‘Weak democracy’…citizens have no real role
Fungi Help Soil Hold Water In Drought
October 16, 2007Donations Build ICT Capacity For Nonprofit Sector
October 18, 2007The ‘Citizen’s Handbook’ – a Guide to Building Community in Vancouver states that active citizens are a great untapped resource. The Canadian approach I believe would apply here in Oz too. Check the website and/or read on to see what you think.
“Citizenship is a quality to be nurtured
The handbook is meant to encourage the emergence of more active citizens – people motivated by an interest in public issues, and a desire to make a difference beyond their own private lives.
A way of tackling large public issues
In British Columbia, eight recent task force reports find more active citizens as the key to responding more effectively to large scale public issues. The reports include:
- When the Bough Breaks (on child protection);
- the Ready Or Not! Final Report (on aging);
- Making Changes (on family services); Closer to Home (on health care);
- Greenways/Publicways (on the urban landscape);
- Clouds of Change (on atmospheric change);
- Report of the Round-table on the Environment and the Economy;
- the Safer City Task Force Report.
A way of solving local problems
When people become involved in their neighbourhoods through co-ordinated planning, research and action, they can accomplish what individuals working alone could not.
When people decide they are going to be part of the solution, local problems start getting solved. When they actually begin to work with other individuals, schools, associations, businesses, and government service providers, there is no limit to what they can accomplish.
A way of improving liveability
Citizens can make cities work better because they understand their own neighbourhoods better than anyone else. Giving them some responsibility for looking after their part of town is a way of effectively addressing local preferences and priorities. Understandably, boosting citizen participation improves liveability.
It is no coincidence that Portland, Oregon – a city with a tradition of working in partnership with neighbourhoods – regularly receives the highest score for liveability of any U.S. city.
Cities are sources of potential conflict, between government and citizens, between different citizens groups, and between citizens and special interests such as real estate developers. Recent studies have shown that greater citizen participation in civic affairs can reduce all of these sources of conflict. In particular it can prevent the firestorms associated with changes brought about by growth and renewal.
A bridge to strong democracy
When citizens get together at the neighbourhood level, they generate a number of remarkable side effects. One of these is strengthened democracy. In simple terms, democracy means that the people decide.
Weak democracy: political scientists describe our system of voting every few years but otherwise leaving everything up to government as weak democracy. In weak democracy, citizens have no role, no real part in decision-making between elections. Experts assume responsibility for deciding how to deal with important public issues.
The great movement of the last decades of the twentieth century has been a drive toward stronger democracy in corporations, institutions and governments. In many cities this has resulted in the formal recognition of neighbourhood groups as a link between people and municipal government, and a venue for citizen participation in decision-making between elections.
A little recognized route to better health
In the late 1980s, following Canada’s lead, the World Health Organization broadened its definition of health to account for the fact that health is much more than the absence of disease. The new definition recognizes that only 25% of our health status comes from health care, the rest comes from the effects of an adequate education and income, a clean environment, secure housing and employment, the ability to control stress, and a social support network.
Understandably, public health professionals have become some of the strongest advocates for more active citizens. Health Canada has provided many resources to nurture the grassroots including the recent Community Action Pack, a full crate of material on community organizing.”
3 Comments
Yes, we need much more participative democracy. The term ‘representative democracy’, referred to in the article as ‘weak democracy’ is an oxymoron, particularly when it is based around party politics. Party politics involves endorsement of candidates and resourcing by the party, leading to inevitable attention being paid to the whims of the party rather than to the wishes of the people.
Three pieces of research that I recently conducted are informative. The first, which examined the psychological and biographical profiles of innovative communities, found that the least innovative communities reported the highest number of leaders, while the most innovative community reported very few leaders but a critical mass of people with initiative, tolerance, education and independence.
The second was a piece of research that examined innovation in associations. The most innovative had a constitutional requirement that no elected official could hold their role for more than one term. In consequence, civic experience became broadly shared through the membership rather than remaining vested in a few.
The third, my doctorate, which explored innovation within organizations, found that hierarchy naturally and automatically blocks information flows upwards. Those in leadership positions are driven by ‘need for power’, a neurochemically-underpinned condition that blocks creativity in self and others. The creative wisdom that organizations require tends to remain unheard within the ranks.
As a quote from the research says:
‘Leadership is a two-edged sword. It is an act of civic responsibility. It is also an act of denying someone else the opportunity to gain civic experience. The more that civic experience is shared, the healthier and more innovative is the community’
To free up those creative voices, I have developed a process of social dialogue that is as counterintuitive as it is effective. Based on evolutionary psychology, ‘Meetings without Discussion’ enables respectful dialogue to occur between any number of people, from two to hundreds. It is great fun, delivers participation, understanding, ideas and commitment, in substantially less time than most meetings we attend.
Happy to dialogue further.
Thanks for the great web-site.
Warm regards,
Ian
Good to read that Ian Plowman likes my request for a participative democracy. His ‘innovation in association’ idea
is as sound, since although we need someone at the top of the organisational tree, when anyone dwells there for too long the branches of that tree with its lush leaves will block the view to the grounds and the grass below until winter blankets our fields. I also agree with Plowman that respect for one another’s insights and outlook, work and commitments, is a crucial aspect of a better tomorrow. Best Regards. Joyce.
What about Real Democracy by using a truly Participatory Decision Making Process such as http://www.1062.org.
Check it out and I think you will find that it is possible to create an Organism {rather than an organisation} that reflects the aspirations of the Group Mind.
The site is self explanatory with a Demo site and Tutorials.
For small and not for profit groups the service is free.