Anarchy, Occupy and Constitutionalising

The Anarchy Rules! research team spent three days in Reykjavik in the middle of October discussing Iceland’s crowd-sourced constitution and the attempts being made to get it through parliament after it was rejected by the centre-right coalition government in 2013. As well as speaking to activists such as Katrín Oddsdóttir from the Constitutional Society campaign group, and filmmaker Eileen Jerrett, we also spoke to Pirate Party members and MPs – likely coalition partners in the new government that will be formed after the election at the end of October.

We were invited to Iceland to speak at a conference titled Constitutions: Poetry or Prose and asked to answer the question, ‘from where does the legitimacy of the constitution come?’. In addition to an opening speech by Iceland’s President Guðni Thorlacius Jóhannesson, the conference saw presentations from Berkley legal scholars David Carillo, Stephen Duvernay and Brandon Stracener, and Arne Hintz from Cardiff University. Our contribution focused on taking non-domination as a foundational constitutional principle and how this was made durable in the example of the Occupy movement.

Conversations ranged between the oligarchic tendencies of political parties, the crisis of social democracy, how to reinvigorate public interest in constitutional politics, the significance of Iceland’s constitutional reform process and what anarchists might learn from this, and vice versa.

In the wake of the global capitalist crash of 2008, and the acute difficulties this caused in Iceland, a group of 25 citizens, elected from a wider group of 500, began the process of re-writing Iceland’s constitution. This was partly crowd-sourced and the participatory nature of the process made it unprecedented in constitutional history. This opened an important discussion about who and what Iceland wanted to be and offered an opportunity to (re-)constitute itself. The new constitution contains provisions for citizens to propose legislation, includes protection of the environment and puts international human rights law and the rights of refugees and migrants front and centre. It also proposes redistributing the fruits of Iceland’s natural resources.

Eileen Jerrett’s film Blueberry Soup does well to highlight this existential reassessment and the guarded optimism surrounding the process central to Icelandic politics and the new constitution. But what can anarchists offer in these debates?

Anarchy and non-domination

Despite the clichés about disorganisation and lawlessness as core characteristics of anarchy, rule-making and constitutionalising are in fact central to anarchist politics. From explicitly anarchist groups such as the Anarchist Federation to anarchistic groups such as the Industrial Workers of the World, constitutions and rule-books have played a key role in collective organisation and participatory decision making.

For anarchists, constitutionalism is a practical process through which non-domination is institutionalised. The way anarchists understand non-domination is not a million miles away from the more mainstream contemporary accounts of constitutionalism we find in republican political theory. For both, to be free is to be free from arbitrary interference. Non-domination as a constitutional principle is something around which constitutional design can be structured, demanding consensual systems of rules that remove the arbitrariness typically associated with systems of order that are beyond our immediate control. One to think about this is in terms of a question: what do you have to have in place in order that you can be free from domination?

Our research suggests that there is something to be learned about constitutionalising in general from how anarchists constitutionalise, or rather how they self-constitutionalise.

Five elements of constitutionalising

Taking Occupy as an example (specifically the Occupy camps in New York, London and Oakland), we suggest that there are five aspects of constitutionalising, typical to both anarchists and non-anarchists, that are in dynamic relation with one another. The unique feature of anarchist constitutionalism is the degree to which it is participatory and voluntary. These are:

  1. Declarations and preambles
  2. Decision making
  3. Institutions
  4. Rules and procedures
  5. Addressing power imbalances

Declarations and preambles

One of the first things to emerge from Occupy Wall Street was the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City, a text that aimed at being the foundational document of the occupation, much like the Preamble to the US Constitution. Like the US Constitution that begins ‘We the people’, bringing that very people into existence, Occupy’s Declaration constituted the occupation as a group, the 99% as the popular meme went.

This group was constituted against oppression and the oppressors, the 1% and representative systems of government. The Declaration created this group as a community that was inclusive of all the oppressed and had the principle of non-domination as a core value. This inclusiveness was not wholly unproblematic, as we discuss below.

