain

members from democratic sites due to lack of such skills. It seems

especially that T the ability to call into question, to critique, to

come to a new conclusion was very significantappear to be important

competencies required of potential board members.

(this paragraph has to be rewritten as even I can’t understand

it I attempted a rewrite but on 2nd thought wonder about the

relevance of this paragraph – especially in a section on board

members) On this subject, when asked to recount important moments of

democracy in their groups, the members of one board of directors (as

well as the workers of that center) brought up a vasttalked to us

about a project they were involved in aimed at sensitizing and

mobilizing of popular education and the mobilisation of the

membership against a change in the welfare laws. Expressed in terms

of rights and a democratic process, the goal of the program was to

favour the gradual development of the tools of social activism:

public meetings, petitions and demonstrations. Then, shortly

thereafter, the members of the work team were faced with a major

internal struggle where petitions were circulated, a special general

assembly was called that actually excluded the permanent workers in

one instance, and in another the involvement of new people on the

side of the members. The reason for this struggle: the workers had

decided to change the illiteracy program without having first

consulted the members. Stunned by these actions, the workers

expressed during the interview that they were completely taken aback

by these actions, but ultimately quite pleased that the participants

had taken all training on social activism to heart and protested



loudly and democratically when faced with a decision that was

important to them, but on which they had not been consulted.

In the end, we come to learn together… It is in this way that we can all beheard…that the people used their initiative to make their opposition known. Sothat led us to put in place the whole democratic structure in the group : awelcoming committee, the representatives committee, a managementcommittee. Lots of means so that we don’t always have the situation where thegeneral assembly arrives and there is something that isn’t working. So that themembers, they can come to the meeting and make decisions without gettingupset (worker).

A worker commented on the same incident this way:

In the end, they realized a great process of empowerment and of citizenship.They mobilized themselves without us. They know the means to make themselvesheard, they know their rights and how to have them respected. They went all theway with their demands (worker)..

This illustration of an important process of democracy and

empowerment had very little to do with the democratic structures of

the group. In fact, the participants went beyond the structures to

have their voices heard and make change. Interestingly, the response

of the workers was to put in place other structures to harness this

will and make sure it expresses itself within established processes

so that the group can avoid similar experiences in the future.

Democracy in Action

The importance of the role of women’s groups for the emergence of

participants as subjects as defined by Touraine cannot be

underestimated. But we are still faced with the problem of a

disconnect between these women-subjects and true democratic

participation and ultimately power held democratically. We have said

that democracy is much more than a question of structures and from



what these actresses say it is more than a question of access to and

participation in those structures. We were able to witness the

reality of how democracy is a process and a culture that cannot be

limited to participating in formal structures during our

observations in the six chosen groups. An Our analysis of democratic

practices in action, based on our observations in the six chosen

groups, revealed the principal strategies used to ensure the

democratic life. (Why would we name me – I also wrote the analysis

of the strictures – but we are co-authoring this article) We found

four key strategies. The first was the appropriation of the group by

its members. This is seen in their relation to and comfort in the

physical space of the group. It could also be seen in the

transparence with which the group operated. In the most democratic

groups, beyond a feeling of belonging. Participants felt they had

ownership over the group. The second was to create conditions for

the women to emerge as subjects as defined by Touraine, meaning as

capable of giving meaning to their experiences, because of their

ability toy orienting their life and that of their milieu. This can

require developing one’s self-esteem, learning to not fear resisting

social conventions and recognizes others as subjects as well. The

groups do achieve this through by asking questions of the women to

understand what they are thinking and helping them clarify their

ideas. They help the women translate their opinions into articulated

arguments, but always in a context of respect and openness. We have

seen in the discourse of the women in the focus groups the extent to

which this aspect is important to them. For many it is a complete

revelation. The groups also work to develop the women’s sense of

being collective subjects, so the individuals of the group come to

form an “us” with common problems and who can act on them

collectively.



Thirdly, for these groups democracy is more than structures and

forums, it is a culture that is supported and reproduced in all

activities of the group. A high value is placed on all forms of

learning and providing access to learning. These groups create many

different places of involvement and decision-making for the women :

activities, working committees, special mobilizations and the work

preparing for them. Finally, the formal structures are all valued

and accessible and women are encouraged and prepared to take their

place in them. This is perceived as part of the process of going

from the women speaking to the women acting. As well, tThe workers

are very conscious of their own power within the group and work

consciously to temper it in a variety of ways, including talking

about it frankly with the participants. The structures are

integrated into and present in the life of the group and can be

adapted according to the needs of the participants. Even in these

groups, the democratic structures are something with which many

participants are ambivalent.(last sentence needs development or

should be removed because not clear)

Conclusion

The formal democratic structures, particularly the general assembly

and board of directors, always present a challenge. They are hard

work and demand definite skills to participate well in them. But the

culture of democracy in a group goes a long way to either

maintaining the distant, forbidding nature of those decision-making

forums or to bringing them into the heart of the organization as one

of many sites of democratic practices. In their discourse, for many

participants they are clearly not integrated into the group and

remain inaccessible. However, those same participants do articulate

democracy as occurring elsewhere and being much more than a question



of structures. Unfortunately in a fair number of groups, there are

no other sites of democratic practices than the formal structures.

The discourse on the importance accorded by the participants of

being able to speak and being listened to needs further

investigation. We need to better understand if this aspect of the

women’s groups is essential for them because it allows for their

emergence as subjects, because it represents the beginning of a

process for them that takes them out of the individual experience

and into a collective identity and collective actions? Or is it

because that is all the groups offer in terms of democratic

participation, the chance for women to express their opinion without

it necessarily having any impact on decision-made in the group? The

answer seems to depend on the culture of the group and whether it

views democracy as a question of structures or of culture to be

lived everywhere.

Maybe integrate frm the epilogue: A major lesson we learned from our

study is the importance that democratic practices in social movement

organizations be in constant movement, transforming and renewing

themselves so as to be as inclusive as possible and to offer real

access to spaces where debates, deliberations and decision-making

take place and where each person is genuinely treated on an equal

footing. It is in this way that democracy becomes a culture which is

integrated into the life of the group at all levels, rather than

being something that gets tacked on or is reserved for specific

moments, specific structures, specific spaces. Democracy becomes

truly a profoundly held value, a way of doing things which defines

the group.


Documents

Beyond Structures to Democracy as Culture