hey michel,

no doubt, some open source projects - linux being the most famous - have a 'benevolent dictator'. in the case of linux, that's linus torvalds who ultimately decides what code (contributed by other linux developers) goes into the mainline kernel release. however, as you know, this model is by no means the only governance model encountered in the realm of free software development. for instance, *perl* uses rotation so that for every new version of the software a different perl developer is responsible. other projects diverge even more radically from the benevolent dictator model: in *freebsd* decisions are made collectively by consensus. freebsd has an element of 'representation', or more precisely, it has a formal means of representing its few hundreds of developers (known as committers because of their ability to 'commit' changes to the code repository) in project leadership. the so-called core team - the administrative organ of the project - consists of 9 committers elected biennially by and amongst committers, and is responsible for (a) granting/revoking commit privileges and (b) mediating in serious conflicts between committers. it is obvious that this type of representation and modern parliamentary representation are markedly different. in freebsd core members are revocable and accountable: they have to defer to the wishes of the base of committers, making decisions that receive their consensual backing. core team membership is not accompanied by any special privileges, nor by the mandate to tell others what to do. many sociologists, following max weber, view such 'instructed representation as inherent in direct-democratic/antiauthoritarian types of government and hence as the opposite of the enlightened dictator model. 

as for soviets in russia, in my last email to the list i spoke of 'self-rule' referring to individual autonomy of action, using the term as a property of the individual. you, on the other hand, use it to refer basically to a circumstance in which the administrative organ (by appropriating or monopolising the means of administration?) becomes independent from the collectivity and starts to act as a distinct social stratum with its own goals and interests. this is a syllogism that i can understand: it warns against vesting authority bearers with unlimited powers and advises in favour of employing checks and balances to ensure that administrative organs don't turn into mechanisms of domination of the many by the few. but i still don't see the connection between self-rule and totalitarianism.

in any case, what transformed soviets into administrative organs of the openly totalitarian regime of the bolsheviks was not their own internal tendency toward totalitarianism but the fact that the bolsheviks stripped them of their autonomy and turned them into extensions of the bolshevik party. that's what i've gathered from my readings on that period.

x,
g.