Declaration of the Occupation

Decision making

As well as the declaration, Occupy camps also constituted themselves through decision making procedures. A core decision making process for anarchists is consensus. The General Assemblies and most of the institutions of Occupy (see below) aimed at achieving consensus on all decisions, and voting was only used as a last resort, for example to avoid a block, and even then this demanded a 90% majority, or ‘modified consensus’.

This process was facilitated and participation was increased through the use of hand signals to register agreement and disagreement. Facilitation by a trained team and clear rules to structure people’s involvement were explained at the start of each assembly. Many of the decisions made were existentially constitutive of the Occupations and were as central to the process of constitutionalising as the Declaration itself, if not more so.

There was a popular slogan, often repeated, that ‘this is what democracy looks like!’. This is no doubt contentious, but it is instructive of how seriously activists took decision making processes.


For Occupy the people constituted by the encampments were sovereign and the General Assembly was the sovereign decision-making body. Through consensus decision making and the procedures around it, non-domination was institutionalised. Rather than seeing this as fixed structures or even buildings like parliaments or courts, Occupy’s institutionalisation happened through the embedding of plural constellations of the rules and norms of decision making procedures.

The three main institutions involved were the General Assembly, the working groups that were doing the day-to-day business of the camp and movement (such as media outreach, cooking, demonstrations) and the spokescouncil that was introduced as a way to coordinate working group decisions and activities.

Working groups were functional bodies that took over day-to-day decision making in discreet areas, ensuring that not all decision had to go to General Assembly. The spokescouncil was a system whereby delegates from each working group came together to decide on strategic issues, again minimising participation while maximising explicit consent. The spokescouncil takes its name from the spokes of a bicycle wheel, with delegates coming together from the working groups on the periphery to the decision-making meeting at the centre. The spokescouncil also acted as something of a checks and balance to the General Assembly, primarily by limiting decision making around logistical issues to delegates of working groups and caucuses. But the GA remained ‘sovereign’, a word Occupiers were happy to use.

Rules and procedures

Camp rules and processes were complex and elaborate, often implicit and unspoken, and not always positive. Rules were developed in camp to address perceived corruption and injustice of representative electoral systems and to be open, inclusive, transparent and accountable. As mentioned above, this opposition to existing systems was a core constituting element of Occupy and the non-domination that was at its core.

In the course of the occupations, however, it became clear that types of domination remained, in spite of the explicit rules. One example is sexual abuse. The ways in which behaviours associated with patriarchy were reproduced in the camps gave rise to safe spaces policies and efforts to ensure that protections were put in place. These protections included ‘tranquillity teams’ that would patrol the camps and aim at conflict resolution through reconciliation rather than retribution.

Safer Spaces

Addressing power imbalances

Constitutions routinely seek to balance powers within societies, either between the people and the state, or between the power of capital and organised labour. In order for them to do this, these power imbalances have to be identified first. The Occupy camps were no exception. As well as adjusting rules to support the commitment to non-domination, Occupy camps also entered into a process of self-critical reflection to address concealed or invisible hierarchies, the exposure of which shed light on the powers that constituted Occupy, as well as those that ought not to.

One of the best examples of this came in Occupy Oakland when participants recognised that the language of occupation raised fundamental questions about ownership, property and sovereignty. In the North American context, the camps were sited on land once occupied by Native American peoples displaced by white settlement. Decolonisation was the term used to describe the need for checking the privilege and advantage certain individuals have by virtue of their colour, gender, religion, class, etc.

Decolonize Wallstreet

This process was in keeping with more generalised anarchist practice of uncovering ‘regimes of domination’, as Uri Gordon puts it. One method this was translated into decision making procedures was through the Progressive Stack. This was used during General Assemblies and aimed at structuring the order of people waiting to speak by calling on those with privilege to ‘step back’ and others who are not so often provided with a platform to ‘step up’.

Non-domination as a constitutional principle

For anarchists, non-domination is a normative, constitutional principle that structures the constitutionalising process, either explicitly or implicitly. It accomplishes what mainstream political and constitutional theory expects and does more, mainly because it sees no virtue in relying on the existing institutions to provide for non-domination. Non-domination does not presuppose any particular constellation of institutions; it is in fact consistent with a range of experiments. In this way, taking it as the foundation for constitutionalising suggests an alternative to mainstream accounts of how constitutional politics operates.

The anarchist approach to constitutionalising is not about finding one way to manage all social orders (either through liberal discourse of rights or majoritarian democracy) but of finding ways of expressing it through durable and rule-governed processes. A commitment to non-domination demands vigilance and responsibility, and an active participation in the systems of governance we join daily, whether at work or elsewhere.

Constitutions: Poetry or prose?

Artist's Rendering of the Declaration

So how did our discussion of Occupy help us answer the question posed by the conference title, and what can we learn from the anarchists and anarchists from others involved in Iceland’s experiment in constitutional reform?

The contrast between poetry and prose might be understood as a choice between the heart and head: whether constitutions should meet our dreams and ideals, or whether they should be designed as rational plans to help us resolve political differences. Our view is that the choice is mistaken. Constitutionalising involves poetry and prose, imagination and rational thought. The choice we want to draw attention to is between the constitution as, on the one hand, a document or body of ideas that fixes rules and, on the other, a process of constitutionalising that keeps the rules, ideas and the processes of their revision open. It is in this process that we find the relevance of anarchist politics, of Occupy and the Iceland constitutional reform initiative.

Upcoming research trips to Glasgow and Reykjavik

Researchers from the Cosntitutionalising Anarchy project will be visiting Glasgow and Reykjavik this month to speak with activists about the relevance of anarchist theory to contemporary politics.

A recent Anarchy Rules! workshop, at the Anarchist Studies Network conference, Loughborough University 2016
A recent Anarchy Rules! workshop, at the Anarchist Studies Network conference, Loughborough University 2016

Glasgow – 15th October – Centre for Contemporary arts

In Glasgow, the team will be running an interactive workshop at the Centre for Contemporary Arts as part of the 10th anniversary celebration for the Radical Independent Bookfair Project. The workshop will involve discussions about how anarchist organising can help re-think what constitutions can be and how they can support social change. The workshop will take place in the CCA’s Intermedia Gallery from 1:00pm to 3:00pm on the 15th of October and is free to attend.

Ruth Kinna, the lead researcher on the project and Professor of Political Theory at Loughborough University, said: ‘Constitutions have typically been used to establish systems of domination through hierarchy, something anarchists are opposed to. But we believe that thinking about constitutional practices in new ways can help everyone interested in anarchist organising think creatively about rule-making.’

Alex Prichard, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Exeter, added: ‘Even anarchists who reject constitutions have rules. The criticisms anarchists have of how rules operate in mainstream politics are reasons to think about how the openness and flexibility of anarchist organising can be used to support egalitarian, libertarian and democratic principles.’

On the relevance of the project to political developments in Scotland, Thomas Swann, Research Associate at Loughborough University, said: ‘The political climate in Scotland is particularly interesting for the topics raised by our research. Not only has there been a resurgence in radical left thinking about how society should be organised in the wake of the 2014 referendum on independence, but the prospect of another referendum and independence in the near future makes questions of how constitutions are written and how they operate highly relevant. Hopefully the discussion we’ll be having in Glasgow and our research can suggest how constitutionalising can work in participatory and democratic ways.’

Reykjavik – 18th to 20th October

In Iceland, the research team will be speaking to left-wing activists and Pirate Party members and will also speak at a conference at Reykjavik University convened by Katrin Oddsdottir, CEO of the campaign group The Constitutional Society and Attorney to the District Court. The conference will include contributions from noted legal scholars Laurence Lessig (Harvard University) and David Carrillo (UC Berkley) and communications expert Arne Hintz (Cardiff University). The researchers from the UK will discuss the problems with modern politics, pointing towards solutions that can be found in radical ideas of constitutionalism and democracy, highlighting the role of social media in realising these.

Research Associate Thomas Swann said: ‘The questions raised by this research are particularly relevant in Iceland, where innovative crowd-sourcing methods have been experimented with in trying to write a new constitution. With the potential of success for the Pirate Party in the upcoming elections, new forms of participation and democracy are becoming increasingly important, and not just for Iceland.’

Second Anarchy Rules Workshop in Sheffield

In a previous post we provided an overview of a workshop we ran at the Sheffield Anarchist Bookfair in April this year.  The workshop was a lot of fun and some very interesting points were raised about the relationship between rules, rule-making and anarchist principles and organisation.

We’re hosting a follow-up workshop in Sheffield taking place on Tuesday the 16th of August at 6pm. The aim of this second workshop will be to build on the points that emerged during the discussion in April and to link these to concrete examples of anarchist constitutions. We’ll be discussing whether anarchist organisations can have constitutions and still be consistently anarchist, or indeed whether they need to have constitutions to be consistently anarchist. In addition, we’ll look at examples of constitutions to try and identify what anarchist principles are enshrined in them and how the rules included in the constitutions can be seen to safeguard those principles.

The workshop will take place at 6pm in room 1033, Owen Building, Sheffield Hallam University. The workshop will run for maximum 2 hours with a break in the middle.

Sheffield workshop map

Everyone’s welcome, including those who didn’t attend the first workshop. We’ll spend a few minutes at the start recapping some of the insights that emerged during the first workshop, but you can of course also have a look at the blog post.

We’ll also be planning a third workshop to try and do some co-production around anarchist rule-making and constitutionalism, but we’ll discuss that in more detail at the workshop in August.

If you’re able to attend this workshop, you don’t need to register, but please let us know so that we can book refreshments. You can email us at to let us know you’re coming. If you can’t make it but want to attend similar discussions in the near future, please let us know by email.

We also have a small amount of money available to support travel costs to and from the workshop. This will require you to provide your name and bank details but all such details will be treated with the strictest confidentiality and will not be available to anyone other than the Loughborough University staff who will deal with the expenses forms. Forms will be available at the workshop.

Research Diary: Sheffield Anarchist Book Fair (April 2016)

We held the first of our workshops on constitutionalising anarchy at the Sheffield Anarchist Book Fair at the end of April. Throughout the day we’d had a stand at the book fair inviting attendees to suggest principles for anarchist politics and think about how these principles could operate as rules within anarchist organising. We hadn’t had much response to this and while a few people had stopped to talk to us, no one put any principles or rules up on the board we had at the stand.

As a result, we were a little bit nervous about how many would turn up to the workshop. It was scheduled right at the end of the day and the risk that people wouldn’t stick around that long, added to the low level of participation at the stand, made us somewhat worried that we’d have a very small group to work with and that the conversation wouldn’t flow as well as we were hoping.

Waiting outside the room as the previous session finished up, these fears were quickly allayed, with a decent and growing number waiting with us. In the end the workshop involved twelve participants (thirteen at the start but one person left after the first few minutes) and we certainly hadn’t had any need to worry about the discussion being inhibited.


After a brief intro the participants were split into three groups and given time to read through an information sheet we had prepared. As well as outlining some of the aims of the project and suggesting an example of a principle and a corresponding rule to help organise according to this principle, this information sheet provided an example as a prompt to try and motivate the discussion. The following quotation was taken from a US-based anarchist group and anonymised for the purposes of our workshop:

An ugly precedent has been set by the episode of crude authoritarian behaviour at the *** Anarchist Book Fair. The screaming, the threats of harm, the physical intimidation directed at us personally, as well as the vandalizing of the books and magazines on the *** table by a dozen or so people associated with *** social center was out of line. Such bullying, harassment, and intimidation should not be tolerated at anarchist events or in anarchist spaces merely because other anarchists might have unpopular ideas and use words that may not align with a particular perspective.

One thing we hoped this example would do would be to get the participants thinking about the kind of behaviour that was problematic and even unacceptable in anarchist spaces and to focus on principles and rules that would help structure appropriate responses.

The groups started their discussions and in different ways turned their attention to the task at hand. One group quickly structured their discussion around an example raised by one of the participants that highlighted the issue of autonomy in an organisation and how sub-groups can and should be held to obligations decided on by the organisation as a whole. The other two groups discussed a range of examples and the questions these raise for the scope and very nature of the rules we agree on.

In the portion of the workshop that followed the group discussions saw the participants raise a number of important points in relation to rule-making and constitutions. The groups had the option of getting some of their ideas down on paper and these helped give the discussion some structure and focus it around some key themes.


Unsurprisingly, the discussion focussed at certain points on whether rules are needed at all or whether the processes of anarchist organising (e.g. consensus decision making) do enough to realise anarchist principles. Concern was raised that rules (‘with a capital R’ as one participant put it) might operate to close down the space for diversity in sites of anarchist organisation. Another participant highlighted the role of constitutions in structuring the way individuals think about their relations to one another and in promoting an individualist tendency. On a related note, it was suggested that constitutions shouldn’t operate in anarchist organising except in cases of extreme violation of anarchist principles. For the most part, processes of decision making will be able to deal with conflict and disagreement.

A second important theme that emerged from the discussion was the way we speak about rules in language. As well as ‘Rules with a capital R’ perhaps being distinct from ‘rules with a lower case r’, participants spoke of the language of anarchist rules needing to be different from the language of the state’s rules. One example of this kind of rephrasing of rules could make a crucial distinction on negative rules or prohibitions, which aim to stop a certain kind of behaviour, and positive rules, which aim to channel behaviour in ways that are appropriate in the context of anarchist organising.

The contingency of rules and constitutions also played a role in the discussion. Several participants pointed out that whatever the form and status of anarchist rules and constitutions, there shouldn’t be one set of rules for all possible contexts. Instead, a constitutional pluralism should hold whereby different situations have different sets of rules regulating them. Along similar lines, it was suggested in the discussion that a distinction should be made between the rules that govern the internal organisation of anarchist groups and those that govern how such a group relates to non-anarchist groups.


On the point that processes rather than rules or constitutions will be able to deal with conflict except in extreme cases, it isn’t accurate to say that rules and constitutions should, therefore, never be used. Rather, they need to be considered for precisely those extreme situations that processes can’t cope with. It is in those situations where rules and constitutions potentially become so important.

In terms of rethinking the language of rules in anarchist organising, perhaps responsibilities and obligations could be at the centre. Nonetheless, examples such as safe spaces policies were brought up in the discussion and these contain clear statements on prohibited behaviour.

For the constitutional pluralism suggested by some of the participants, more would need to be done on thinking through how different sets of rules would operate beside one another. This could be an important aspect of future discussions on the topic.

Crucially, what an anarchist approach to rules and constitutions suggests is that the limits on autonomy such structures realise need to occur within a framework of anarchist principles. Autonomy may be constrained in anarchist organising but while traditional constitutions may suggest a top-down approach whereby some govern over others, an anarchist set of rules or an anarchist constitution would need to be framed in terms of governing together, in a collective and participatory way.

A recording of the workshop is available on Indymedia

Constitutionalising Anarchy

Why constitutionalise anarchy?

At the same moment that the reclamation of sovereignty is being championed as a solution to the problems of the diminished authority of international organisations, the legitimacy and functioning of the institution of the nation state is being widely contested. Campaigns for devolution and independence, claims for cultural, linguistic and regional autonomy, as well as disengagement from the EU and political parties in general, invites a reconsideration of the statist paradigm at the heart of modern politics. These issues are compounded by the crisis of capitalism since 2008.

Anarchism is routinely dismissed in these debates: the association of anarchy with chaos and the carnivalesque travelling circus, is deeply embedded in popular consciousness. Given this context, bringing anarchist practices and principles into the heart of debates about modern constitutionalism might seem risky. However, given the legacy of tinkering with political institutions, and the failure to deliver the change that is needed, there may not be a better time to experiment with and transform constitutional praxis.

Understanding the different ways in which members of anarchist(ic) groups constitutionalise is an important first step in analysing the distinctiveness of far left practices vis-à-vis constitutionalism more broadly. In this project, we are working with two distinctive groups, the IWW (or the Wobblies) and Radical Routes, to understand what’s unique about anarchistic constitutionalising. How do anarchists and libertarian communists understand the role and function of rules and constitutions? Is there anything distinctive about how the far left resolves conflicts?

Our aim in uncovering and giving new voice to the values of non-domination and horizontality,  the virtues of prefiguration and solidarity, and the processes of radical democracy that have been experimented with over the past century and more, is to open up public and academic debate and move beyond the tired old stereotypes of anarchist organisation.

anarchy symbol

There are significant conceptual and analytical insights to be had from a project like this too. In political theory and international relations (IR), anarchy is the foil for constitutionalism, it’s other, because it is seen as the antithesis of law and a Hobbesian natural condition. Republican constitutions, for example, are understood to divide and balance powers, and provide a grounding for legal rights and duties, all based on a negative principle of ‘freedom as non-domination’. Writers in this tradition also believe freedom as non-domination provides a stronger normative foundation and constitutional principle for thinking about freedom between political groups, or demoi, in international politics.

Like neo-republican theorists, anarchists also deploy the language of non-domination, a language that provides a normative framework for responding to multiple concerns, from exploitation, colonialism, technocracy, sexism, elitism and media and corporate branding to planetary destruction. However, unlike neo-republicans anarchists do not take for granted the virtues of the institutions at the heart of the constitutional crisis, openly considering alternatives to the state and private property.

In IR theory, globalisation has forced an important debate about the tension between national constitutionalism and post-sovereignty and has increasingly crowded out debate about anarchy. Realists have called for a reassertion of the anarchy of sovereign states as a check to liberal universalism. Yet the extension of anarchy to the domestic realm, to protect the autonomy of all groups, is seen as counter-intuitive. Recent studies of stateless societies by IR scholars raise serious questions about the standard Hobbesian account of life in the absence of states, with the result that the concept of anarchy (as well as the state) has itself been re-examined. There have also been attempts to rethink constitutionalism in a post-sovereign world order. These insights chime with attempts to re-think anarchy in public policy, where literature attests to the organisational benefits of networked anarchies over hierarchies and likewise in organisational studies, where the advantages of self-organising systems is a topic of extensive debate. Our claim is that an explicitly anarchist constitutional theory can transform debate in this area by defending a politics without sovereignty that puts freedom at its heart.

Social movement research has examined anarchist activism and group organisation, showing how these groups reject representation, and support consensual, participatory democratic processes. While this research is extensive on anarchist practices, it sheds little light on the principles that underpin them, specifically anarchy. We know little about the way this concept (and/or cognates) operate in the formal and informal deliberations of these groups. How does a commitment to anarchy shape their practices and organisational frameworks? How does a commitment to anarchy help resolve differences between and within groups? Although anarchists are resistant to the discourse of constitutionalism, we seek to show that these principles are constitutionalising.

There is very little reflection within anarchist groups, or the wider literature, about the ways in which conflicts within groups and between them are managed and how a principle of anarchy helps, if at all. There is some discussion of the anarchist commitment to federalism in the literature, but only Alex Prichard (one of the researchers on the Constitutionalising Anarchy project) has sought to link this account of federalism to conceptual analysis of anarchy in international politics. No work has been done to examine how anarchist groups, that consciously seek to enact anarchy in their practices, understand the scope and limits of anarchy as a normative principle, and whether these practices can be generalised. The Constitutionalising Anarchy project will open up a transformative vein of research in contemporary radical political and international theory which will reverberate in cognate disciplines where anarchism is attracting sustained critical attention. In sum: our contribution will transform academic debate by linking political theory and IR theory through the empirical analysis of a concept central to the latter and antithetical to the former, and explore its meaning by co-producing knowledge with groups routinely overlooked in constitutional debates.

Image: J.P. Armstrong / flickr / Creative Commons